Personality, from a definition, is a term that can be and has always been used to refer to a set of dynamic characteristics exhibited by an individual that should be organized, unique and which influences the individual’s behavioral patterns, motivational abilities as well as cognitions. This definition brings about the argument as to whether personality is fixed, stable, or even real.
According to the essentialists, abstracts have always been viewed as real and personality is one of the abstract notions is thought to be fixed (Berger & Luckmamann, 1966, p.78). Therefore it is a common-sense viewpoint, which leads to the definition of these abstracts optionally and politically.
The viewpoints have evoked the need to move away from the essentialists’ perspectives for at least some of the time to open up opportunities to co-exist. This may be lacking in normal occurrences or situations. One of the possible alternatives is positioning, which has been brought forth by the social constructionists / relational perspective (Efran, 1990, p.95). It argues that people adopt negotiated positions, learning is a social act, and therefore, there exists no reality, individuals, or even boundaries. Hence it becomes counterintuitive, tends to challenge common sense, and poses a challenge to anything being taken for granted.
Social constructionists, therefore, propel the ideology that personality, being abstract, is not necessarily the stable and long standing characteristics of an individual. It refers to the identities which are socially constructed based on the individuals’ language and what other people say about them. Besides, the existing environment dictates patterns of behavior as well as the social norms that govern the expected behavior model to be displayed. It is therefore these identities that form the descriptions of individuals.
It implies that one person can display a variety of identities at home and work on the same or even different days. This majorly depends on the social variables (Berger & Luckmamann, 1966, p.67). It then brings about the idea of positioning. Positioning initiates the discussion of a person from a different place. It, therefore, emphasizes the treatment of levels as if they are constructed about identity resources such as other people, roles, and social norms.
In the absence of any law to govern which identity resources to use, people will enact multiple positions. Their actions will also be sensible about those positions. Identities as well are formed on ongoing relations and are therefore treated as negotiable. The implication of this is that statements implying the description of a fixed personality should be avoided since such limits the possibility of moving any relationship forward.
Not questioning issues can lead to frustration and anxiety. This can however change if the relationship changes. An example can be cited on an individual instead of branding them as lazy; one can think of the individual as ‘being lazy’ and thus can change (Berge & Luckmamann, 1966, p.58).
In managing change, therefore, it has become evident that relationships play a key role. Despite the qualifications and experiences, the most difficult thing to do is dealing with people. As such, a correlation can be drawn that the more people you have good relationships with, the more friends you can phone, and the greater there is the potential for support (Butt, 1998a, p. 65).
Bibliography
Berger, P. L, & Luckmamann 1966, The social construction of reality, a treatise in the sociology of knowledge, Garden City, NY, Doubleday.
Butt, T 1998a, “Sociology role and embodiment.” Journal of Constructivist Psychology,11, pp. 105-116.
Efran, J 1990, Language, structure, and change: Framework of meaning in psychotherapy, New York, Norton.