Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CyberChimp]

To what extent do you think that we are each influenced by family, friends, institutions, culture, the media, etc?  Are you free?  Unique?  Unified and distinct?

[mouse90]

I think we are all unique to an extent. If people ever question who they we can always look to our genes, our name, our and physical attributes for an answer (or ‘forensic identity’) or as Homer mentioned, the story of Odysseus returning home after 20 years and proving his identity through a scar and intimate secrets. No one person is the same in this sense; we are grounded by these facts. However I do believe that family, friends’, culture and the media do sculpt out personalities, the way we think, the things we trust and buy, values and traditions we adopt and choices we make. We are therefore constrained to be entirely free and unique because although we feel like we are making our own decisions and following our own trends; it is fundamentally the world that we live in that predominantly moulds our identities and constructs the ‘self’.
Due to such heavy and on-going consumption the self is always changing, therefore I think you define parts of your identity by your personality, morals and decision which generally stay constant, and your interests, hobbies and clothes you wear are the variables that you experiment with.

[Dominique]

All of the above mentioned are highly influential mediums that effect us to a certain extent. In the seminar we discussed 'forensic' and 'psychological' identity, drawing on the fact that one is fixed and the other subjective. Forensic identity, as mentioned in the reader, is like a fingerprint - it defines who you are as a 'physical' self. It is important to remember that this form of identity emerged due to political issues and 'keeping tabs' on society for apparent security reasons. It is argued that this form of identity is unique in terms of DNA data, like all the different type of animal species and plants that exist.

In my opinion, our environment influences our 'psychological' identity (Giddens refers to it as a narrative story that always changes). In our capitalist society, we are lead to believe that we are unique when we purchase certain goods whereas in fact they are just materialistic extensions of the 'self'. These items are also mass produced and extremely similar to each other (e.g computers, phones, clothes, kitchens, etc.) Their value and purpose is of the same- to entertain, to communicate, to wear.

As human beings we are disturbingly easy to influence psychologically, so it is of no surprise that the Media and Politicians take great advantage of this. I think nowadays it would be impossible to not be mentally influenced by anything, be it your family, culture or even less complex mediums. Most of us have subjectively accepted this process as it is a major part of society and cohabiting together.

I do not think any of us are 'distinct' or 'unique'. It is a pessimistic way to look at it but everything has it's price tag or market value. We are now subjected to everything we consume like lab rats, with our beliefs being pushed aside. This has given rise to a number of negative connotations such as stereotypes, and consequently, we blame each other for our problems.

[Paolo Ruffino]

Thanks, both are really great comments!
You both acknowledge that, when looking at the “self”, we can see a fixed part and a fluid one, as we discussed during the last seminar. However I would avoid considering one view as more correct than the other: they both coexist, despite contradicting each other.

An example which might be interesting for you, is this documentary by Adam Curtis, “The Century of the Self”. I was watching the first part last night, called “Happiness Machines”. It is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxfArTAcfM

The documentary is about "the rise of the all-consuming self" and debates the foundation of consumerism in psychoanalysis (mostly Freud and his followers). It is an interesting and fascinating documentary, and I'm sure you'll enjoy watching it.

It is interesting though to see to what extent we can really claim that advertising can actually manipulate the self, as it appears from Adam Curtis' reconstruction. Wouldn't that account for an abstract idea of the self? If the self can be manipulated, aren't we assuming that this animal, instinctive, contradictory force is actually perfectly predictable, and therefore not so out of control? And can we actually claim this as a fact that applies to each singular human being? And how can there be an external director, a human being (or a group of human beings) who rationally manipulates the others and therefore escapes from this irrational tendencies? Isn't it an historically and culturally located view of the self, as the forensic and the post-modern selves that we have discussed during the seminar? There are some assumptions in these narratives, and it is our job to consider them – despite this, the documentary is very well done and really nice to see!

