Factors Forming Our Self-Identification - Research Paper Example

What is Self? What are the factors that form identity? What should we consider important when thinking about our “self”? What is the role that our name, voice, appearance, clothes we wear, people we meet, play in the process of creating our identity? Throughout ages, psychologists and philosophers have been trying to answer these questions, examining the importance of such factors as our clothes (Davis, 5-12), the notion of social order, time and space (Zerubavel, 13-15), or for our “self”. There have always been many contrary views and ideas on this subject. While Benson, argue that everybody is a creator of their own self (31-43), Gazzaniga ( 2-4) who claims that we have no control over our “self” as our identity is biologically predetermined before we are born. Such authors as Goffman (226-234) and Cooley (293-295) focuses on the role of others’ perceptions in creating one’s identity, claiming that the sense of “self” always involves reference to others. In this essay, I am going to reflect on these issues, supporting my arguments with both theoretical works and empirical evidence I have gained, doing experiments proposed by Roger Dol-Proit in his book “Astonish Yourself! 101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life”. Ciaran Benson (45) states that all the stories we tell others about ourselves and our life form our identity; in other words, our own “self”. However, these stories are always told from a particular perspective and present our present subjective viewpoint of past events. We may edit our life, choose what to tell and what to leave unspoken. Thus, the shape of our life is highly subjective (Benson, 45). The process of creating our identity involves mental reintegration of all relevant changes that occur in our lives and in the societies we belong to as well as our feelings, reflections and evaluation of these events. It is not a solitary process; our “self” also involves the people we refer to. The way we think of our life and self actually creates it; we have no other life from that. Therefore, we are the only creators of our identity. In the same way we create ourselves, we also create our entire social order (Zerubavel, 13). We determine our values and priorities, friends and enemies, the issues of prior importance and trivialities. Such process of assuming things and individuals with a distinctive identity involves establishing boundaries, which help us to distinguish some entities from another. By the same token, every social system presupposes a fundamental choice of features that are crucial to establishing a particular social sratum. As an example, in Western societies such features as a high school diploma and a low-level managerial job label individuals in the middle class. These features differ between different societies as well as across historical periods (Zerubavel, 13). The creation of self also involves our perception of space and time. The spatial partitions we make often involve not only separating different chunks of space, but also such entities as ethnic groups, nations and cultures (Zerubavel, 14). We also use differentiation in space to express our mental differentiation. As an example, separate aisles in book stores enhance the mental process of separating fiction, biographies, comics, etc. Our perception of time enables us to separate relevant events, such as meetings, classes and shows and to create stories with beginnings and ends. Our notion of space and time is a very important part of our identity as we determine those events and places which are important for us and our “self”. Goffman (226-243) believes that our “self” is created in each social situation. When interacting with others, everybody tries to control or guide the impression others may have of them. In life, like in the theatre, there is a “front region”, where people’s desired impressions are highlighted. There is also a back region of stage – the situations, in which an individual is not interacting with others and does not need to perform his or her social role. Cooley (293-295) also focuses on a crucial role of the people we refer to in creation of our identity. He states that as our thoughts are always influenced by other people, communication is a crucial factor for nomenclature and developed thought. Consequently, the sense of self always involves the reference to other people, either particular-when we refer to an individual, or vague and general, when it comprises our sense of social responsibility. Moreover, in many cases our self-feeling is based on the way we assume it can be perceived and judged by others. For example, if we show anger in front of a calm person, we assume that he or she finds us and quick-tempered and unable to control our own emotions, which will definitely affect our self-esteem (Coley 295). Coley also states that our body becomes a part of our identity when it has a social function or significance. As we bring our body into social interaction, we become more conscious of it. I realized the social function of every part of my body belongs to my “self” when I did the experiment described by Roger-Pol Droit, which involves listening to one’s own voice. I have always been insecure of my voice being recorded as I assumed others found