The Self and Others

How social perception transforms our image into reputation, exploring psychology, fashion, and group dynamics.

Identity is a hall of mirrors. On one side is the Self we cherish, on the other the Others who watch us, and in between is the gap that confuses us. The proverb says that clothes don't make the monk, but we know very well that every gesture, every smile, every silence is a social garment we wear. It doesn't entirely define us, but it guides the gaze of others in an instant. And it is from that perception, often fragile and contradictory, that our reputation is born.

We live immersed in a hall of mirrors: the Self we feel inside, the Others who observe us from the outside, and the gap that inevitably arises between the two. It is in that gap that misunderstandings are born: “he wants to show off”, “he's rich”, “he doesn't work”. But right there, if we learn to read it, there is also the opportunity to grow and guide our image instead of merely submitting to it.

Those who know us well reflect different mirrors: some see us as a point of reality, some as a source of ideas, some as ambitious, some as eccentric. None of these definitions is wrong: they are simply facets of the same diamond.

Those who only know us by sight, however, stop at the details: the family, the car, the breaks between one contract and the next. From there, quick labels are born: “wealthy”, “doesn't do anything”, “wants to play the monk without a monastery”. Social psychology calls them heuristics: mental shortcuts with which the mind simplifies complexity.

The same dynamic repeats itself at work. Some colleagues root for us, because they see in the other the possibility of going beyond routine. Others read the same energy as privilege, and envy strikes. It is the stage Goffman spoke of: we change roles depending on the audience, while remaining the same person.

And kindness? That too is a garment. A constant smile can seem like authenticity to someone and falseness to another. Just change the register, become more reserved, and the judgment changes again: from “too good” to “too cold”.

SRDN Society | The Question: what does a fashion designer have to do with psychology and sociology? The answer is simple: fashion is a permanent social laboratory. Every day, a designer observes how an aesthetic detail — a shoe, a jacket, a color — changes the perception of the person who wears it. The same person, in a different outfit, is read as authoritative, fragile, rebellious, or invisible. It is not magic: it is applied psychology. Behind a fabric or a cut, there is not only aesthetics, but centuries of anthropology, power structures, and dynamics of belonging. This is why those who work with image develop sociological sensitivity: they have seen a thousand times how a detail changes an individual's reputation within a group.

And here another level comes into play: the dynamics of social groups. In groups, it is not only what we are that matters, but above all how we are perceived. Some become leaders not because they are more competent, but because they embody, in the eyes of others, the image of a leader. Psychology calls it implicit leadership theory: every group has in mind a prototype of a leader — competent, confident, communicative — and those who resemble it most are followed.

It is not always a matter of content: often it is a matter of presence. The babble hypothesis shows that those who speak more, even without saying better things, tend to emerge as leaders. Others, however, choose to remain followers: not because they lack value, but because the collective perception places them in a less exposed role.

This explains why, in every circle, the same person can be seen as a point of reference or as an outsider. And why some, even with limited means, gain attention and trust, while others, despite being prepared, remain in the shadows. It does not depend only on talent: it depends on how social mirrors amplify or attenuate our signals.

In the end, we are all a little bit designers of ourselves. Every gesture, every word, every smile is a garment we wear in front of others. Psychology confirms it: we cannot help but communicate. Even silence, even the melancholy on our face, are read as signals.

The point is not to mask ourselves, but to become aware. Show a concrete fact before telling a dream. Use irony instead of sadness. Repeat consistency instead of promising greatness. These are small gestures that change the social garment we wear, without altering our true nature.

Perhaps it is true that clothes don't make the whole monk. But without clothes, the monk remains invisible. Social perception does not read our intentions, it reads the signs we wear. It is not about deceiving, but about learning to tell our story consistently.

Because, in the end, between the Self we feel and the Others who watch us, our identity is built there: in the daily art of choosing which garment best tells who we are. Or, more radically, in deciding what we want to tell others about ourselves, knowing that every gesture — that outfit, that style, that post — changes the subject and redraws the narrative.

Post Scriptum | The Snob as a Distorting Mirror

There is an attitude that silently runs through many of the dynamics of perception: snobbery. It is not just ostentatious superiority, but a strategy of distance. The snob refuses to recognize the other as an equal and builds their own value in the contempt, real or fake, for what they do not want to represent.

Paradoxically, snobbery works as a “social garment”: a sign that communicates selection, exclusivity, and sometimes hidden fragility. It is denial becoming identity.
If read carefully, snobbery is not just arrogance: it is a defense mechanism, a way of saying “I am not like you, therefore I am worth more”.

In today's liquid society, where everyone is exposed and everyone judges, snobbery remains an ambiguous attitude: on one hand it repels, on the other it attracts. And like every garment, this too speaks more about the person who wears it than the person who experiences it.