Skip to main content

Are we the roles we play or the truths we suppress? Find out how societal masks — across philosophy, art, and social media—both conceal and reveal the essence of who we are 

By Jovana Stojanovska 

If we were to think about what we wear most often when we step into the world, we would conclude that masks are omnipresent. No matter if they have been crafted by society, fears, desires, or ambitions, they are definitely omnipresent in our daily lives. At the same time, these masks are not just mere disguises but actual mirrors that reflect who we wish to be or who we must be in order to belong. So literally, they conceal. Metaphorically, they tend to reveal the tension between our true selves and the roles we play. All of these layers motivate a question – are we defined by the words we speak or the actions we take? And if we were to assume that it is the actions that shape us, which ones are more significant – the ones born out of love, seeking to connect and for affection or those driven by hatred, jealousy, greed? Ultimately, which ones are more defining of the soul? And how do the masks fit into all of this? 

In order to start seeking for answers, I shall start with examining Marx’s ‘Charaktermaske’. Karl Marx’s concept of the Charaktermaske (character mask) puts forward the idea that individuals adopt roles which have been imposed on them by societal structures, especially the economic system. In capitalist systems, a person’s identity is reduced to the role they play in the economy – worker, capitalist, consumer, or manager. These roles end up having the same effect as masks – they are not reflective of one’s true self. Therefore, the Charaktermaske ends up dehumanizing the individual, since it reduces the complexity that we as human beings naturally possess, to a singular function, and creates a disconnect between one’s authentic self and the persona that must be adopted to navigate societal expectations. Moreover, the consequences of the Charaktermaske are individuality being erased and conformity being forced in a system that prioritizes productivity and profit over humanity. Marx does not perceive the Charaktermaske as something innocent, quite on the contrary – the Charaktermaske is there to uphold the systems of power and inequality that demand conformity and hide exploitation. Having said this, this concept does not have to be strictly tied to the economic system since also societal structures tend to impose expectations as well. For example, parents tend to wear the mask of being strong for their children, while suppressing their fears and vulnerabilities. This ends up preventing them from expressing their true feelings as they must conform to what society deems acceptable. It is evident that Marx’s Charaktermaske is deeply ingrained in human life since the everyday roles we play are not chosen by us and instead are shaped by external forces.  

On a completely different note, Ernest Hemingway had a very unique way of embedding himself within all of his characters – they all carried his emotional truth which allowed him to confront and shape his identity through fiction. But was this identity authentic? All of his characters were deeply human and full of vulnerabilities, contradictions, desires and interestingly enough, acted as somewhat of a mask for Hemingway. The act of writing had a dual form – he did self-expression and self-concealment simultaneously. More specifically, the self-concealment was rather ironic since his philosophy was to write ‘with truth’ via drawing from lived experiences. However, his truth was not naked and was shaped, refined into a crafted lens. We can use this dynamic to understand the masks we wear in daily life – we infuse parts of our identity into fictional roles we play at home, at work, at the bar. Via Hemingway’s art we are compelled to consider the complexity of identity and the struggle to stay authentic in a world that demands a performance. 

Moreover, Marx’s Charaktermaske highlights external pressures that force individuals into predefined roles while Hemingway’s characters reveal an internal struggle which leads to self-crafted masks that blend personal truths with fictionalized identities – they intersect in their recognition of the intense tension between authenticity and performance all while illuminating two sides of the same coin. Both perspectives converge on the idea that living authentically is basically a constant negotiation between external pressures that are always demanding conformity and internal conflicts that are always seeking resolutions. At the same time both point out how the masks allow us to detach, alienate and how they tend to strip us of our humanity since masks tend to smother the sense of self quite easily. 

Adding another layer to this discourse is Carl Gustav Jung’s exploration of the psyche, especially his concepts of the persona and the shadow. He distinguished between the persona and the shadow via stating that the persona is the mask we wear to navigate social expectations and the shadow is just all of the repressed aspects of the self that are hidden in the unconscious. It is important to note that the shadow is not inherently fatal and instead is composed of our raw energy, creativity, desires, and truths. The tension between the persona and the shadow parallels Marx’s and Hemingway’s ideas – Marx’s Charaktermaske highlights the external imposition of roles while Jung’s persona portrays how we actively participate in shaping these masks to meet societal expectations. Hemingway’s characters enrich the argument via putting forward the confirmation that the self-crafted masks act as personas through which he channels elements of the shadow and therefore, blends truth and fiction.  

The masks have fallen

As someone who values honesty and authenticity immensely, I would argue that all of the three perspectives have come to life via Instagram or more specifically, the Instagram persona. I consider the Instagram persona to be a collection of fictionalized roles and characteristics which are based on glorified versions of real-life experiences and consumerism. Marx’s perspective can be seen through considering how Instagram users adopt roles which are shaped by societal and economic forces, often influenced by consumerism, and always portraying success, beauty and happiness. Influencers are a clear example – they self-craft their roles to sell products, gain followers and maintain relevance which basically reduces their individuality and authenticity to marketable functions. Simply said, these roles ‘dehumanize’ and uphold systems of consumerism and therefore echo Marx’s critique of societal masks driven by profit only. On the other hand, Hemingway’s duality is evident via looking at how Instagram posts blend fragments of real experiences with idealized, fake and fictionalized versions that filter the truth through aesthetic choices. Hemingway’s paradox – self-expression through self-concealment – is omnipresent. Almost all posts reflect only joy, beauty, success and always omit internal struggles and truths.

Lastly, very obviously, Instagram posts and influencers only showcase the persona and always ‘forget’ about the shadow. The polished, socially acceptable/desirable version of the self is always peacocked while the shadow (insecurities, failures, pain) is always suppressed. Therefore, also Jung’s perspective is visible. Knowing all of this, should one judge the Instagram persona harshly? Well, ironically enough, this phenomenon is rooted in insecurities which have been created by us for us. These insecurities portray the cyclical nature of societal pressures and individual complicity into sustaining these dynamics. In order to break this cycle, we need to remember that we are human and that being human means being authentic. Therefore, if we were to end up judging, I would say that the laziness and fear behind not wanting to break the cycle should be the main ‘victims’ of judgement since these states of mind are societal leeches. Fear and laziness often do not motivate self-growth and self-reflection and consequently contribute to upholding systems that are bad for all of society. Therefore, recognizing and confronting these states of mind is crucial if we are to reclaim authenticity and foster a society where individuality and truth are celebrated over performance and pretense. 

Together, all of these somewhat similar perspectives illuminate the complexities of our identities and show that the masks we wear – no matter if imposed by systems, motivated by art, shaped by our psyche or crafted in social media like Instagram – define the roles we play and the actions we take. The Instagram persona discourse shows how the masks have kept up with time and therefore have become present also online with their own version but ultimately still reinforcing performance over authenticity. The main question to be answered in this article was if we should be defined by the personas we have crafted, or maybe the shadows we have suppressed or ultimately, only by the actions we have chosen to take. If we were to state that our actions are of the uttermost importance, we would have to also state if the ones driven by love or by hatred are more reflective of our souls. In this sense, the masks we wear and the actions we take—whether they are rooted in authenticity or performative constructs—play a significant role in defining the soul. But then again, perhaps the answer lies not in choosing between masks and authenticity but in understanding their interplay—and, through this process, uncovering the truth of who we are. 

Hinterlasse ein Kommentar

Skip to content