[Bubu]

Renowned theorists, researchers, sociologists and anyone who has dedicated their time to the study of identity of the "self" can to a certain extent explain what it exactly means to be unique or to have an identity. However, I believe that understanding your true self and who you are in this world can only be achieved through experiencing change or differences in family, friends, institutions, culture, media or whatever it is you experience. As someone with multiple citizenship, who attended an international school all my life and has a family that follows three different religions, although it might all sound overwhelming I believe that I am extremely fortunate to be able to experience all three aspects of these cultures. At times it can get confusing as to which part of my family I identify myself with the most; however, through having international friends, experiencing multiple cultures, watching television, listening to the radio or reading books in four different languages enables me to truly understand the unique influences that make me the person I am today. Through these experiences I believe that experiencing diversity first hand is a far more powerful and deeper process of understanding ones "self" instead of reading literature and attempting to mold yourself into a specific identity that has been described. Uniqueness comes from expression and the unification of our experiences and backgrounds that develops our character and culture.     

[Paolo Ruffino]

Thanks Bubu,
I think your experience can be really useful when we'll be discussing during the seminars.

Let me ask you one question: what do you mean when you talk about the "process of understanding one's self"? I think this expression you have used is extremely interesting. What is exactly this process? Is it a process that can come to some sort of conclusion?

Renowned theorists, researchers, sociologists and anyone who has dedicated their time to the study of identity of the "self" can to a certain extent explain what it exactly means to be unique or to have an identity. However, I believe that understanding your true self and who you are in this world can only be achieved through experiencing change or differences in family, friends, institutions, culture, media or whatever it is you experience. As someone with multiple citizenship, who attended an international school all my life and has a family that follows three different religions, although it might all sound overwhelming I believe that I am extremely fortunate to be able to experience all three aspects of these cultures. At times it can get confusing as to which part of my family I identify myself with the most; however, through having international friends, experiencing multiple cultures, watching television, listening to the radio or reading books in four different languages enables me to truly understand the unique influences that make me the person I am today. Through these experiences I believe that experiencing diversity first hand is a far more powerful and deeper process of understanding ones "self" instead of reading literature and attempting to mold yourself into a specific identity that has been described. Uniqueness comes from expression and the unification of our experiences and backgrounds that develops our character and culture.     

[Bubu]

I believe that defining this notion is extremely difficult as it is unique to each individual. While some might feel content and complete at a young age, others might still be searching for that feeling of peace with themselves. The conclusion is another aspect that differs depending on each person. The plethora of experiences we all live through individually shape us, similar to puzzle pieces making creating the full puzzle. However, some may have more puzzle pieces than others to finish the puzzle or perhaps have a continuous search throughout their lives and never be complete. I do not believe that feeling complete or incomplete is either good or bad just different. Whether you feel complete through having a family, graduating from university or simply returning home after a long day, the friends, families, cultures and whatever else it is that makes us is what ultimately gives the feeling of peace with yourself. Traditionally, the process of self-discovery is described with the aid of age boundaries. Whether you are a university student at 20 or have a full-time job at 20, this "on the surface" categorization of what stage one is in their life is extremely simplistic and maybe even wishful thinking. We try to make things a lot simpler to be able to understand everything as we do not like uncertainty. However maybe it is the uncertainty that give you the feeling of peace rather than the label. 

[Dominique]

Bubu- I share the same experience as you regarding my identity and how it has been constantly shaped by different forms of culture, media and religion.

Last year I wrote an essay about shaping one's identity, and how it is effected (whether in a good or bad way) by multiculturalism and bilingualism.

You mention that you are sometimes confused by your identity, is that due to a confusion of the self or is it more of a temporary overwhelming feeling?

I personally would say my identity is a collective rather than a singular entity. I am, what some theorists have described, a 'Third Culture Kid'.
For example, my father is Scottish, my mum is Polish, I lived in several European countries and constantly had to adapt to change. I attended European schools to enable me to communicate in whatever became my first, main language.
I am thankful for these experiences and feel extremely privileged but I am yet to find an answer to this simple question I always get asked: 'What nationality do you consider yourself?' (In my opinion nationality is a major part of identity).

I just wondered, as you stated, if any of the experiences you mentioned might have hindered your process of the formation of 'the self'?



Paolo- I just finished watching the first few minutes of the documentary, and I'd like to consider Freud's statement about human beings having 'primitive, sexual and aggressive forces'. Aren't these urges what ultimately separates us from everything else as we are able to combine them with rationality, logic and distinction between fantasy and reality?

