The Personal Identity Behind 'La Peau de Chagrin': Systemic Pressures, Suppressed Authenticity, and the Future of the Self in the AI world

Abstract: Drawing upon Balzac’s potent allegory of La Peau de chagrin, this essay critically examines the "System-Bound Persona"—the performed self adopted under intense systemic pressures at the cost of the authentic "personal identity behind." It argues that this phenomenon, echoing control mechanisms from historical totalitarianism and amplified by modern corporate, social, and pre-AI digital norms, represents a pervasive crisis of suppressed authenticity. Analyzing psychological mechanisms, societal incubators, and the resultant perceptual labyrinth facing leaders and professionals, the essay reveals how these adopted "magical skins" often conceal profound dysfunctions, manipulative potential, and suppressed volatility, rendering traditional discernment inadequate. The analysis culminates by considering the ambivalent future of the self in the AI world, exploring artificial intelligence's potential to both exacerbate systemic masking through new forms of control and surveillance, and potentially foster greater individuality by transcending previous analytical limitations—contingent upon ethical development. The work highlights the enduring, complex struggle for authentic selfhood.

Indexing: Masked Personality, System-Bound Persona, Magical Skin (La Peau de chagrin), Balzac, Person Behind the Skin, Authenticity, Suppressed Authenticity, Performativity, Impression Management, Strategic Self-Presentation, Deception Detection, Manipulation, Dark Triad, Emotion Suppression, Emotional Labor, Psychological Volatility, Systemic Pressures, Social Conformity, Totalitarianism, Soviet Union, Social Control, Corporate Culture, Digital Norms, Social Media Avatars, Leadership Challenges, Profiling Difficulty, Crisis of Trust, Systemic Dysfunction, Cognitive Bias, Instrumentalized Self, Moral Disengagement, Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI Ethics, Future of Self, Individuality vs Conformity

I. Introduction: The Allure and Cost of the Second Skin

The human drama has perpetually unfolded upon a stage where the self presented to the world and the self that resides within engage in a complex, often fraught, interplay. Long before the digital age furnished us with avatars and curated online existences, the imperative to navigate societal expectations fostered the adoption of various "skins"—manners, attires, reputations, and performed beliefs—that promised acceptance, advancement, or merely survival. These second skins, while offering passage through the intricate corridors of social life, have always carried the latent risk of obscuring, or even consuming, the authentic individual beneath. This enduring tension finds one of its most potent allegorical expressions in Honoré de Balzac's seminal 1831 novel, La Peau de chagrin (Balzac, 1831), a work that resonates with uncanny prescience into our contemporary anxieties surrounding authenticity and the performed self.

Balzac, writing in the turbulent heart of post-Napoleonic France—a society marked by dizzying social mobility, the ascendant power of the bourgeoisie, and an almost febrile pursuit of fortune and status during the July Monarchy—captured the spirit of an age where appearances became paramount. His Comédie humaine, that monumental project to paint a comprehensive portrait of French society, is replete with characters whose lives are defined by the careful construction and strategic deployment of public personas. La Peau de chagrin (Balzac, 1831) crystallizes this societal preoccupation into a stark, Faustian allegory: Raphaël de Valentin, a young, impoverished nobleman, acquires a piece of shagreen, a "magic skin," that grants his every wish. Yet, with each desire fulfilled, the skin inexplicably shrinks, and with it, Raphaël's own life force ebbs away. The skin, this potent symbol of unbridled desire and the power to command one's reality, becomes both his salvation and his doom, a tangible manifestation of life itself being consumed by the very means through which its ambitions are realized. Balzac's genius lies in rendering this "magical skin" not merely as an external object of fantasy, but as a profound metaphor for the ways in which the pursuit of societally sanctioned desires—wealth, love, recognition—can necessitate the adoption of a consuming persona, a "skin" that, while gratifying immediate wants, ultimately devours the authentic self, the very "person behind" it. The societal "echo" in Balzac's France was loud: a culture of intense social aspiration, where one's perceived identity, meticulously crafted through dress, connections, and eloquent performance, often mattered more than intrinsic worth, and, as the novel implies, few "cared what is behind" the polished veneer so long as it projected success and conformity.   

Literary tradition itself bears constant witness to the precarious compact between social performance and inner truth, a tension Balzac rendered with unique allegorical intensity. It reverberates throughout literary history, signaling an enduring human concern. Molière, over a century before, satirized the performative hypocrisies of French salon culture in works like Tartuffe, where a "skin" of false piety is expertly worn for social and material gain. Later in the 19th century, Stendhal's Julien Sorel in Le Rouge et le Noir (Stendhal, 1830) navigates his ambitious ascent through calculated role-playing, his every action a performance dictated by societal ambition rather than inner conviction. Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray (Wilde, 1891) presents an even more direct parallel to Balzac's shrinking skin, where a magical portrait absorbs the moral decay of its subject, allowing Dorian to maintain a flawless youthful "skin" while the soul, objectified in art, festers. These literary explorations underscore a persistent psychological verity: the adoption of a powerful, socially rewarding "skin" often initiates a dangerous compact, whereby the external presentation thrives at the expense of internal integrity or vitality. The "person behind the magical skin" becomes a progressively more etiolated figure, a ghost haunting the edifice of their own success. Luigi Pirandello, in the early 20th century, would later dissect the very notion of a stable self, questioning whether any singular, authentic identity could even exist beneath the multiple masks imposed by social perception and the individual's own often contradictory self-deceptions.   

