I have been traveling for the past six weeks and am just now catching up with the news. The first line of a USA Today story caught my eye: "Former comedian Al Franken is now a member of the United States Senate."
I was struck - not by the information that Franken was the winner of the prolonged election in Minnesota, an outcome which seemed inevitable given the trajectory of the repeated recounts and court challenges - but rather by the description of the new senator as a former comedian. I suppose if you become a senator, you stop being funny. Some would beg to differ, but that is not my point here.
Would we see a story that led with the sentence stating that a former doctor joined the Senate, or a former lawyer, or a former whatever?
It depends on the whatever. Certain occupational roles literally become the person, so much so that the person who once occupied the role always does so. A former athletic coach like Bobby Knight remains Coach Knight, even when he is a television commentator. A former President like Bill Clinton is still President Clinton regardless of what he is doing, even if it is not all that presidential. A former General like Colin Powell is always General Powell, except of course when he is Secretary of State Powell, former and forever.
These examples illustrate what sociologists call person-role merger, and the phenomenon has been discussed in the scholarly literature with respect to the features of the person or the role that lead to it, as well as the consequences for the person so defined.
Positive psychology suggests to people that they not define themselves as victims because such an identity ties them to a negative past. Can the same point be made about a past identity that is positive? Consider middle-aged men who still present themselves to the world as high school football stars, Baby Boomers who remind us all that they attended Woodstock, or people who manage to work their attendance at Harvard decades ago into every conversation they have (it's called dropping the H-Bomb, if you are interested). Such folks are lamentable clichés, and they illustrate the downside of person-role merger, even when the role is positive.
Positive psychology also suggests to people that they savor the good experiences that they have had, so my advice here is subtle. Yes, one should savor a past role that has provided positive experiences and may still provide status. However, one should not be that role and wallow in the experiences it provided or the status it still radiates to the exclusion of what one currently does and will do.
Another story I just read about Al Franken quoted him as saying that he wants to be regarded only as the junior senator from Minnesota. That is a bit disingenuous, of course, because we can assume that his status as a celebrity contributed mightily to his election. Still, I applaud the sentiment and the bravery it entails.
