Have you ever said something critical about someone, only to turn around and find that they have overheard what you just said? Maybe what you said wasn’t even something you meant to sound critical, but you can tell from the look on their face that they took offense at what you said. Or have you been texting in a group text or on a social media forum, only to discover that you accidentally said it in the wrong group? The reason these experiences are mortifying is due to something called Context Collapse.
Context collapse happens when the boundaries between different social spheres (family, work, friends, religion, internet, etc.) break down, and a person’s carefully curated personas for each are seen by unintended audiences. It’s especially common in the digital age—especially on social media—but it also occurs offline or in person. The consequences can be severe: social, emotional, professional, and psychological. Marriages have split up, families become estranged, jobs lost, deals squandered, and friendships have ended over these faux pas.
To the person who saw or heard something unexpected, their initial conclusion is usually severe. They think that the person is deceitful or that their mask has slipped, revealing the real (meaning horrid) person. We’ve all read stories about these types of characters: Dr. Jekyll is respectable and good, providing public service, but behind that guileless facade lurks the monstrous Mr. Hyde, the embodiment of evil.
In reality, though, we all have much more complex personas. The person I am as a daughter is different than the person I am as an employer. That’s a simple example because on some level, we tend to defer to our parents or to handle them with a different kind of care as they age than how we interact in a work setting where we are responsible for the work of another person. These personas may not be incompatible, and they may have similarities, but the roles are so different that if one of my employees saw me in that different context, they might be surprised. Likewise with all the different social situations and relationships we are in. Everyone sees a facet of who we are, and the context changes how we handle each situation.
Have you ever known someone who remarried, and they seemed very different with the second spouse than they did with the first one? It’s easy to assume they are too malleable or being false, but in reality, we are different with each person, in each relationship. You have a friend with whom you are snarky. Another one you can cry with. You have someone you complain to. You have others who are great to socialize with. Maybe there is one who builds you up when you feel low. In some cases, a single individual may fill more than one of these roles for you, but it is seldom the same person who can do all these things for you. This is just normal human relationship dynamics.
Sometimes a person’s actions in one group are directly contradicted by their actions in another group. In these situations, there can be strong social consequences because their actions may be seen to conflict with the group’s ideals or they may be seen as untrustworthy. These types of breaches happen all the time. Politicians are often accused of being insincere or cynical when they are revealed to hold different private views than their public stance. In general, their best defense is to claim that their comments were “taken out of context,” or that their views have “changed over time.” It’s also possible that politics is rife with cowards with no moral center who will say whatever it takes to get elected. People are not good at handling nuance, and human beings are remarkably nuanced. We prefer to reduce people to black and white, good and bad, with us or against us.
And of course, some people are in fact two-faced. They might only be pretending to be part of the group or pretending to be your friend. They might act nice to your face and stab you in the back. But maybe they are reacting to the social pressures of the various groups they are navigating and doing so in a thoughtless rather than malicious manner. Or they might be exploring their own conflicting views or trying out new personas as they grow and mature.
A different explanation of this phenomenon is something called Code-Switching. This is a term that has describes the need, particularly for those from marginalized populations, to navigate potentially hostile social settings and situations. For example, a second wave feminist entering a male dominated workforce might feel the need to present as cold and competent, wearing pantsuits instead of dresses, and taking tough positions in meetings so she is taken seriously by her male peers and bosses. A black American may need to code-switch between black vernacular language in a predominantly black social setting to be accepted, then change to more white-coded speech patterns in other social settings.
For many, especially people from marginalized communities, code-switching isn’t just a skill—it’s a survival strategy. But it comes at a cost. Some things people who need to code-switch experience include:
- Chronic stress & fatigue. When you have to constantly think about how others will perceive you, whether you will be accepted or treated as an outsider, it’s impossible to relax and just be yourself. You can’t just speak and act, you have to interpret yourself for the group that you want to accept you. You are constantly editing yourself to fit in.