Such enduring reflections on the performed self acquire a disturbing resonance when mapped onto the complexities of contemporary existence. The pressures to adopt and meticulously maintain various "skins" have not only persisted but have arguably intensified and diversified, particularly under the influence of late modern capitalism, pervasive media landscapes, and the "static" digital social norms that characterized the pre-AI internet. The "socialist correct citizen" you allude to, a concept so chillingly realized in the state-controlled personas of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where the individual was reduced to an ideological automaton, finds disquieting modern cognates. While the overt mechanisms of control may differ, the subtle coercions of corporate "culture fit," the demand for performative ideological alignment in polarized public squares, or the relentless pressure to present an idealized, ever-positive self on social media platforms (Turkle, 2011) can similarly compel individuals to suppress vast swathes of their authentic being. The "person behind the magical skin" today might be navigating the demands of a digital avatar, a professional persona exuding unwavering competence, or a social media profile radiating manufactured happiness, all while the authentic self experiences the "shrinking" as a loss of genuine connection, emotional honesty, or critical thought.

Balzac's potent allegory of the consuming "magical skin" thus provides a vital analytical anchor for examining what this essay terms the "System-Bound Persona"—a contemporary manifestation of this age-old dynamic. This persona, often characterized by the strategic suppression of authentic emotions and selfhood in response to systemic pressures, represents a critical and escalating danger. It echoes the control mechanisms of historical totalitarian systems where human personality was systematically instrumentalized, hollowing out organic individuality and critical ethical agency (Fromm, 1941; Adorno et al., 1950). These dynamics, amplified by pre-AI era digital norms that devalue genuine expression and reward curated performativity, give rise to individuals and systems operating under a veneer of conformity, concealing underlying dysfunctions, suppressed psychological volatility (often linked to traits like the Dark Triad – Paulhus and Williams, 2002), manipulative potential, and even systemic corruption. The challenge for leadership and societal well-being is profound, as traditional modes of assessment and intuitive judgment often fail to penetrate these "skins," fostering environments of pervasive distrust and potential paranoia (Kramer, 1998). The emergence of Artificial Intelligence now introduces a further layer of complexity, presenting both new challenges to discerning the "person behind the skin" and potential (though highly ambivalent and ethically fraught) modulators of this enduring problem of inauthenticity and its pervasive dangers. This analysis will thus delve into the architecture of these contemporary "skins," the societal crucibles that forge them, the perceptual labyrinths they create for those who must navigate them, and the systemic vulnerabilities they both expose and exploit, all while keeping in mind the enduring allegorical wisdom of the "person behind the magical skin" who barters authenticity for the alluring promises of a systemically sanctioned existence.

II. The Psychological Artifice: Constructing and Maintaining the Polished "Skin"

The adoption of a "magical skin"—that System-Bound Persona discussed in our introduction, echoing Balzac’s potent allegory—is rarely a simple act of dissimulation. Rather, it involves a profound and often psychologically costly artifice, a meticulous construction and relentless maintenance of a performed self that grants access to the system’s "wishes" while consuming the authenticity of the "person behind." This section delves into the psychological mechanisms that underpin the creation and animation of this "skin," revealing it as a complex tapestry woven from conscious strategy, deeply ingrained personality traits, and demanding emotional labor. The art of crafting such a compelling facade, one that can navigate and exploit complex social and organizational terrains, has been a timeless subject of both psychological inquiry and literary exploration, with figures like the calculating Vicomte de Valmont in Laclos’ Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Laclos, 1782) serving as enduring archetypes of masterful impression management, where the "skin" of seduction or feigned virtue is wielded with devastating strategic precision. Understanding this artifice is paramount to grasping the challenges of profiling, a task for which many modern leaders, lacking the interdisciplinary synthesis of literary insight and deep psychological acuity, are often ill-equipped.

Central to the craftsmanship of the "magical skin" is a sophisticated deployment of impression management strategies, extending far beyond normative social adaptation into the realm of calculated performance (Jones and Pittman, 1982). The "person behind the skin" may engage in a repertoire of self-presentational tactics—ingratiation to curry favour, self-promotion to project competence, or even subtle intimidation to command deference—each calibrated to elicit desired responses. This is often coupled with a high degree of self-monitoring, a keen sensitivity and responsiveness to social cues that allows for the continuous adjustment of the performed persona (Snyder, 1974). Unlike the adaptive chameleon whose transformations are typically more fluid and aimed at social harmony, the System-Bound Persona’s "skin" is often more rigidly defined by the perceived demands and rewards of a particular, powerful system, driven by deeper instrumental needs for control, validation, or survival. The literary landscape offers stark portrayals of such carefully managed "skins," from the meticulously constructed piety of Molière's Tartuffe, whose facade of religious devotion masks avarice and lust, to the ambitious performances of Stendhal's Julien Sorel, whose every public act is a calculated step in his ascent. The "wishes" granted by these skins—social acceptance, power, influence—are potent, yet the effort to maintain them, to constantly ensure the "skin" remains flawless, incurs a significant cognitive and emotional toll.

The cognitive and affective architecture that supports this "magical skin" is necessarily intricate. A highly developed, if often cynically applied, theory of mind, akin to the "Machiavellian intelligence" observed in primates and humans, enables the individual to model others' mental states for predictive and manipulative purposes, allowing them to animate the "skin" with convincing social acumen (Whiten and Byrne, 1997). This strategic social cognition is complemented by profound emotional labor, the demanding work of performing institutionally or socially required emotions while suppressing authentic, often contradictory, inner states (Hochschild, 1983). This is not merely the surface acting common in many professions; for "the person behind the magical skin," it often involves a sustained, deep acting where prescribed emotions are internally summoned to align with the performed persona, or where disruptive inner states like contempt or anxiety are ruthlessly suppressed. This continuous self-regulation, this constant vigilance in maintaining the integrity of the "skin," can lead to a state of ego depletion, where the psychological resources of the "person behind" are significantly taxed, their authentic vitality "shrinking" much like Balzac's potent allegory (Baumeister et al., 1998). The strain is palpable in characters like those found in Henry James’s novels, navigating the intricate emotional codes of high society, where the "skin" of propriety and restraint must be impeccably maintained, often at great personal cost to the passionate "person behind."

