This paper seeks to explore the way some of the themes of ‘UTS2100: Intelligence and Singapore Society’, in particular “Intelligence and Self” and “Nation and the World” are tied closely, by examining how imposter syndrome can impact individuals differently based on their social status and identity and analyse how this impacts their self-perceived intelligence. The paper will draw on ideas from Gardner’s Theory on Multiple Intelligences, and critically analyse personal recounts of imposter syndrome. It seeks to identify gaps in our understanding of intrapersonal intelligence, meritocracy and the resultant systemic biases. It argues that imposter syndrome can diminish the systemic struggles of Women of Colour (WOC), and that the fine line between experiencing imposter syndrome and experiencing systemic discrimination should be carefully analysed during policymaking and/or other large-scale decision-making such as in corporate firms or academic institutions.
1. Introduction
Imposter syndrome can be defined as a psychological occurrence where one has doubts in their abilities and accomplishments, and has the “persistent, internalized fear” of being outed as a “fraud” (Langford & Clance, 1993). In practice, this manifests through the commonly in disbelief of one’s personal achievements, and belief believing that one is deceiving others when speaking of their achievements as, to those with imposter syndrome, it may appear less “spectacular” than what it actually is to those with imposter syndrome (Sakulku et al., 2011).
Imposter syndrome was developed and introduced in the late 1970s, when women were increasingly liberal and modernised, and there was a greater prevalence of women entering the workforce (Barsh & Yee, 2011). Pauline and Suzanne Clance (1978) introduced this phenomenon in their article, and primarily focused their efforts on “women in higher education, and in professional industries”. Their paper found that even though most women surveyed showcased academic excellence and performance as well as repeated “external validation”, they were sorely lacking “internal validation”, and attributed much of it to people’s misperception of their abilities and even “luck”. The Clances made significant strides in understanding imposter syndrome, this field of studies, identifying a wide range of factors contributing to imposter syndrome, including “gender stereotypes, familial issues and cultural norms”, and even drew connections to the mental conditions that are aligned closely with imposter syndrome (Clance & Clance, 1978).
2. Systemic Nature of Imposter Syndrome
“For many women, feeling like an outsider isn’t an illusion — it’s the result of systemic bias and exclusion”. This was proposed by the Harvard Business Review (2021, as cited in Tulshyan & Burey, 2021), sparking discussions about what imposter syndrome is and its impact on our society. The article suggested that the impacts of systemic factors and discrimination such as “racism, classism [and] xenophobia” were not taken into consideration when the idea of imposter syndrome was developed, leading to a narrow view of the concept. The potential causes and consequences of what we think of as “imposter syndrome” do not consider systemic influences and discrimination, particularly against women (Tulshyan & Burey, 2021). Unfortunately, imposter syndrome has largely shifted focus towards the individual by claiming that intervention for symptoms of imposter syndrome should be internal, which allow the social systems that enables discrimination (such as racial and gender biases) to get away “scot-free” (Tulshyan & Burey, 2021).
As I read The Clances’ paper, I was able to link the warped self-perception they discuss to what I have learnt about intrapersonal intelligence, which can be defined as one’s innate ability to properly distinguish and identify a host of potentially conflicting emotions (Gardner, 2011). I came to the reflection that harboring imposter syndrome could indicate a gap in one’s intrapersonal understanding and eventual intelligence, and that this can spill over into other aspects of one’s life, including other intelligences they possess, as well as the resultant actions that they take. This is because when one’s intrapersonal intelligence is impaired by self-doubt, their ability to perform and demonstrate other forms of intelligences diminishes, and results in lowered confidence and performance levels (Clance & Clance, 1978).
3. Personal Experiences
Considering my personal experiences, I understood that I harboured strong symptoms of imposter syndrome and was actually able to attribute this to specific factors like familial issues and gender stereotypes.
Coming from an immigrant household and growing up with a younger sister, I became the subject of parentification as I bore the burden of taking care of her academic needs, as my parents were not familiar with the requirements of the Singaporean education system. This involved monitoring schoolwork, helping her study for examinations, sitting in on parent-teacher conferences and even selecting her subject combination at the Secondary Two Streaming Exercise. The results of this was a personality type aligned with one of self-defeat, one of the three personality types aligned with the effects of parentification (Jones & Wells, 1996). It details “masochistic” and defeatist mentalities, where a person may express pessimistic tendencies and be more inclined to a failure mentality (Jones & Wells, 1996). Thus, I tend to be deeply uncertain of my accomplishments and their validity and have become deeply distrustful of compliments and well wishes.
Furthermore, gender stereotypes were also deeply ingrained in me growing up, and I was continuously reminded of my eventual role of being a “good housewife”, and that my role in society would be vastly different from that of a man. Such notions were, and still are being fuelled by Indian media, where women are dichotomously depicted as either “good”, in that she is a good mother or wife supporting a man’s dreams or “bad”, in that she is an overtly sexual or promiscuous women with no family-centric values (Mukhopadhyay & Banerjee, 2021). The effects of ingrained sexism have taken many years to undo, and it was performed through building my own sense of self and gender, as well as shifting my focus away from Hostile Sexism (Cowie, Greaves & Sibley, 2019).
