In my close cadre of friends, personal branding has become quite the topic of conversation. Some of my friends are even making money sharing what they know about the subject, and are undoubtedly on the cutting edge in that regard. But even so, I still often wonder if personal branding is bullshit and if it’s not why I feel repulsed as much as I do thrilled by much of the personal branding movement?
What I realized while having a discussion on this very topic was that personal branding can—and indeed must—be seen from a larger framework. This larger framework is inspired by the language of author Ken Wilber’s “big three perspectives”, the subjective, inter-subjective, and objective. Each perspective offers a different way (or angle) of viewing a particular phenomonon, in this case of “living the good life.” This model, I believe, helps us make better sense of personal branding in relationship to some other real forces in our life.
Authenticity, Popularity, & Brand
Personal branding deals almost exclusively with symbols, design, and slightly removed perception—that is to say with objective perceptions of individuals. Activists like Al Gore, artists like Madonna, and politicians like Barack Obama have strong personal brands. What’s interesting is that each of these people are symbols, more than people, and personal branding works at the level of symbology. Its aim is to turn one into a symbol, a symbol that is clearly portraying something in such a way that would have others attracted to it (or in some cases repelled). When one is working on their brand, they try and find ways to design a particular symbol of themselves that they wish to present to the world, and that symbol is to be perceived, in many cases, by folks that don’t even have a relationship to them. At least initially…
Popularity is another dimension of this puzzle, this puzzle of being and presenting oneself in the world. Popularity is an inherently inter-subjective perception, one that takes advantage of symbol but often has more to do with relationships. When you hear someone speak, have a conversation with someone, or experience something they’ve created you get a better sense of who that person is, and more importantly how you relate to them. Do you disagree with them? Do you find that they are easily likable? Do you appreciate some skill that they possess? When we relate to someone all of these things are decided almost immediately, and about the only thing that can change our mind on these viewpoints are the opinions of those closest to us. As you can see these two dimensions are almost inextricably intertwined, but I would argue that they should be distinguished as there are many examples of historic figures who come down to us almost exclusively as symbols, but who we then enter relationship with. Or vice versa, there are people we meet who we immediately like but whose branding we may have very little experience with.
This brings us to a sometimes over-looked dimension of living the good life, and that is the subjective dimension—of how one experiences themselves. Words such as passion, confidence, and authenticity come to mind when I reflect on this facet of living as a human being. Religious figures like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and the Buddha immediately come to mind as examples of people who were powerful symbols, and who by today’s standards would probably be considered branding experts. The odd thing about them however, is that none of them had a particularly strong intention to become popular, but rather were following a unique passion or calling. We obviously can’t know their subjective experiences, but we can deduce that this internal dimension of their lives were of prime importance, as was their purpose.
Harmonizing
What I realized, after seeing these different dimensions of living the good life, is that each can be developed somewhat separately, but if they are out of balance in severe ways then one is missing out on building a truly gift-worthy brand as well as living a meaningful life.
Most criticisms of branding, I think are rightfully criticisms not of the techniques of getting oneself out there in ways where others can hear and digest their message, but are rather criticisms of using techniques or methods to try and popularize something that is vapid and devoid of true meaning. Without the subjective dimension then you have a flat and robotic attempt to share something that is superficial at best. Those who brand themselves only with financial gain in mind, but have nothing of true value to offer, come to mind as being severely out of balance in this regard.
That being said I don’t think it’s also unreasonable to question those folks who have a deep understanding of a particular field or fields of human knowledge and experience but do not consciously find ways to share it, and thus enhance other’s lives. Taken to extremes this can be the epitome of selfishness or foolishness. But when we recognize someone who has done both, who has become an authentic master, is deeply passionate about what they do, and has also found ways to brand themselves so that they can get their message out their appropriately, you see the emergence of deeply admired and generous folks.
So when we are seeking to live the good life and share it with others, all of these perspectives are important, all of these approaches valuable, but without a proper harmonization between them we end up either hiding our gifts from the world or throwing out more useless crap into an atmosphere of already stifling mediocrity.
UPDATE: Based on a really fun back-and-forth on Twitter, regarding Personal Branding, I figured I’d flesh out some of my current thinking on this particular topic. I was asked, “Do you start with who you are or who you’re pretending to be?” This is an interesting question. On the one hand it’s pretty easy to see, and agree, with the assumption contained within this question, namely that if one starts with who they’re pretending to be then they are simply lying (to themselves and others) and there isn’t much good that could come from this lie. One is more interested in the way that they are perceived, then in who they are actually are. That being said, it get’s a little tricky to define “who you are” especially with regards to the things you do and know. Doing and knowing are constantly evolving & changing. Oddly, the process of becoming often involves setting a vision for oneself that has not completely come into being, and then closing the gap between how we behave most of the time and who we want to become. It becomes even more tricky, when we often feel that what we are trying to become is something that is already a part of who we are, that it just needs to be nurtured, cultivated, etc. In that sense no matter how we portray ourselves, or even think of ourselves, will always be wrong. That being said, we can’t escape the fundamental problem of identity or of ways of communicating that identity.
Even trickier is when we actually already possess particular skills and talents, but because we have a particularly disempowering view of ourselves, we don’t acknowledge it, can’t help others with it as well, etc. Seen from that angle, Personal Branding, could (and probably should) be a journey of discovery of our gifts, talents, and deepest desires. And some people are in fact using it that way. Others aren’t, but that’s not a fault of personal branding, per say, as much as it is people looking for a quick route to fame, fortunate, and the like. That has been happening (probably since humanity arose) in various ways and through various guises.
Stepping back even further, I find it interesting that there seem to be two polarized sides to this conversation. One that is generally excited about personal branding, see’s it as the next big thing, etc. The other that is reactive to personal branding, points out it’s superficiality, etc. This is a classic thesis-antithesis situation, which these days almost immediately screams to me: integration is needed, balance is needed, a broader perspective is needed. Of course, the dialectic itself has value, and so perhaps it isn’t appropriate to try and jump to a point of integration, before both sides of gotten entrenched enough in their views, and then a natural integration occurs. The real opportunity, and I see it happening in pretty much every field of human knowledge and expression here in the West, is to see that all of our major problems are largely a result of not seeing the deep interconnectedness between objective, subjective, and intersubjective realities. All are valid, but when they’re fragmented, all we’re left with are shards of truth.