In its more problematic and dangerous manifestations, the "magical skin" can be constituted by, and become almost indistinguishable from, traits associated with the Dark Triad: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Each of these lends a particular pathology to the artifice. Narcissism, with its inherent need for admiration and validation to buttress a fragile sense of self, often results in a "skin" of cultivated grandiosity, charm, and entitlement (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). The "wishes" this "skin" seeks are constant affirmation and status, and any threat to it can provoke intense narcissistic rage, revealing the vulnerable "person behind." Flaubert’s Emma Bovary, in Madame Bovary (Flaubert, 1856), arguably crafts such a "skin" from romantic delusions and aspirations for a grander life, a persona that ultimately consumes her when reality fails to match her narcissistic desires. Machiavellianism, as originally conceptualized through studies of those who endorse manipulative tactics (Christie and Geis, 1970), contributes a "skin" of calculated pragmatism, emotional detachment, and strategic exploitation. Shakespeare’s Iago or Richard III are classic literary archetypes, their outward "skins" of honesty or loyalty serving as masterpieces of deception that mask ruthless ambition, embodying the "person behind" who views others merely as instruments. Psychopathy, even in its subclinical forms, offers the most chilling "magical skin"—the "mask of sanity" described by Hare (1993) and earlier by Cleckley. This is a facade of normalcy, even charm, that conceals a profound lack of empathy, shallow emotions, and a predatory disposition. Patricia Highsmith’s Tom Ripley, who not only adopts but literally usurps identities, represents an extreme literary exploration of this, where the "magical skin" of another becomes a tool for wish-fulfillment and a chilling demonstration of the void that can exist within "the person behind."

These deeply ingrained psychological artifices, so vividly portrayed in literature and systematically analyzed in psychology, stand in stark contrast to more benign forms of social adaptation. The adaptive chameleon, for instance, leverages cultural intelligence to navigate diverse environments effectively, their "skin" changing flexibly without the same degree of systemic binding or the profound suppression of an authentic core self (Earley and Ang, 2003). Similarly, the camouflaging or masking strategies employed by some autistic individuals are typically adopted for social survival and comprehension in neurotypical environments, often at great personal cost, but are driven by a need to connect or avoid negative repercussions rather than by manipulative or exploitative intent (Hull et al., 2017). Distinguishing these from the artfully constructed, system-bound "magical skin" of a problematic personality is a profiling challenge of the highest order. The immense psychological complexity, the interweaving of conscious strategy with deep-seated traits, and the subtle performance of normalcy make "the person behind the magical skin" exceptionally difficult to discern. This task requires a level of sophisticated interdisciplinary knowledge—spanning psychology, an understanding of systemic pressures, and even an appreciation for the archetypal patterns of human behavior illuminated by great literature—that few leaders possess or are equipped to apply, rendering them, and the systems they lead, perpetually vulnerable to the allure and the dangers of the polished "skin."

 III. Echoes of Authoritarianism and Societal Pressures: The Genesis of Suppressed Authenticity (Forging the "Systemic Skin")

History reveals a persistent pattern of societal and state mechanisms forging "systemic skins"—compelling identities adopted for survival or status—long predating Balzac's exploration of the dynamic in 19th-century France. The compulsion to adopt a "magical skin," that System-Bound Persona offering passage through the world at the cost of authentic selfhood, reflects a long and troubling history designed to formalize identity, suppress authentic deviation, and instrumentalize the individual. From the rigidly defined roles of feudal societies, where the "skin" of one’s birthright offered scant room for personal authorship and social mobility was largely non-existent, the "person behind" was often subsumed by an inherited, unyielding social script. Even the Enlightenment’s revolutionary ideal of the "citizen," intended to liberate individuals with rights and reason, paradoxically introduced new pressures to adopt the "skin" of rational virtue and civic conformity, subtly marginalizing those whose authenticity did not align with these emergent, often bourgeois, norms. These historical precedents reveal a persistent tension: systems, in their quest for order and control, frequently demand a performative self, a "skin" that mediates between the individual and the collective, often to the detriment of the former’s true nature.

The 20th century witnessed the apotheosis of state-mandated "skin" fabrication under totalitarian regimes, which sought not merely to influence but to entirely reconstruct human personality in service of ideology. National Socialism in Germany, as explored through the lens of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950), demanded the adoption of a terrifyingly specific racial-ideological "skin"—the "Aryan ideal"—while systematically persecuting and annihilating those deemed "other" or whose "person behind" could not or would not conform. The very architecture of such states, as Arendt (1951) detailed, was built upon the eradication of private life and the enforcement of a totalizing public performance. Similarly, the Soviet Union embarked on an ambitious project to engineer the "New Soviet Man/Woman," a "systemic skin" characterized by unwavering ideological purity, collectivist zeal, and absolute loyalty to the Communist Party. This Soviet "skin" was meticulously cultivated from youth, through institutions like the Komsomol (the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League) and a highly formalized education system, all undergirded by pervasive social control mechanisms—from peer surveillance to party cells—that echoed Foucault’s (1977) panoptic principles. The "person behind" this Soviet "skin" often nurtured a "hidden transcript" of private thoughts, beliefs, and resentments (Scott, 1990), a necessary psychological bifurcation for survival.

Demonstrating a stark continuity of autocratic control rather than revolutionary rupture, the Soviet experience replicated and intensified feudalistic aspects of Tsarist Russia in its imposition of a new "systemic skin." The severe lack of social mobility for ordinary citizens, despite revolutionary rhetoric, mirrored the plight of the "krepostniye krestyane" (serfs) bound to the land and their masters. The Soviet "skin" of the loyal, ideologically sound citizen became the primary currency for social advancement, granting privileges—better housing, access to scarce goods, career opportunities, travel permits—not through meritocratic achievement or authentic talent, but through the successful performance of conformity and obedience, akin to a neo-feudal system of patronage based on demonstrated fealty (Milgram, 1974). This system of "privileges for good behavior" was an early, analog precursor to the gamified social control mechanisms seen today. The pressure to conform to this "skin" was immense, and the cost to the authentic "person behind" was often a profound alienation or a deep-seated cynicism.