it annoying and disgusting. Thus, my feeling of insecurity was created by thoughts I perceived in imagination in others’ minds. It was hard for me to believe that I really spoke that way. However, as the Droit’s work explains, everybody sounds just the way they speak. This experiment has allowed me to realize that things are not always as they appear. Thus, perhaps we do not know ourselves as well as we assume and-as Gazzaniga states-we have no control over our “self”. Michael Gazzaniga (2) states that each of us is born with circuits computing information, which enables us to function in the world. Thus, our “self” is programmed biologically; we have no control of it. Everything we learn and think of is due to perceptual laws, delivered to our infant brain. Moreover, the left hemisphere of the human brain is programmed to interpret the data the brain has already processed. Thus, the mind is actually the last to be aware of information. What “we” see is often an illusion and does not comprise the whole information perceived by our brain. What is the role of our name in our identity? I have tried to answer this question doing the experiment “Call Yourself”, designed by Roger-Pol Droit. This experiment involves calling one’s own name over and over again. This experiment has inspired me to think of my name and its importance for my identity more in depth. I have realized that my name means more than just five letters put together. Nineteen years ago, when my parents gave it to me at birth, it became a symbol of my image. My name may have positive connotations for people who like me and feel happiness and joy when they hear it. This experiment has enabled me to realize the importance of my name for my “self”. It is a common view that our clothes make a certain statement. However, what is the nature of this statement? Do clothes make clear reference to who we are? Fred Davis (5) states that clothes and fashions constitute a species of code, which involves three crucial features: context-dependency, high social variability in the signifier-signified relationship and, at least in Western society, “undercoding” rather than precision and explicitness. The clothing-fashion code is highly context-depended as the “meaning” of an outfit varies depending upon the wearer’s identity, the occasion, the place, the company, and even the wearer’s and viewer’s mood. Moreover, there are great differences in a significance of a certain outfit or fashion trend for different publics and social groups. For example, while some professional and career women may associate a masculine and military style with power and authority, some fashion-conscious ladies may discard it as a visual affront to the conventions of feminity (Davis, 10). Therefore, due to the lack of reliable interpretative rules, the clothing code involves the process of undercoding-in other words, inferring the meaning on the basis of such subjective factors as non-verbal language, context, or setting. Thus, the meaning of our clothes may differ depending upon different context, viewers, and social situations (Davil, 12). As Benson (45) states, we are the creators of our identity. Thus, we are responsible for the way we see ourselves. The awareness of having control over our identity can help us to overcome even the most difficult situations; our problems may result easier if we look at them from a different perspective. An extreme example of controlling his life and “self” is presented in Kirby Dick’s film “Sick: The Life & Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist. Bob Flanagan was born with a cystic fibrosis, a disease which made his breath hard and painful. Practically, he was in pain during all his life. However, Bob decided to make a joke of his disease. He used his body as a canvas for gallery exhibitions, museum shows, and performances. He saw irony of his own situation and decided to fight pain with irony and black humour. It enabled him to see himself as an artist a creator, not a victim. The notion of “self” cannot be generalized as it comprises many different, often contrary factors, views and ideas. Those who want to feel in charge of their lives and identities will advocate Benson’s views as it may allow them to take responsibility not only for the creation of themselves, but also of their entire social order. They may also become more conscious of their bodies, voices, clothes and names as all these elements may become a part of their identities. In contrast, individuals who believe in fate will support Gazzaniga’s neuroscientifical theory and leave their “selves” to predetermined sequence of genes. Finally, people who pay attention to their public image will definitely support Coley’s and Goffman’s views on the role of others in creating our identity. Works Cited: Benson, Ciaran. The Cultural Psychology of Self: Place, mortality and art in human words. London: Routledge, 2001 Droit, Roger-Pol. Astonish Yourself! 101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life. London, Penguin Books Ltd, 2003 Davis, Fred. Fashion, Culture and Identity. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992 Gazzaniga, Michael. The Mind’s Past. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press O’Brien, Jodi (ed). The production of reality. Chicago: Pine Forge Press . Read More