I think those who do believe in evolution would argue that yes, we do embody some of these 'animalistic' traits but they will always be part of our human character. We just learn to control these more effectively as we progress psychologically.

[Molly Ko]

I think from time to time we are all somehow influenced by the people around us subconsciously;the way people dress, brands that they are using, the way they talk, and even maybe the way they walk. One's identity is shaped by the people around them most of the time.

Everyone wants to be "part of the group". We want to be seen and accepted. Hence, we tend to do what others are doing, to fit into the group. Apparently, we always choose to be around with people we feel comfortable being with to suit our own personality.  In effect, "those group of people" often serve to reinforce our personality, our opinions and our thoughts as much as they influence our daily decision making. Very often, we are in dilemma of making certain decision-to do, or not to do. Then, we will seek advice from the people that we trust. Here it goes, once again we are taking short cuts to make decision emotionally. It might not be the way you want it to be, but FRIENDS said so, FAMILIES said that's the best for you.

Most of the times, we are even influenced by the people that we don't even know. We often overlook at what what other's might think of us, that without realizing, someone that you don't even know is actually shaping you to become someone you are not.

[Bubu]

Dominique- It is very interesting that you bring up the idea of being a Third Culture Kid as that is something I have read and been taught a lot about; however, never really heard anyone who knew about it. I completely agree as well with my identity being a collective entity; hence, the puzzle example I gave. As you grow older in a multi-cultured family, I believe that you are able to express yourself a lot easier because there are aspects of each culture you want to consider part of your identity or a piece of the puzzle. Personally, my education has had a lot to do with the formation of "my self". I absolutely do no think that I am complete in any way nor do I think I will feel complete any time soon, as I am fascinated about experiencing new cultures. However attending and international school, the word judgmental never entered my mind and I did not even know the true meaning of discrimination until graduating. Some might consider this a "bubble" and not an imitation of reality, which is true; however, the ability to look past someone's eye color, skin color, nationality, etc. is to me the essential part of the process of forming my "self". To be able to form my "self" I need to understand others around me and understand that as much as we are all different we are all equal. My education introduced me to the process of forming my "self" and I believe that the most valuable lesson I learned was to look beyond the physical and social to try and comprehend the personal.

[rihanna123]

Having read the Consumer identity seeker it has made me question how much of our identity is constructed by external influences, and how unique we really are. The material culture is very much an influencing factor. This in itself makes me wonder how much I buy into a certain trend to improve my extended self. Do we as individuals worry how we are perceived by others. Are we creating our own individuality in this way. I believe we are very much influenced. For me personally I always wonder why a new product makes me feel better, if only for a very short amount of time. Take for example buying a new pair of shoes, I wear them once feel different but then nothing actually changed I am the same person! It's all very much in the way we perceive ourselves. We could argue that identity construction is very much part of our contemporary culture derived from this money orientated world we live in. There is definitely an addictive nature to this type of consumption, people constantly want better, a better car, a bigger house. We are driven so much by this constant idea of up grading. Maybe its human nature to always strive for better. Having read 'Identity Seeker' the authors examine whether consumer culture creates long term dissatisfaction, dependency and meaninglessness. I believe it can have a psychological effect, we are relying so much on creating and finding ourselves very much through this material culture, and mass consumption. There's a huge celebrity culture, and we are often given conflicting messages by advertising agencies; 'Buy this cream and you will feel 10 years younger' these constant messages are very much present in today's culture. I do believe that identity seeking is very much a natural process, we all have our own interests whether it be through our social circle or through other factors. However we do have choice. The idea that uniqueness is not given but is achieved is quite an interesting standpoint. As psychologists believe crowds of people lose their individual identity and become one with the mass. We could argue that there are many strands to identity hence why groups draw their sense of identity from each other whether it be an ethnic group, political group or a set of people who share the same beliefs and aspirations. So my final point is that identity can be very much shaped by external influences, but we all have our own sets of ideologies and values which means we are very adaptable to different influences, very accepting of change. This leads us to build up our own expectations in the way we perceive ourselves. 