Even beyond explicitly totalitarian systems, modern societies have developed their own sophisticated methods for encouraging the adoption of particular "systemic skins." The pressures of "liquid modernity," with its emphasis on flexibility and constant self-reinvention (Bauman, 2000), can compel individuals to don a succession of performative "skins" to navigate a rapidly changing socio-economic landscape. Corporate cultures often demand a "skin" of unwavering positivity and team-oriented enthusiasm, as critiqued by Ehrenreich (2009), where authentic expressions of doubt or dissent are subtly (or overtly) penalized. Political discourse, too, frequently pressures individuals into adopting the "skin" of rigid ideological alignment, where complex personal convictions are flattened into partisan conformity (Kelman, 1958). The Chomskian notion of "manufacturing consent" (Chomsky, 1988) highlights how dominant narratives can shape the "skins" deemed acceptable for public life, marginalizing those who resist. This continuous performance, often driven by a desire for acceptance or fear of ostracism, can lead to a dangerous moral disengagement, where the "person behind the skin" loses touch with their own ethical compass (Bandura, 1999).

Technologically-mediated control finds a stark contemporary expression in phenomena like modern China's social rating system, arguably the ultimate realization of a digitally enforced "magical skin." Here, every observable behavior contributes to a score that dictates access to societal privileges, from travel to loans to better schooling. This system represents a technologically advanced fusion of Soviet-style social control and gamified behavioral conditioning. It is the ultimate "skin" that "belongs to the state," where the "person behind" is constantly assessed and managed. Parallels can be seen in the earlier stages of digitalization, where online avatars in video games and social media profiles functioned as nascent "digital skins." These allowed individuals to experiment with identity, but also introduced new pressures to craft and maintain idealized or systemically rewarded personas—gaining "points" or social validation through carefully curated online performances.

Across this vast historical and societal spectrum, from the feudal serf to the Soviet apparatchik, from the corporate performer to the digitally rated citizen, the unifying thread is the pressure to adopt a "systemic skin" that mediates existence within a given power structure. The "wishes" granted by Balzac's magical skin—survival, acceptance, privilege, power—are mirrored in the benefits accrued by those who successfully wear the "skin" demanded by their respective systems. Yet, the cost remains the suppression of the authentic "person behind," the erosion of genuine selfhood, and the fostering of environments where discerning truth from performance becomes an act of immense complexity. The sheer volume of historical precedent, the multifaceted nature of these societal pressures, and the intricate psychological adaptations they induce create an analytical challenge of such magnitude that it readily explains why leaders, often operating with simpler heuristics, struggle to perceive, understand, and effectively deal with the true "person behind the magical skin"—an issue that remains a profound cause of misjudgment and dysfunction in our world today.

IV. Beneath the Calculated Calm: Psychological Volatility and Antisocial Potential (The "Person Behind" Straining Against the "Skin")

The contemporary understanding of "anti-social" behavior is often remarkably naive, largely confined to overt acts of individual deviance or diagnosable personality disorders that manifest in readily observable transgressions. Such a view fails to apprehend the far more insidious and potentially more devastating forms of antisocial potential that can fester beneath a meticulously maintained "magical skin" of conformity, or even ostensible pro-social conduct. The calculated calm projected by Balzac’s Raphaël de Valentin as his skin grants his wishes, yet consumes his life, finds a terrifying societal analogue in systems that demand unwavering public adherence to an idealized persona, while "the person behind"—or indeed, entire populations—undergoes profound and often pathological transformations. The Soviet Union's grand, seventy-year experiment in forging the "New Soviet Man" offers a chilling case study in how a systemically enforced "skin" of socialist virtue, maintained across generations through intense ideological indoctrination and the ruthless elimination of "enemies of the people," paradoxically incubated the very antisocial dynamics it purported to eradicate.

For over three generations, Soviet citizens were compelled to wear the "socialist skin"—a facade of collectivist zeal, ideological purity, and unwavering loyalty. The authentic self, with its individual aspirations, doubts, and diverse emotional repertoire, was driven deep underground, a dangerous internal reality to be meticulously concealed (Scott, 1990, previously cited). The chronic suppression of these core aspects of personhood, as emotion regulation theories suggest, incurs immense psychological costs, leading not to their extinction but to their distortion and potential for malignant accumulation (Gross, 2015). The very fabric of emotional life was altered, with genuine feelings often replaced by performed sentiments deemed acceptable by the Party and the collective (Frijda, 1986). This created a fertile ground for what Millon et al. (2004) might describe as personality patterns forged under duress, where adaptive strategies for survival within a repressive system become deeply ingrained, even if they are inherently cynical or detached from authentic moral reasoning. The "mask of sanity," so aptly described by Cleckley (1988) for psychopathic individuals, could, in a metaphorical sense, be seen as imposed systemically, demanding an outward show of normalcy and commitment that belied deep internal contradictions and suppressed realities.

The true outcome of these generations of re-education in "socialist values" and the relentless suppression of the authentic self became terrifyingly apparent with the fall of the Iron Curtain. When the coercive state apparatus that maintained the "Soviet skin" began to crumble, "the person behind" this generations-old facade did not emerge as the idealized socialist citizen. Instead, across vast regions of the post-Soviet space, societies witnessed an eruption of behaviors that stood in stark contradiction to seventy years of purported pro-social indoctrination. The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989) found large-scale validation as decades of suppressed grievances, thwarted ambitions, and systemic injustices exploded. The collapse of the Soviet "magical skin"—which, like Balzac's, had offered a form of (constrained) existence and identity—created a profound existential vacuum and, for many, a collective narcissistic injury (Kohut, 1972, applied metaphorically), leading to widespread anomie and a desperate search for new certainties.