- Inauthenticity. You not only have a hard time coming off as authentic. You might even feel inauthentic in this situation. You know deep down that the group is hostile, so your constant adjustments only erode your self-image.
- Self-censorship. Imagine you are queer, but surrounded by people who are not allies, who make snide comments about gay or trans people, or who are dismissive of their concerns. There’s a reason they call it being in the closet and coming out. If you come out, you might be rejected. If you say what you really think, that may feel like a criticism toward the ones making the belittling comments, or they may give you the cold shoulder or worse, beat the hell out of you. You self-censor because you don’t know what others will do.
I often like to think that every generation is a corrective in some way on the preceding generations. The Roaring Twenties were a corrective to the repressed social norms of the Victorian Era. The materialistic fifties were a corrective to the Great Depression. The free-wheeling 1970s were a corrective to the uptight and socially constrained 1950s. We can always learn from the critiques of the rising generation, if we are willing to listen and be honest with ourselves.
One day I walked into the office and saw one of our employees sitting at the reception desk wearing a blanket. I think I did a triple take. She commented on it and said she had been cold that day and might be coming down with something, so this was what she liked to wear when that was the case. I stopped myself for a minute and thought “OK, we aren’t really a customer-facing office. She’s just on the phone. Maybe it doesn’t really matter what she’s wearing.” I even posted it on social media to ask if this should be a big deal or no, and I was immediately shouted down by twenty-somethings who said “If she’s doing a good job, why are you being so uptight about what she’s wearing??” To which I could only reply, “I never said she was doing a good job.” She was mid on a good day. But still, we didn’t plan on firing her for performance either, so maybe the blanket was no biggie. I wouldn’t do it, but maybe that’s my problem.
This is an example of Gen Z thinking, though. Rather than adapting to the social pressure to dress for work, an outdated norm that I did for decades (and that for sure worked for me), she dressed for her own comfort and within the boundaries of the job (no customer facing work that day). This is an interesting approach, and not without merit. Why shouldn’t we be comfortable? Why shouldn’t we wear a blanket in public? Here’s a quick contrast of how Gen Z is redefining how to deal with the discomfort of our different personas and social contexts:
| Traditional Code-Switching | Gen Z Redefinition |
|---|
| Adapting to fit in | Mixing to stand out |
| Suppressing identity | Embracing layered identity |
| Mental and emotional toll | Creative expression and resistance |
| Audience = authority | Audience = community |
Gen Z is recognizing and rejecting the performative nature of social settings. We shouldn’t have to pretend to be who we are not, just to fit in.
So, let’s see how this might apply in a church context. There are many online who self-describe as PIMO, (Physically In, Mentally Out) meaning they attend church but are not believers. They might hold callings or teach classes, but they are primarily there for social reasons: friends, family, marriages, kids. Without those social ties, they wouldn’t be there. In some cases, these people might have a different persona in non-LDS contexts. In some cases, they use code-switching to fit in as needed in the LDS context. I’m often surprised at how easily an Ex-Mormon who hasn’t been in a church in decades can slip back into the vernacular of church community. They don’t really lose that code-switching ability just because they don’t believe in the church’s truth claims.
- Have you experienced a context collapse where your varying personas were observed out of their proper context?
- Have you used code-switching to fit in at church or elsewhere?
- Do you admire or disdain the Gen Z approach to performative social norms?
- How do you think it will change the church culture and community if the rising generation refuses to judge others for violating church norms (e.g. garment-friendly dress codes, “belief”-speak, etc.)?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I think you’ve hit on the reason so many leave the church. When they recognize the two-facedness of some members or within themselves, they rethink, pack up their belongings, and leave. It can be the inconsistency of what you hear on Sunday and observe on Monday, or loving someone who makes choices not in keeping with “church standards” and seeing that person for the good person they are. It’s a hard decision many of us make to either do something about it or ignore it and let it eat at us.
