[quote Tom Coates] I guess that leads me to a few questions - is the process of self-narrativisation to explain one's self a relatively recent one, if it is not - is it a necessary biological / mental function to try and rationalise an underlying biological certainty that we have no choice over one way or another. To what extent, then, do life events really have an impact on our 'self', or is 'self' prebuilt and we make excuses for it by reference to events and history. [/quote]
my knowledge of modern psychology is miniscule, but i'd suggest this: the 'self' is only so far biologically/genetically pre-built as our bodies dicatate our perceived reality.
the human body can do a certain number of things in a certain number of ways. many experiences will not be attainable for an average human - at least not through/by his/her own body, but perhaps through exterior augmentation. thus, the 'self' of any human will be built within the physical and sensual confines of our bodies. what we see, the way we see it, how it feels, how it smells, how it makes our bodies react - these are all things that play into our experience of ourselves and determine our 'personality'. since these things are genetically controlled, it creates margins within which our 'personality', our 'self', can evolve. for instance: we do not see colors in the same way as a fly does, we do not smell like a cat does, we do not feel things the way an octopus does.
of course, within these genetic traits there are various modifications possible and probably a sheer endless number of variations, which might make any one person inclined to lean towards a 'self-evolutionary' direction more, than another. so, while i think that our physical selves strongly influence our sense of self and while i also believe that various biological traits of an individual can lead him/her to tend more into one or other 'self-evolutionary' (or 'moral' or 'worldview' or 'personal' or whatever) direction, i do not think that biological presetting determines moral values or makes psychological situations immovable. these are all things that can and will be shaped by our experiences and by our own will. nobody is born 'good' or 'bad' or 'depressive' or 'manic' (excluding here physical diseases with similar symptoms).
we become these things (in relation to the world we inhabit) and can also change these things arbitrarily.
[quote Tom Coates] Which leads me in another direction at all - narrative, continuity and history. Does a culture that believes something incorrect but positive about its history suffer from breaks or discontinuities, or could the experience for its citizens be a good one? Again - is a solid understanding of history important for the health of a nation, is such a solid understanding even plausible? What's the role of myth-making in this enterprise? Something to be faught against? Something to be celebrated and embraced? [/quote]
i do not know what you mean by 'solid understanding of history', but i assume you mean a 'correct', 'faultless' understanding of it. i'd say: no. hermeneutics are unavoidable when reviewing past events - therefore there can never be anything like a 'true history' or a 'faultless view of history', there can only be an approximation thereof.
based on this i would presume that within a hypothetical society that has no exterior influence, there will never be any discontinuity in their own view of history. everything will be filled out and related accordingly to fit, the skill of interpretation stepping in. for the nation in question it doesn't matter whether there are any incongruities or myths in its history, as long as it has to relate to itself only.
but, as soon as there are relations to other nations, to the outside, these 'rifts' in their historical interpretation will be measured up against the reviewing of those other nations. at this point it becomes crucial how those myths, exaggerations, breaks and shifts within one historical view compare against the same in another historical view. to give a very crude example: some german people might have lived on happily ever after with the myth of adolf hitler being a great man that tried to unite the world and bring bread and work to everyone and see it as a failed chapter in their history. but other views of hitler included the genocide, the warmongering, the insanity and so forth, which makes german people question their own myth and also their own guilt. (case in point: you see the drastic results often in elderly people that still deny the existance of concentration camps and the exodus, because their belief in that myth is too strong for them to give up on.)
since we can not and do not live our lives shut off from everyone else, myth-making and contradictions within any historical view will imo indubitably lead to conflict and friction. whether that is positive or negative i dare not say.
[i feel that i have missed something... but after several re-reads i still don't know what...] |