In this void, the instrumental and often predatory behavioral patterns learned under the old regime—where navigating a corrupt and arbitrary system was key to survival—were unleashed without the previous constraints. As Babiak and Hare (2006) describe "snakes in suits" thriving in chaotic corporate environments, so too did individuals skilled in manipulation and devoid of genuine empathy find fertile ground in the tumultuous transition. Many of those who had most adeptly worn the "Soviet skin" (the apparatchiks, the informants, those skilled in navigating the Party’s doublethink) were often best positioned to exploit the new freedoms, leading to rampant corruption, asset stripping, and the rise of oligarchies. The "calculated calm" that might have characterized a successful Party member could seamlessly transition into the cold pragmatism of a criminal entrepreneur or a ruthless political operative (Meloy, 2001). The "most corrupt," "most criminal," and in some conflicts, "most violent and inhumane" behaviors that shocked the world did not spring from nowhere; they were, in many respects, the grotesque manifestations of "the person behind the magical skin," a self shaped by decades of fear, cynicism, moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999, previously cited), and the normalization of duplicity. The societal project to eliminate "enemies of the people" had, in a cruel irony, created conditions that fostered a deep distrust of genuine human connection and a reliance on power dynamics over ethical principles.

The enduring legacy of this seminal societal experiment—where enforced masking functioned as a mechanism of control—continues to reverberate throughout contemporary social dynamics. The rise from this same "eastern bloc" of virulent far-right ideologies, entrenched Islamophobia, homophobia, antisemitism, a stark disregard for environmental protection, and a general antagonism towards liberal democratic values, human rights, and international cooperative bodies like the UN or WTO, cannot be divorced from this traumatic past. These are not simply a rejection of "Western" values, but can also be seen as complex, often destructive, manifestations emerging from "the person behind the socialist skin." Having been stripped of authentic avenues for identity formation and civic participation for generations, and having witnessed the collapse of one totalizing ideology, populations may become susceptible to new, simplistic, and often aggressive "skins" of nationalism, religious fundamentalism, or strongman cults. These ideologies offer a perverse sense of certainty and belonging in a morally and economically insecure world, often by scapegoating minorities or rejecting universalist principles that were either absent or hypocritically touted under the previous regime. As Staub (1989) outlined in The Roots of Evil, difficult life conditions and societal upheaval can create fertile ground for ideologies that identify enemies and justify aggression. The "socialist skin," designed to create a harmonious collective, ultimately concealed and perhaps even incubated the psychological preconditions for new forms of societal fragmentation and hostility. The challenge for contemporary leaders is thus immense: to comprehend that overt societal conformity or even proclaimed adherence to "pro-social" values can be a deceptive "magical skin," and that discerning the true nature, the accumulated grievances, and the potential volatility of "the person behind" requires a depth of historical, psychological, and systemic understanding that far transcends naive assessments of surface behavior (Ekman, 2003). The failure to do so is to remain blind to the profound, often dangerous, currents that flow beneath the calculated calm of systemically imposed personas.

V. The Leader's Perceptual Labyrinth: Navigating "Skins" Across Professional Divides

Balzac's allegory of the "magical skin" illuminates a perceptual labyrinth extending far beyond executive suites, fundamentally challenging diverse professions tasked with understanding the authentic "person behind." It constitutes a fundamental and acute challenge for a vast array of professionals whose work critically depends on understanding, guiding, assessing, or influencing human behavior. Pedagogues strive to see the true potential or hidden struggles behind a student's classroom "skin"; psychologists endeavor to reach the authentic self beneath layers of defense mechanisms or performed well-being; criminologists attempt to understand the motivations masked by an offender's facade of remorse or defiance; social service professionals navigate the complex "skins" of vulnerability or resilience presented by clients in need; and policymakers are tasked with designing interventions for entire populations whose true needs and sentiments may be obscured by societal or politically expedient "skins." For all these actors, the Balzacian "magical skin"—the System-Bound Persona adopted for survival, acceptance, or strategic gain at the cost of authenticity—presents a formidable barrier to effective action and value-based decision-making.

Navigating this labyrinth demands, above all, the fraught distinction between benign adaptive flexibility—the chameleon's art—and the system-bound 'magical skin' concealing potentially hazardous depths. Miscategorization is rampant and carries profound consequences: the overlooked cry for help from a "skin" of stoicism, the manipulated empathy by a "skin" of feigned victimhood, the misdiagnosed potential due to a "skin" of disengagement, or the societal policy based on performative public opinion rather than genuine public will. The failure to perceive the often-consuming nature of the "magical skin"—its origin in systemic pressures and its cost to the authentic individual—underlies many professional misjudgments.

Fundamental human cognitive limitations, amplified by the complexities of socio-cultural and digital environments, erect formidable barriers to accurate discernment. The intuitive "hunches" or experiential wisdom that professionals in these fields cultivate, while valuable, are constantly assailed by cognitive biases—confirmation bias, halo effects, anchoring—that can lead to systematic errors in judgment when assessing complex human presentations (Kahneman, 2011). Furthermore, the scientific consensus, as summarized by DePaulo et al. (2003), indicates that human accuracy in detecting deception based on nonverbal cues or behavioral tells is barely above chance, even for those with professional training. The "person behind the magical skin," particularly if the "skin" is well-practiced or integral to their coping or advancement, is often adept at managing precisely these superficial signals. This perceptual challenge is exponentially compounded in cross-cultural interactions, where differing display rules and communication norms (Hofstede, 2001; Hall, 1976) can lead to profound misinterpretations of intent and authenticity by educators, therapists, or officials. The pre-AI digital veil, with its curated personas and algorithmically shaped interactions, further obscures the "person behind," presenting professionals with mediated "skins" that offer few reliable anchors to authentic being. Moreover, the human capacity for empathy, so crucial in many of these professions, can itself be exploited; just as state actors can manipulate trust in geopolitical arenas (Nye, 2004), so too can individuals with predatory "skins" exploit the empathic inclinations of teachers, social workers, or even policymakers.

