Fixed Identities
Roles, Stories, and the Myth of Permanence
Story Spine
Once upon a time, I believed who I was could never change.
And every day, I lived inside labels, convinced they defined me.
Until one day, I learned these were roles I was playing, not my essence.
And because of that, I could see how repetition made them feel permanent.
And because of that, I tried new roles, even when awkward at first.
Until finally, I realized the self was not fixed—it emerged from roles in action.
And ever since that day, I have lived in freedom, knowing no role defines me forever.
Identity often feels like bedrock. People say, “That’s just who I am” or “That’s just who they are.” In courtrooms, labels appear everywhere: the victim, the criminal, the liar, the hero. These words suggest permanence, as though once applied, they can never be removed. The law itself sometimes cements identity: felon, offender, guilty, not guilty. Yet, beneath these fixed-sounding designations lies a deeper truth: identities are not permanent states. They are roles.
Moreno’s role theory insisted that the self is not a core essence from which roles flow. Instead, the self emerges from roles enacted over time. He famously declared, “Roles do not emerge from the self, but the self may emerge from roles.” Identity, in this frame, is not fixed. It is relational, situational, and dynamic. What looks like permanence is actually repetition—a role rehearsed so often, reinforced by culture and story, that it hardens into the illusion of identity.
Neuroscience confirms this plasticity. The human brain is designed for adaptation. Neural networks reorganize constantly in response to experience. Even deeply entrenched patterns can shift when new roles are tried, new encounters are made, and new stories are told. What appears “fixed” is often a frozen pathway, not a permanent essence.
Yet, the feeling of fixity is powerful. A client who says, “I’m weak” may be living out years of rehearsing collapse under pressure. A juror who says, “I’m skeptical by nature” may have simply repeated the Skeptic Role until it feels innate. A lawyer who says, “I’m not a storyteller” may have been cast in the Analyst Role so long that other roles wither. Fixity is not identity—it is role lock.
BTC (Building the Case) reframes this. In the courtroom, the work is not to accept labels as permanent, but to reveal them as roles. To show the jury that a client’s collapse is not identity but survival. To model for jurors that skepticism is one role among many, and they can step into fairness or compassion. To help lawyers themselves loosen rigid roles and reclaim flexibility. In this way, advocacy becomes not just storytelling, but liberation from the myth of fixed identity.
Didactic Section
1. The Myth of Identity
Identity is often treated as a permanent essence: personality, character, nature. But role theory challenges this. What we call identity is a constellation of roles rehearsed and reinforced. The myth of identity serves culture, law, and power—but it obscures human freedom.
2. Role Repetition and Freezing
Roles feel permanent when repeated under stress or reinforced socially. Trauma can freeze a role (e.g., Victim, Ashamed). Institutions can fix roles through labels (e.g., Felon, Addict). Families can script roles (e.g., Black Sheep, Golden Child). Fixity is rehearsal, not essence.
3. Neuroscience of Plasticity
The brain is not static. Even in adulthood, neural networks rewire. When someone practices a new role (e.g., Survivor instead of Victim, Connector instead of Pleaser), new circuits strengthen. What was “fixed” shifts.
4. Courtroom as Role Stage
Trials expose and assign roles: Defendant, Expert, Authority, Witness. Jurors are invited into roles: Skeptic, Believer, Arbiter. Lawyers themselves juggle roles: Storyteller, Challenger, Teacher. The courtroom is a theater of roles—not a hall of fixed identities.
5. BTC as Role Liberation
BTC storytelling reframes identity labels into dynamic arcs. Instead of “She is weak,” the story becomes “She faltered, but stepped into Survivor Role.” Instead of “He is manipulative,” the story becomes “He once lived in Challenger Role, but now occupies Protector Role.” BTC moves jurors from essentialist identity into evolving role repertoire.
The 5 W’s of Fixed Identity
Who
The people most affected by the illusion of fixed identity are those under the harshest scrutiny: clients who have been labeled, lawyers who feel trapped in professional masks, and jurors who mistake their habits for their essence. A client may believe they are nothing more than “the addict,” “the criminal,” or “the weak one,” because that label has been repeated so often that it feels like truth. Lawyers themselves can fall prey to identity illusions, telling themselves, “I’m not a storyteller,” or “I’m only good at cross-examination,” which narrows their repertoire and drains vitality from their advocacy. Jurors, too, may cling to identities—“I’m a skeptic,” “I’m hard on people,” “I always follow authority”—without realizing these are roles rehearsed over time, not essences. The “who” of this conversation is everyone in the courtroom who has been cast, or has cast themselves, into a narrow identity that feels fixed but is, in reality, fluid.
