A dynamic interactive process is established not just for the actor, but also for all of us as we “act” (behave) in the nontheatrical world. The settings in which we dwell influence our behavior, for the dynamics of acting impact our behavior even when we are not performing on stage. Our behavior, in turn, reinforces our beliefs and most importantly (from a polystatic perspective), our anticipation (Bergquist, 2026). What we anticipate, in turn, impacts our neurobiology (allostasis) as well as the actions we take. Something is created out of nothing through the Exoscopic process. Beginning with the “nothingness” of the potential regarding beliefs, anticipations, and neurobiology, there is the actualization of these internal processes with the introduction of external stimuli such as costumes, settings—and actual events occurring in our immediate world.
William James described this Exoscopic process when introducing the situation in which we are running away from a bear. He suggests our strong emotions (fear)—and I would suggest our anticipations—arise because we recognize that we are running away from the bear. For James, the external action (running from the bear) precedes the internal response (fear, activation of the sympathetic system). Whereas there was no fear (and a dominant parasympathetic system) existing inside us prior to beginning to run (sustained by an activated sympathetic), there is now the fear and activation. In essence, there was no fear before the bear showed up. Our physiological system and psychic state were quiet. “Nothing” was happening. Then “all hell broke loose” as the Bear was spotted AND we began to run.
Cascading Dissonance: William James was not the only one to embrace the Exoscopic perspective. Leon Festinger’s noted theory of Cognitive Dissonance operates in a similar manner (Festinger, 1957). We operate with a “settled” set of assumptions most of the time. “Nothing” is happening. Then something occurs that challenges these assumptions. Cognitive dissonance abounds. Something must happen. We must adjust our perception of what has occurred out there in the world—and therefore need not act upon the challenging conditions. Alternatively, we take action in response to the challenging conditions. We must then adjust our beliefs or even our sense of self based on how we have chosen to act.
For instance, we are meeting with a dear friend, who asks our opinion regarding a presentation they made at a town meeting last week. We firmly believe that their presentation was confusing and not an effective presentation. It certainly was not helping your friend’s cause (which you also support). One of our core beliefs is that we are an honest person. This belief is rarely apparent. It resides along with many other beliefs about myself in the tacit (unconscious) domain of my self-perception (Polanyi, 2009). This core belief has been aroused by the external request made by my friend.
Another core belief is also aroused. I believe I am a caring person who doesn’t want to hurt the feelings of people who are my friends. This core belief is also tacitly held. Both core beliefs are usually non-existent in my ongoing management of interpersonal relationships. However, they are both suddenly aroused and conflict with one another. Dissonance exists. Festinger would suggest that this dissonance is profoundly uncomfortable. We will do just about anything to eliminate the dissonance and return our psychic state to consonance.
So, what action do I take? I tell my friend that his presentation was fine. It might have used a little refinement; however, the real reason for negative reactions probably was the stubbornness and sheer ignorance of those attending the meeting when they spoke against my friend’s presentation. What is the result of this dishonest and distorting statement (other people at the meeting were quite astute and open to my friend’s ideas)? First, a state of dissonance was now produced related to my self-perception of honesty and my performance of a dishonest act. I can resolve the dissonance by asserting that my commitment to being kind overrides my commitment to be honest. This doesn’t work very well, because I remain uncomfortable about not being “actually”