Specialized professional tools—from educational assessments to clinical diagnostics—often prove inadequate instruments against the sophisticated architecture of the 'magical skin'. Educational assessments may capture performed competence but miss suppressed anxiety or creativity. Clinical diagnostic criteria, heavily reliant on self-reporting and observable behavior, can be confounded by a well-maintained facade, as starkly illustrated by the historical concept of the "mask of sanity" in psychopathy (Cleckley, 1988, cited in Sec IV). Criminological risk assessments might be skewed by a "skin" of remorse or, conversely, by a defiant posture adopted as a protective layer. Social work intake processes may only scratch the surface of the client's reality if the presented "skin" is one of extreme neediness or, alternatively, impenetrable self-sufficiency. Even policymakers, attempting to gauge societal sentiment or the impact of past interventions, often grapple with data derived from performative public opinion or systemically encouraged declarations, rather than the authentic, often "hidden transcript" experiences of the populace (Scott, 1990). The historical analyses of figures like Eichmann, whose "skin" of bureaucratic normalcy masked complicity in unimaginable atrocities (Arendt, 1963), or the systemic corruption that can flourish under situational pressures as demonstrated by Zimbardo (2007), serve as grim reminders of how profoundly misleading outward appearances can be, and how deeply systems can shape the "skins" individuals are compelled to wear.

The sheer cumulative weight of understanding required to navigate this labyrinth effectively creates an almost insurmountable analytical burden for any human professional. To truly "profile" and comprehend "the person behind the magical skin," one would ideally need to synthesize the insights from the preceding sections of this essay: a deep knowledge of psychological artifice (Section II), the historical and societal forces that forge "systemic skins" (Section III), the potential for suppressed volatility (Section IV), and the broader systemic dynamics that incubate and reward inauthenticity (Section VI). This demands an encyclopedic grasp of history, psychology, sociology, cultural nuances, and the specifics of individual and systemic contexts—a breathtakingly complex task that highlights the "wow, it is impossible for a human" momentum we are building. It is this overwhelming complexity that makes value-based decisions and appropriate actions so extraordinarily difficult. The psychological toll on these professionals—the pedagogue facing a classroom of enigmatic "skins," the psychologist peering into the shadows of a defended psyche, the social worker battling systemic indifference to help the true "person behind"—is immense. Compassion fatigue (Figley, 1995), moral injury (Litz et al., 2009), and profound cynicism are common occupational hazards when one's daily work involves attempting to penetrate these pervasive and often painful "magical skins" within systems that may offer little support for such deep engagement. This widespread perceptual crisis, affecting not just leaders but the very fabric of our helping and guiding professions, thus underscores a fundamental vulnerability in our capacity to understand and respond authentically to human beings in an increasingly mediated and performative world.

VI. Discussion: The Pre-AI Incubators of the Systemic "Skin" – Our Enduring Attachment to Inauthenticity

Why, despite its profound costs to authentic selfhood, does the allure of the "magical skin"—the System-Bound Persona—persist so tenaciously across individuals and societies, particularly in the pre-AI era? This section, functioning as a critical discussion, explores not merely the mechanisms of masking but the very psychodynamics that render human systems and individuals so susceptible to the comforts of performativity. It delves into the profound attachment to what might be termed "statistic experiences": the safety of predefined roles, the inertia of the status quo, and the cyclical recreation of group identities that often prioritize conformity over the complexities of individual authenticity. Even facing historical evidence suggesting the eventual dysfunction of overly rigid systems (as witnessed in the Soviet collapse detailed in Section IV), why do corporate cultures so often replicate feudalistic demands for performative loyalty, and why do societies persist in betting on "skin positivism" and group-based "skin identity" rather than fostering the often more challenging path of genuine individuality?

Human psychology itself seems predisposed towards the ostensibly secure haven offered by conformity and the status quo, making the predefined 'skin' a tempting shield against ambiguity. Adopting a pre-defined societal or group "skin" offers ready-made scripts for interaction, belonging, and validation, reducing cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) when personal beliefs clash with group or systemic demands. The well-documented power of conformity pressures (Asch, 1956) and the fear of social isolation, which can lead to a "spiral of silence" where dissenting authentic voices are suppressed (Noelle-Neumann, 1984), further entrench this reliance on accepted "skins." Human beings, as social creatures, gravitate towards inclusion, and if the price of that inclusion is the adoption of a particular "skin"—be it within traditional "casts, unions, groups," or modern ideological tribes—many will pay it. This "pride identity" linked to the group "skin," as Haidt (2012) explores in the context of moral matrices, can become so powerful that it actively "destroys individuality," rendering personal authenticity subordinate to collective performativity. The decline in certain forms of broad social capital (Putnam, 2000) may even exacerbate this, leading individuals to cling more fiercely to the simplified and often exclusionary "skins" offered by more narrowly defined in-groups.   

Nowhere does this preference for the secure 'skin' find more fertile, if paradoxical, ground than within modern corporate cultures, which frequently recreate neo-feudal demands for performative loyalty. Despite the rhetoric of innovation and empowerment, many organizations foster environments where performative loyalty to the corporate "fiefdom"—a kind of "skin patriotism"—and adherence to superficial norms of "positive attitude" (Sennett, 1998; Ahmed, 2010) are valued above critical thinking or authentic engagement. This occurs even when historical precedents, including the ultimate unsustainability of inauthentic Soviet-style command systems, demonstrate that such cultures breed cynicism, stifle creativity, and are often "doomed to failure" in the long run due to their inability to adapt to complex realities. The persistence of such corporate "skins" may stem from leadership anxieties about control, the ease of managing a compliant workforce, or a collective immersion in what Baudrillard (1994) termed "simulacra"—where the performed image of organizational harmony and efficiency becomes more valued than the often messier, more complex reality of human endeavor.