As a result, it is evident that there were significant gaps in my display of intrapersonal intelligence due to my experience with imposter syndrome. I grappled with a fractured sense of self, gender, and identity, and thus, I was unable to understand my abilities and talents, often chalking it up to luck or being dealt with easier stimuli (such as dismissing a good score I get by merely thinking that it was due to a test being easy). Interestingly, I realised that while I have experienced symptoms of imposter syndrome, my experience cannot be wholly chalked up to imposter syndrome, and that the structure of merit and our education system plays a large role in my thoughts and emotions. Analysing some of my Learning Journal entries, what I learnt in class regarding meritocracy and its impacts on students, I reflected on my own experience with meritocracy in Singapore's education system. I realised that my development of imposter syndrome has also been influenced by Singapore’s meritocratic system, which rewards the intelligent (which, in Singapore, is typically assessed through by academic results). Considering my experience, I feel that Singaporeans fail to associate imposter syndrome as a by-product or resultant of systemic biases. It becomes increasingly crucial to “problematize” the use of the term, as embracing imposter syndrome as the explanation to issues minorities face help maintain “exclusionary and meritocratic ideals of academia”, which fortify the message that the problem is with the individual which needs to be rectified, and without which success is elusive (Ramos, 2021).
4. Professional Settings
Looking outwards, women in the professional workplace and in the academic world also struggle with great degrees of imposter syndrome. Author and speaker Talisa Lavarry, a woman of African American descent, shared her experiences in the aforementioned Harvard Business Review article (2021). Lavarry was tasked in heading a “high-profile, security-intensive” event that required her expertise. While she was able to handle the technical aspects of the event, she struggled with “office politics” as her colleagues questioned her abilities, both covertly and overtly. Lavarry was made to feel incompetent for the role. She claimed that she experienced “deep anxiety, self-hatred”, a fraudulent sense of self, and was even driven to contemplating suicide (Tulshyan & Burey, 2021). As I read her account, it became increasingly apparent to me that her initial feelings of nervousness were inflated and compounded into extreme feelings of anxiety due to the hostile environment she was in. What may have initially been symptoms of imposter syndrome and feeling incompetent despite her skill level, overlapped with systemic racism and biases.
5. Intersectionality
In such cases, it becomes important to explore imposter syndrome with awareness of intersectionality. Imposter syndrome typically worsens with “multiple intersecting oppressions”, such as class, gender, sexuality, and race (Hewertson & Tissa, 2022). Intersectionality has been used to understand why anti-discrimination laws in the past have failed, as well as understanding current means of discrimination. For example, Black women and other Women of Colour (WOC) are more likely to experience imposter syndrome, which can detrimentally affect their “progress” at university and in the workplace (Allen & Joseph, 2018). Since WOC are not typically expected to take on leadership roles in the corporate world or academia (which tend to be largely male-dominated and white-dominated), their presence in such fields typically challenges, and redefines the roles of a corporate worker or an academic. WOC who fulfill this expectation experience otherness and isolation in the form of “exclusionary practices and insensitive comments”, as well as biases and discrimination (Allen & Joseph, 2018), similar to what was faced by Lavarry. Thus, intersectionality allows us to understand how imposter syndrome can be worsened by systemic bias against WOC. In these cases, it can no longer be considered a gap in one’s intrapersonal intelligence to be riddled with imposter syndrome, as their experiences are externally caused as opposed to internally caused. Thus, the true test of intrapersonal intelligence possibly comes in the form of dealing with one’s given situation, such as setting boundaries and knowing when to remove oneself from the toxic or problematic environment. By distinguishing and identifying the host of conflicting emotions (Gardner, 2011) that may arise when dealing with aforementioned situations (such as deciding between prioritizing one’s mental health and safety, or deciding to stay in a toxic environment for financial benefit). It must be noted that not everyone is privileged enough to leave toxic environments, and the pressure of maintaining a steady stream of income can be insurmountable to attempt to deal with systemic bias, nor should the focus be on the individual to bear the burden.
Conclusion
As I was consolidating my learning, I decided to take a look at the impacts of imposter syndrome in Singapore. I was appalled to learn that 74% of Singaporean workers report experiencing imposter syndrome, compared to the global average of 62% (Yeoh, 2022). I then decided to find out more about how intersectionality can help us understand the overlapping forces of discrimination that women of colour face, and specifically wanted to understand how these play into imposter syndrome. Unfortunately, I found little data or articles on the matter, even though my reflection leads me to believe that it is a pertinent issue. I believe that there is a gap in literature and research on this matter, which would involve exploring the links between imposter syndrome, meritocracy, and the disproportionate impact on Singaporean minorities. I believe that the resultant literature will also encourage greater understanding of one’s intrapersonal intelligence, and how we can utilise this in administering more effective educational policies, such as working on rectifying the runoff effects of meritocracy (such as systemic discrimination) and focusing on building student self-esteem and confidence to combat imposter syndrome from a young age.