Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

What are the building blocks of identity?

18:10 / 20.12.02

So, if Identity is a construct - is something synthetic - what do we construct it from? Out of what is it synthesized?

I was talking to a friend about careers and futures and the like. And I mentioned that only recently have I started to notice people who answer, "It's complicated" or "Lots of things," when asked "What do you do?" And he, my friend, said that people don't need a cocktail party-sized soundbite to describe who and what they are.

And as much as that appeals to me, I also think that small mantras of identity are important as well, for when you wake up in the middle of the night and ask "what am I doing?" and for those surreal moments when you just can't really engage with the world and you need something simple to repeat to yourself to remind you what you're supposed to be doing.

So what do we make our identities out of?

Tryphena Absent

18:36 / 20.12.02

When people ask me what my degree is I usually say 'it's complicated and I can't really be bothered to explain' because every time I actually answer people try to talk about it and 60% of the time quote Descartes at me. The question often leads me to desire the death of the person asking.

The question that you ask is extremely complicated because I'm not sure our identities can be reduced to words, people react to their families and friends, schooling, likes and dislikes, the way they respond to drugs, the foods they enjoy, political affiliations, hobbies, illnesses and the things that they feel inhibit them and that is such a short list. The reactions construct them.

The fact that I answer 'it's complicated' is part of my identity, I'm impatient and have a short temper, the mantra that I use to control it ties in to that response.

20:53 / 20.12.02

when asked 'what do you do' maybe we no longer are asking 'what are you'. we maybe realise what we do is not what we are. identity is instead made of more than one thing.

solid~liquid onwards

12:21 / 21.12.02

Im working on an essay about the film memento. If youve seen it you'll know what im talking about. The main character cant make new memories ever since an incident. The movie starts atthe end and makes its way to the begining. And you find out that a lot of the things you thought he was at the beggining were not true. He has a nice car and suit, he thinks it was from innsurance money from when his wife died, but it eventually turns out that he stole it from a drug dealer at the end (begining) of the film. He thought the car and money were a part of his identity...its been a while since ive watched it, but you could start a thread all about leonard Shelby and whether he has an identity as he can never be sure about anything around him, and even thse things hes certain about are thrown into doubt, even his condition (ive had long debates about this) may not even be physical but psychological (very last scene where he stops at the tatoo parlour...does he do this out of instinct, has it not left his mind yet or is it proof or a hint that his condition is psychological, caused by his wifes rape & murder...in fact were not sure wether his wife did die as a result of the attack)

have i steered a little off topic? Is it our environment, people we know and certainties that give us identity...and what happens if these things dont apply to you?

17:56 / 21.12.02

No, Momento is totally on topic.

It's a real disorder, you know. Korsakov's Syndrome. Oliver Sacks wrote about it in The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat.

One of the most interesting things in the description was that the patient, Jimmy, didn't have feelings. "Jimmy, how do you feel?" "I can't say." "Do you feel happy?" "Can't say as I do." And so on. And Sacks asked the nuns who cared for Jimmy if they thought he had a soul, and they brought Sacks to the chapel, where Jimmy was sitting through mass with the same lost expression he always wore. The sermon, obviously, was lost on him.

But the music was not. When the hymns started, Jimmy's expression changed to one of ecstasy and transport.

So, even without memory, without feeling and without the capacity to learn, we can still be affected by music.

Which, I figure, says something about identity. I'm just not sure what.

solid~liquid onwards

23:06 / 21.12.02

yer link isnae working.

what defines me as me... depends who you ask, different people see me in different ways just as i show different people aspects of myself.

as for how i see me...hmmmm what i do, what i look like, who i talk to can change, am i still the same person i was when i was 5. Theres probablly some essence that will always be you, something spiritual i'd like to think...what a nice cop out

16:27 / 23.12.02

re: the music story.
what it says it that the things you say don't equal who you are.

06:43 / 30.12.02

One tactic is to consider the skills, abilities, actions and accomplishments as the components of identuty. The sum of our parts, so to speak. In this way, what we know and what we do are the telling signifigators of who or what we are.

Another is to consider how we feel, or what we believe in. For instance, perhaps we consider our religion to be the primary focus of our identity. There are a lot of ways to go about it. It seems to depend on which aspect of self you consider the most important.

Then there are folks like the Otherkin, who take the idea of identity to an entirely different level. Here, someone may be a tax accountant and a Christian, but if you ask them who/what they are, they might say "I'm an elf". But even that is just an emphasis on race, in effect.

So it seems to me that identity can be based on any component of self that you deem important enough.

As for me, I dodge this issue as I dodge many others, replying by pointing to the sigel I wear in answer, and telling that a longer answer will require a lengthy conversation, and a few drinks.

02:52 / 23.02.03

To me, identity is the sum of all your choices, conscious and unconscious. We define what we are by our actions, by the emotions we feel, and by the words we say. All these taken into account by society and by the people around us, create our identity. It is controlled by each individual person, or rather it can be. I attempt to control my identity by living a tight life. Everything i do, i try to do consciously with thought, and then without regret. This manner of action is in itself defining my identity, yet is only one piece of the puzzle that i am. I see identity as a controlled sum of percieved characteristics which can be used as a tool in controlling others, yourself, and the world around you.

07:49 / 24.02.03

hm..

I have always held the thoughts of material identity set forth by Marx and schopenhauer in high regard. I feel that we identify ourselves on the commodity which we purchase for our need to show status and elevation from the people under us.