Amplifying these dynamics dramatically, the initial era of digitalization—the pre-AI landscape of social media and online avatars—generated a powerful 'statistic momentum' for adopting 'magical skins,' often recreating Soviet-style pressures for social conformity. Digital avatars in games and early social networks became explicit "skins," allowing individuals to project idealized or strategically crafted personas. These platforms often fostered a "statistic" representation of self, reducing complex individuals to profiles, follower counts, and easily digestible, often static, online identities. The mechanisms of social control, though different from overt state coercion, were nonetheless powerful: the instant feedback loops of likes and shares, the fear of online shaming or "cancellation," and the algorithmic creation of echo chambers (Sunstein, 2017) all encouraged the adoption of "skins" aligned with specific digital tribes or prevailing online sentiments. This often led to a performative virtue signaling, where the "skin" of ideological purity or heightened social awareness became a currency, mirroring the "socialist correct citizen" whose public pronouncements had to align perfectly with the Party line. Within these curated digital spaces, a form of "groupthink" (Janis, 1972) could easily take hold, where the collective "skin" of the online community suppressed dissenting authentic voices and reinforced a shared, often simplified or distorted, worldview.   

Profound and controversial questions thus arise regarding the deep-seated societal 'bet' on performative identities—on 'skin positivism,' 'skin patriotism,' and group belonging—over the challenging cultivation of authentic individuality. Is this preference for the manageable, predictable "skin" an inherent feature of large-scale social organization, a necessary simplification for complex systems to function, however imperfectly? Or is it a persistent failure of societal imagination, a reluctance to embrace the true diversity and potential volatility that comes with genuine individual authenticity? The systemic investment in these "skins" often appears as a default strategy to ensure social cohesion and control, yet it simultaneously fosters the very conditions of inauthenticity, suppressed resentment, and hidden dysfunctions that this essay has explored. The "person behind the magical skin" is left to navigate a world that ostensibly offers freedom but systemically demands performance. The overwhelming complexity of these dynamics—the psychological allure of conformity, the feudal echoes in modern corporations, the unintended societal consequences of early digital technologies, the pervasive devaluing of raw authenticity—creates an almost impossible analytical burden for any human seeking to understand or lead effectively. It is this pre-AI landscape, saturated with "magical skins" and the often-unseen costs to the individuals behind them, that sets the stage for considering whether newer, more dynamic technologies like AI could ever genuinely help foster the individuality and authenticity that previous systems have so often suppressed, perhaps by offering pathways to truly personalized education, healthcare, social support, and even justice, thereby challenging the very need for such consuming "skins."

VII. Conclusion: Beyond the "Magical Skin" – Authenticity, Complexity, and the AI Promontory

Balzac’s allegory of the "magical skin" finds potent contemporary resonance in the System-Bound Persona, an entity revealed through this analysis as deeply entrenched historically, psychologically complex, and systemically nourished. We have traced its lineage from the overt coercions of totalitarian regimes, which instrumentalized human personality for state ends, to the subtler, yet potent, pressures of corporate cultures and the "statistic momentum" of pre-AI digital performativity that often recreated Soviet-style experiences of social conformity. The "person behind the magical skin," forced to suppress authentic emotions and individuality, has been shown to bear significant psychological costs, sometimes manifesting in the very volatility and antisocial potentials that the polished "skin" was intended to conceal. The preceding sections have built a compelling case for the overwhelming complexity of this dynamic, a "wow, it is impossible for a human" challenge for leaders, pedagogues, psychologists, criminologists, social service professionals, and policymakers alike, all of whom grapple with the profound difficulty of discerning truth from artifice, of understanding the authentic individual obscured by layers of systemic conditioning and performative adaptation. The sheer analytical burden involved in processing the historical, psychological, cultural, and situational data necessary for truly informed judgment often renders traditional human-led approaches insufficient, leaving well-intentioned actors navigating a perceptual labyrinth where value-based decisions and appropriate actions are perpetually at risk.

Into this landscape of enduring human dilemmas enters Artificial Intelligence, possessing dynamic, reasoning capabilities that offer a distinctly new lens for perception and analysis. If the pre-AI digital age often amplified the pressures towards adopting simplified, "statistic" social avatars and reinforced the "skin of formality," AI's advanced capabilities suggest a potential—though by no means guaranteed—to help humanity navigate reality with enhanced perception, fostering a revival of individuality and a more nuanced understanding of complex human character. The "wow" factor now extends to the possibility that AI can begin to process the intricate data sets that have historically overwhelmed human cognition, potentially helping to lift the "skin of formality" that has so often obscured genuine human potential and fostered systemic dysfunction.

The potential utility of AI extends directly into the challenging domains of leadership and professional practice where understanding human behavior is paramount. By analyzing vast, multimodal information streams—from communication patterns to behavioral indicators within ethical frameworks—AI systems might offer insights into the "person behind the skin" with a depth and speed previously unimaginable (drawing on the potential for data to reveal underlying social physics, as conceptualized by Pentland, 2014). This is not to suggest a simplistic technological determinism, but rather to explore how AI could augment human analytical and management capabilities. For instance, AI tools could potentially identify subtle incongruities between a performed "skin" and latent indicators of distress, talent, or even manipulative intent, thereby equipping leaders and professionals to move beyond the "archaic empathical ways" that are so often susceptible to bias or sophisticated deception (Tambe et al., 2019). This enhanced discernment could, in turn, foster more effective and targeted communication and cooperation, as interactions become grounded in a more comprehensive understanding of the individuals involved, rather than assumptions based on their "skins."