It sounds like you can describe the average Mormon (not the one-faced zealots) either negatively as two-faced or positively as often making context-sensitive choices. That’s more or less how a lot of Mormons live their lives, creatively minimizing the difficulties the Church tries to impose on the members. Name your own set of accommodations, but maybe it’s the zealots that need analyzing, not the accommodators. I have to believe zealots experience plenty of their own stress and inauthenticity. I’ll water that Mormon zealots do more “pretending to be happy” than accommodators do.
Many years ago when I was a teenager I was caught talking about someone by that same person who I didn’t expect to overhear me. I thought I would die. My father overheard me telling one of my friends about my embarrassment. He said, “Did you say anything bad?”
I said, “No, but I didn’t want them to hear me.”
He wisely replied, “If you didn’t say anything bad then don’t worry about it.”
On that day I resolved to never say anything behind someone’s back that I wouldn’t say (and in some cases have already said) to their face. I just assume they’re listening and I act accordingly. It hasn’t been easy. It requires a lot of self-discipline. Along the way I developed a reputation for being a little too blunt which I’m still working on tempering. (I’m a work in progress.) But I overall it has made my life so much easier.
I also developed a reputation for being trustworthy, which is not nothing. I worked in the entertainment industry so believe me there were a lot of personas floating around. Occasionally colleagues would even tell me how they appreciated that I’m the same with everyone. Because I am. Harder in the short run. So much easier in the long run.
I learned to just trust in my basic goodness. I’m not responsible for how other people interpret me. That way madness lies.
When I first read this, I immediately thought of the SEC scandal. There, we find out the First presidency out-right lied. For years. Criminally. Left some people crushed in the wake of those actions (think of those that refused to sign their name to documents that they did not have access to, and were fired) All the while giving talks about integrity, honesty, Christian values, etc. And enforcing temple recommends as the gateway to employment at BYU and other places. They, and every other person involved in the major lie, held temple recommends the entire time. THAT, is two-faced.
I have a loud voice, strong opinions and a distinctive accent. For that reason I learned long ago that I must be prepared to defend anything I say about someone. Crow is not very tasty. In the long run I have found it a good policy not to say something unless it can be for public consumption. I also am very good a keeping secrets when someone confides in me.
As an ex-mo I still find myself code switching frequently. Swearing doesn’t come natural and strangers have commented they notice I don’t curse. On a recent trip I went out of my way to swear around people so they wouldn’t think I’m weird or a prude or whatever, even though I feel awkward doing so. I still order water at restaurants tho, lol.
At work I have an intern from BYU. He knows I went to BYU and assumes I’m Mormon and whenever we meet he talks about his YSA ward. I’ve decided to not tell him I left in order to avoid an awkward discussion – and it doesn’t really change anything. It seems kind of weird for me to bring up religion at all. Maybe I’ll tell him someday as a gentle lesson to not assume…
I’m legit not afraid of people knowing I’m exmo, it’s that the muscle of making others comfortable is something LDS learn very early. As a Gen X my attitude is that versatility is generally a good thing. My boss who makes a lot of money and is also Gen X tells us if her manager asks her to clean the bathroom she’ll do it. I admire Gen Z’s idealistic attitude but sometimes I just need them to work some overtime or do something uncomfortable.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to two facedness of any and every kind.
Amazing post! Absolutely the best one I have read! Go GenZ!
I want to preface this by saying that I’m somebody who inhabits quite a few personas, some of them not the most compatible with each other. I am comfortable with being all of these people; I’d say I’m a person of integrity, but others might judge differently.
I tend to think we make too much of generational differences over the decades/eras. I do think a mark of maturity is the willingness to compromise and that young people (of any era) can find this a challenging proposition. If we are lucky, life will teach us what a good compromise looks like for us and when to make one. If we aren’t, we can hang on to our dogmatic worldviews and practices for an embarrassingly long time. And then nuance and compromise, what I would call a life lived with wisdom and pragmatism, can look like two-facedness even into our later years.