There are personalities, and there are personalities, most we do not know, and some we think we know all too well. Yes, the known personalities, they often clash, and clash all the more they will in the foreseeable future. And we who listen and watch from the sidelines, with a pre-conditioned tendency to choose sides quickly and becoming partisan, we quickly get drawn into the clash of the high-profile personalities.
I am not referring to these well known, or less known personalities, though. I am referring to our personalities, the ones we keep inside, the ones we sometimes show outside. They are plural, of course, because we host what behavioral experts have called multiple personalities. And they are called multiple because they distinctly different, and can be radically so.
Are we split personalities? Well, I am sure that there is a disorder called split personalities and definitely am not schooled in the science that has evolved that term. But if I am simply to go by the contradictions of our lives as manifested by visible behavior, then we are split personalities. Imagine just how split if I include the contradictions that are being kept secret—if possible, that is.
Are there people who do not have split personalities? I am sure there are or we would have no way to compare a good person from a normal or troubled one. I assume that most spiritual beliefs and processes involve becoming whole, becoming one, where once conflicting personalities find their commonality in one being-ness.
A nation is a people commonly termed, commonly named, and commonly situated. But beyond that, a nation is largely an aggrupation of split personalities—on our case, about 105 million. It is a no-brainer, then, to understand how split personalities produce a cacophony of voices, each coming from split personalities. It is easy to imagine how a scenario defined by a clash of personalities sap the power of the whole, even if that whole is just the wholeness of one person.
When we ourselves, as individuals, have conflicting values, conflicting priorities, conflicting desires, and eventually, conflicting behavior, we cannot be but split personalities. We believe in meritocracy where hard work receives commensurate rewards. But we also believe in using family and friends to increase the odds in our favor. If our personalities are not split, then we carry only one or the other, not both simultaneously. We believe in law and order, strictly implemented. But if compliance means following traffic rules and the consequential delays, it is acceptable to break the rules to get ahead, to move faster than others.
Worse is our demand for honesty in government, for integrity in our public officials. We want them to follow the highest ethical standards. And if they bend the rules, or go around them, or actually defy them, we want them to hang. Except if they happen to be family. Except if they happen to be our families or friends. We want the public money to be safeguarded but forget that the public money comes from us, from payment of taxes—and we loathe to pay the correct taxes. Then, we give the excuse that government anyway is just stealing the money. We scream at the corruption in the Bureau of Customs but want all our balikbayan boxes exempted—whatever may be their contents. We are disgusted at Congress, the way the members wheel and deal, but it is okay if we are the beneficiaries of their favors.
Split personalities cannot find unity except by subordinating the contrasting and conflicting likes and dislikes to a higher cause. Usually, this higher cause is called the common good. That means making our personal interests secondary to collective interests. Do we really understand what the common good is, what the collective interests are, to the point that we support these ahead of our personal and vested interests?
Can we subordinate ourselves, our families and friends to the common good? No fear or favor, as it is often said? Or do we automatically put our wants and convenience ahead of any other value, especially the common good which, from time to time, can actually be more beneficial for others than ourselves?
So, as our individual leanings and avoidances prove to be similar and voluminous enough to become collective in character, the contradictions weaken our national values and, in fact, distort them badly. It becomes even worse when we point to our leaders to do the changing because they seem to be always at fault. In a democracy, we forget that it is the collective “we”, the people, who have the greater say, or the greater omission.
In our present moment what many claim to be a special moment of change, the powerful impact of a leader like Rodrigo R. Duterte moves the country as one for just a short while. The patterned behavior, deeply set in its ways and not admitting that change is from everyone in many small ways, will surface soon to pull us apart in a million directions. With that, the power to change by a president no less is weakened by the very people he has promised great changes.
And President Duterte himself is discovering just how split are the personalities of the world, that the name United Nations is more name than truth. The turmoil, the violence, that now defines much of the world is testimony to just how split global members are despite the fact that they have agreed to core purpose, values and tasks. Just dancing to the tune of super powers without stepping on their toes will already be a serious challenge for the Philippines.
It may be more advisable if each of us would devote our time and resources to simple deeds and goals, just a few which directly contribute to respect for one another, to increased productivity of whatever it is we do, and to building that future we dream for our children. To do that, we must somehow lessen, then ultimately heal our split personalities.