What
What we call identity is often a collection of roles practiced repeatedly until they harden into habit. From a role theory perspective, the self is emergent: it arises through roles enacted in relationship. When someone insists, “I’m always this way,” what they are really describing is the repetition of a role under similar conditions. The danger of mistaking role for identity is that it collapses possibility—locking a person in a single story, a single way of being. In the courtroom, this confusion has devastating consequences. A witness may carry shame because they equate a past role with their permanent identity. A lawyer may narrow their presence by confusing a practiced role with their whole self. A juror may refuse to consider evidence fairly because their “skeptical nature” is mistaken for truth rather than role habit. The “what” here is the reframe: identity is not fixed, it is enacted. What appears unchangeable is role in action.
When
Moments of rupture are when fixed identities most forcefully assert themselves. Under stress, people cling to familiar roles and mistake them for essence. A client on cross-examination who freezes may later say, “That’s just who I am, I can’t speak under pressure.” A lawyer whose objection is overruled may conclude, “I’m not cut out for trial work.” A juror overwhelmed in deliberation may retreat into silence, believing, “I’m just not the type who can speak up.” These are moments when survival roles harden into false identities. The “when” is not every day in casual life, but in the crucibles of rupture—courtroom, conflict, confrontation—when the nervous system clings to what is familiar and convinces us it is permanent. Recognizing these moments allows BTC practitioners to intervene, reframing what looks like fixed identity into a temporary role response that can shift.
Where
The “where” of identity illusion lives both inside the body and in the social structures around us. Internally, roles repeated under stress feel etched into the nervous system—our breath, posture, and thoughts align to create the sensation of fixity. Externally, families, communities, and institutions reinforce these roles with labels. The courtroom is one of the most potent “wheres” where identity gets frozen: defendants are named criminals, plaintiffs are cast as victims, lawyers are typed as aggressors or appeasers, jurors as hardliners or doubters. The danger is when these external assignments are internalized as fixed identity, leaving no room for transformation. But the same “where” can be reclaimed—the courtroom as a stage where roles can be reframed, expanded, and liberated before an audience that longs for authenticity.
Why
The “why” behind this teaching is freedom. If identities were fixed, transformation would be impossible. Clients would remain trapped in labels, lawyers in narrow self-concepts, jurors in rigid stances. Justice would become static, and stories would end at rupture rather than moving toward resolution. But role theory offers hope: because identities are roles, they can evolve. Neuroscience affirms this through plasticity, showing that even long-entrenched patterns can change with new practice. Psychodrama demonstrates it in action, where people step into new roles and discover parts of themselves they thought were unreachable. BTC applies it to advocacy, showing that stories move from rupture to transformation only when roles shift. The “why” is this: if identity is role, then no one is stuck permanently. Everyone—client, lawyer, juror—has the possibility of change, and justice itself depends on it.
Demo-Action
Exercise: Breaking the Identity Spell
Ask a participant to name an identity they feel stuck with: “I’m not strong,” “I’m always skeptical,” “I’m not a storyteller.”
Place a chair with that label. Have them sit in it and speak from it fully.
Double the role: “You feel this is who you are, not just what you do.”
Place a second chair: a new role they long for (Survivor, Fair Arbiter, Storyteller). Have them role reverse.
Let the new role speak: “You are not fixed. I am also in you. You can choose me.”
Debrief: What felt different between role-as-identity and role-as-choice?
This action makes visible the illusion of fixed identity and opens space for movement.
Conclusion
Are there fixed identities? From the standpoint of culture and law, it often feels that way. From the standpoint of the nervous system, it can seem that way. But from the standpoint of Moreno, neuroscience, and BTC, the answer is no. Identity is not a fixed essence. It is the living sum of roles we rehearse, the stories we tell, the encounters we survive.
In the courtroom, this truth liberates. The witness is not forever victim; the juror is not forever skeptic; the lawyer is not forever perfectionist. Each can shift. Each can reclaim choice. Each can step into new roles that tell a fuller story.
Identity is not fixed. Identity is role. And roles, once seen, can always change.
References
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Who Shall Survive? Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. (1953). Psychodrama: Volume 1. Beacon House.
Moreno, Z. T., & Moreno, J. L. (1969). Psychodrama: Volume 3. Beacon House.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Developing Mind. Guilford Press.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory. Norton.
Johnson, L. E. (2025). Building The Case: Storytelling When Facts Are Fixed and Stakes Are High. Trial Whisperer Press.