Beyond augmenting professional judgment, AI holds a distinct potential to champion individualism itself, counteracting the homogenizing systemic pressures previously discussed. A core promise lies in its capacity for profound personalization. Imagine AI-driven educational platforms that adapt to each student's unique learning style and innate talents, rather than forcing them into a standardized "skin" of the "good student." Such systems could help discover and preserve human talents that are currently crushed or overlooked by rigid social or educational formalization. In mental well-being, AI-driven conversational agents or personalized feedback systems could empower individuals in their journey of self-reflection, helping them to understand their own "skins" and the authentic self they may have suppressed, fostering more profound groundedness and a clearer perception of their reality (Inkster et al., 2018). Personalized healthcare, social care tailored to nuanced individual needs, even justice systems augmented by AI to reduce bias (though this is highly contentious)—all point towards a future where systemic responses are calibrated to the individual, rather than demanding the individual contort themselves to fit the system via a "magical skin."

Realizing any such potential for AI to foster authenticity hinges upon navigating its profound inherent risks and ethical quandaries. The very power of AI to analyze and influence human behavior could be co-opted to create even more sophisticated "magical skins," more pervasive systems of surveillance, or more deeply entrenched algorithmic biases that further marginalize or misrepresent individuals (O'Neil, 2016). The development of genuine human trust in AI systems, particularly those dealing with sensitive personal data and evaluative judgments, remains a significant hurdle, requiring transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to ethical principles (Glikson and Woolley, 2020). The "black box" nature of some AI decision-making processes could simply replace one form of opaque authority with another if not carefully managed.

The age-old struggle of "the person behind the magical skin" against systemic conformity thus enters a new, technologically charged era. The immense complexities that have historically made it so challenging for humans to navigate issues of authenticity and deception may find in AI a powerful, albeit double-edged, tool. The "wow" lies not only in AI's potential to process these complexities but in the profound responsibility that now falls upon humanity to guide its development. If wielded with wisdom, ethical foresight, and a genuine commitment to fostering human flourishing, AI could indeed help to thin the "skin of formality," empower individual authenticity, and equip leaders and professionals with unprecedented tools for understanding. Yet, without such vigilance, it risks becoming the ultimate architect of new, more imperceptible, and perhaps even more consuming, "magical skins." The quest for authenticity, therefore, continues, with the challenge now being to ensure that our most advanced creations serve the genuine "person behind," rather than merely refining the facade.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. and Sanford, R. N. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Ahmed, S. (2010) The Promise of Happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Arendt, H. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Arendt, H. (1963) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.

Asch, S. E. (1956) 'Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority', Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), p. 416.

Babiak, P. and Hare, R. D. (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York: HarperCollins.

Balzac, H. de (1831) La Peau de chagrin. Paris: Gosselin.

Bandura, A. (1999) 'Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities', Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), pp. 193-209.

Baudrillard, J. (1994) Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981).

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M. and Tice, D. M. (1998) 'Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), pp. 1252-1265.

Berkowitz, L. (1989) 'Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation', Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), pp. 59-73.

Christie, R. and Geis, F. L. (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Cleckley, H. (1988) The Mask of Sanity. Revised edn. Augusta, GA: Emily S. Cleckley. (Original work published 1941).

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. and Cooper, H. (2003) 'Cues to deception', Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), pp. 74-118.

Earley, P. C. and Ang, S. (2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ehrenreich, B. (2009) Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Ekman, P. (2003) Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. New York: Times Books.

Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Figley, C. R. (ed.) (1995) Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Flaubert, G. (1856) Madame Bovary. Paris: Michel Lévy Frères.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

Frijda, N. H. (1986) The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fromm, E. (1941) Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Glikson, E. and Woolley, A. W. (2020) 'Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research', Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), pp. 627-660.

Gross, J. J. (2015) 'Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects', Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), pp. 1-26.

Haidt, J. (2012) The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Hare, R. D. (1993) Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York: Guilford Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C. and Mandy, W. (2017) ‘“Putting on My Best Normal”: Social Camouflaging in Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), pp. 2519-2534.

Inkster, B., Sarda, S. and Subramanian, V. (2018) 'An Empathy-Driven, Conversational Artificial Intelligence Agent (Wysa) for Digital Mental Well-Being: Real-World Data Evaluation', JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(11), e12106.

Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jones, E. E. and Pittman, T. S. (1982) 'Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation', in Suls, J. (ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 231-262.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kelman, H. C. (1958) 'Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 1 pp. 51-60.  

Kohut, H. (1972) 'Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage', The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27(1), pp. 360-400.

Kramer, R. M. (1998) 'Paranoid Cognition in Social Systems: Thinking and Acting in the Shadow of Doubt', Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), pp. 251-275.

Laclos, C. de (1782) Les Liaisons dangereuses. Amsterdam: Durand Neveu.

Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C. and Maguen, S. (2009) 'Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy', Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), pp. 695-706.

Meloy, J. R. (2001) The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.

Millon, T., Grossman, S., Millon, C., Meagher, S. and Ramnath, R. (2004) Personality Disorders in Modern Life. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Morf, C. C. and Rhodewalt, F. (2001) 'Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model', Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), pp. 177-196.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.

O'Neil, C. (2016) Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.

Paulhus, D. L. and Williams, K. M. (2002) 'The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy', Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), pp. 556-563.

Pentland, A. (2014) Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Scott, J. C. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Snyder, M. (1974) 'Self-monitoring of expressive behavior', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), pp. 526-537.

Staub, E. (1989) The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stendhal (1830) Le Rouge et le Noir. Paris: Levavasseur.

Sunstein, C. R. (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tambe, P., Cappelli, P. and Yakubovich, V. (2019) 'Artificial intelligence in human resources management: A review and research agenda', California Management Review, 61(4), pp. 2-20.

Turkle, S. (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

Whiten, A. and Byrne, R. W. (eds.) (1997) Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilde, O. (1891) The Picture of Dorian Gray. London: Ward, Lock and Co. (Revised and expanded book version; original serial publication 1890).

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.