This forms the main basis of the post-modernist explanation fo the identity we posses, it suggests that we create our identity through the plethora of purchases we make to do so. However there are exceptions to this logic, when considering monks and gurus, who give their material wealth in order to seek a spirtual existance. This then bucks the trend, but a counter could be raised that the lack of the need for commodity makes them more enlightened than the one who is seeking the use of the commodity to identify themselve. So this requirement to have 'more' enlightenment than your peer or fellow human suggests that there is a ground motive present, this is represented in the four laws of motivation schopenhauer presented (correct me if i am interpreting this the wrong way) so in turn does our motivation cause us to identify to different structures of behaviour and take the roles that we do take?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:34 / 24.02.03

If I understand correctly Schopenhauer, in The World as Will and Representation, argues that individual identity is an illusion, and that in fact this illusion is required to create divisions of self and other in order to maintain the function of the motivating force common to all selfs, the Will. The Will is the process by which things are desired, and can by definition never be entirely assuages, as without the desire for fulfilment the illusion of selfhood becomes incoherent. Could you explain a bit further how Schopenhauerian motivation ties into Marxist constructions of consumption?

I would suggest further that your understanding of postmodern identity as the product of purchase is limited - consumption rather than purchase might make for a stronger argument. Your guru is consuming, processing and generating identity structures, just as the wearer of a G-shock watch is. Yes?

13:30 / 24.02.03

Schopenhauer sounds very buddhist, almost. Any truth in this?

10:30 / 27.02.03

Could you explain a bit further how Schopenhauerian motivation ties into Marxist constructions of consumption?

I was relating it to material consolidation of effort. The work and effort that one places into something, must therefore be compensated with sufficient consolidation of that effort given. I know that Marx had an affinity with Hegel, and schopenhauer opossed all of the ideology set-forth by Hegel. So the connection might not be as strong as would be with those two. Now to relate to the actual act of consummerism, Marx stated continuos consumption as Material fethishism, this fetishism came through the lack of apreciating a certain 'level' of attainment, this is where I see the relation, Though marx sees this as caused through structure, I would relate it to the Indvidual, the greed 'inherant' through the individual, through the act of the 'will' causes the person to consume and attain, though this is a much more pessemistic view than that of Marx, the relation bears in the aquisition of commodity to consolidate material 'grounding' of the physicality of ones effort. This is my far fetched nexus .. Sorry if it offends those who have read more of Schopenghauer, as I have only read around 80 pages of the 1st volume of The World As Will and Representation. I am still reading, thus wil amend my stance in later posts if I see fit.

/CR

12:31 / 27.02.03

I'm a little drunk to think about this properly right now, but I think we're talking about two opposing forces here, namely self-identity, and the recognition - and subsequent identifying - of you by others. I've noticed that some of my 'identity', and my behaviour, is defined by how others see me, rather than how I view - or used to view - myself. Conversely, we can have an identifiable (ho ho) effect upon our 'identity' as it exists in the minds of others by altering our self-identity and behaviour accordingly.
To answer the topic abstract, I think the true source of identity is a construct of these two (social and personal) forms of recognition.

Lilly Nowhere Late

05:43 / 04.03.03

I used to have a client who, upon being asked "What do you do?",
regularly answered, "I breathe." I thought this was the most perfect
answer to a dull question. Breathing was indeed the one thing this
woman (and most of the rest of us) did consistently, all the time,
whether sleeping or waking, etc., blah,blah,blah. Because of my
profession, for almost 20 years I have been asking people on a regular
basis the question in question. The fact is, I would prefer as the
interrogator to know who the person is, not what they do, but there
must be a starting point. Sadly, the average human(according to my
vast experiences here in the UK and previously in the US)has so much
trouble knowing themselves that there is a natural reduction to
specifics. Its just easier for them. When people know themselves and
trust their natures and are able to be true to their own beings, the
world might be too damn perfect to tollerate. And as to the fabric
for the fictionsuit- something flimsy and gossamer and easily
flamable would do the trick, me thinks.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:42 / 04.03.03

I thought this was the most perfect
answer to a dull question. Breathing was indeed the one thing this
woman (and most of the rest of us) did consistently, all the time,
whether sleeping or waking, etc.

This reminds me of the gag about the acountant who is walking across a field on his day off when a hot air ballon descends from the sky. One of its pilots leans out and explains that they have been snatched from their mooring by high winds and have no idea where they are, and if he could tell them they would be most grateful as they have not been able to get below the clouds for a long time. In the moment before the wind snatches them away, the accountant replies, "You're in a hot air balloon." His answer is completely correct and utterly useless, as so many answers from accountants are.

Breathing aside, could you possibly expand a little on what being true to one's own being might involve, and how it would improve the world? According to Schopenhauser, the true part of the human being is unfulfilled desire, which suggests a thoroughly wretched life beckons for those who are true to their own being. Nietzsche said in the Birth of Tragedy that humans could not survive exposure to unmediated Will. Creation sees identity as being constructed from greed, it seems. Others, myself among them, would probably suggest that many conceptions of the "true self" are either naive, dangerous or simply misguided. How do you envisage the "true being" of an individual, how might it be realised, and what would the results be?

Ill - Uncle Friedrich certainly draws parallels between the pessimism of Schopenhauer and what he sees as the inertness of Buddhism IIRC; you could go further and see the Buddhist idea of nirvana as a parallel to Schopenhauer's aesthetic moment, where one is briefly unbound from Ixion's wheel of desire (his phrase, not mine, I hasten to add).