[Paolo Ruffino]

Paolo- I just finished watching the first few minutes of the documentary, and I'd like to consider Freud's statement about human beings having 'primitive, sexual and aggressive forces'. Aren't these urges what ultimately separates us from everything else as we are able to combine them with rationality, logic and distinction between fantasy and reality?

I think those who do believe in evolution would argue that yes, we do embody some of these 'animalistic' traits but they will always be part of our human character. We just learn to control these more effectively as we progress psychologically.

Sorry for the late answer. Well, truth is probably "in between", as you suggest :) we are animals and, as such, we have some traits, as those analysed by Freud, that are going to be part of our behaviour for a very long time. But as Dawkins suggests we are also capable of controlling, to a certain extent, our cultural traits, and we can overcome the aggressive forces described by Freud. Although, as psychoanalysis maintains, these are going to stay somewhere in the background, emerging as oppressed desires. We should consider however, I believe, rationality as an anti- or non-'animalistic' trait. There are different forms of 'rationality' that are traceable in many animal species and the fact that we have developed a refined level of rationality (mostly an high capacity of managing and reflecting on our own rationality) does not mean that this is detaching us from the animal kingdom.

Look, if you like, at the brilliant work by Roger Caillois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Caillois. His style tends to be exaggerated but his findings on animal mimicry are still unmatched for studies in both anthropology and biology. He discusses about mimicry as a natural instinct of any living being, as an highly irrational force (contrary to popular belief, which tends to consider it as a rational endeavour to protect the species) and connects this desire with several myths. You might consider it a bit of an extra reading, as he really goes on a track we are not considering fully in this module, but is a pleasant reading in any case. His (in)famous and strongly debated essay on the Praying Mantis is on "The Edge of Surrealism. A Roger Caillois reader" (2003).

[maryjane]

I believe that we are always influenced by other people in order to fit in to a 'certain group'. We are born in to a certain religion because of the belief within your family. Family I believe influences you the most because we feel they know whats best for us, and you don't want to disappoint them or go against their wishes.

Media influences us with what we believe is beautiful,trendy and aspirational. for example, whether we choose to buy a pc product or an apple product is influenced by what we see in the media. all around us we are bombarded with messages about what we should do, buy, say, look like in order to be an accepted "cool" member of our own society. we are free to make choices but the choices we make reflect these messages. nobody wants to choose what is considered cheap, 'uncool'. as for whether we are unique, i believe that we ARE all our own person. nobody can see inside our heads and our thought processes are our own. we each look different and may value different things. perhaps one person and their group believes that blackberrrys are cool and desirable, whereas another may think the same about the iPhone. at the same time we want to 'fit in' to our own group and in this was we conform to what is around us, although we may put our own personal twist on things. this is particularly apparent in fashion. something may come into fashion that an individual believes is ugly (eg. when ponchos were fashionable) but that the whole may think is desirable. you can then make a personal decision as to whether to conform to the norms of society and go against your own beliefs or stick to your guns and perhaps not be included in the 'cool' group.

[zippy]

I guess you could slightly relate this notion to the idea of 'nature v nurture' - is our identity part of who we are, our DNA etc, or are we who we are because of how we've been brought up? In my opinion, while your genetics may affect your behaviour slightly, I think everyone is hugely influenced by the world around them, no matter how much they'll deny it. Some people may say that those who deny this are only doing so because of the influence of the world around them - they are purposefully going against the 'norm' but then they wouldn't be going against the 'norm' unless they were influenced by it, surely? You don't have to influenced by something in a positive way.

It can be said that the media is one of the most influential things in the world today, which I find quite worrying as a very small amount of what the media says can influence people positively. We're constantly reading articles on how so-and-so has become too skinny but then 6 months later they're too 'fat'. As much as we'd like to think people aren't affected by things like this, they are and so it means our identity is constantly changing. Just look at fashion magazines - one month a certain dress is in fashion and then next week it's not, so we're constantly being told to 'update' our look and therefore we're updating our own identity.The fashion element can relate back to McLuhan who wrote that clothing was an extension of our bodies.

I agree with maryjane, we are constantly striving to be socially 'acceptable' and the iPhone is a great example of that.

[Fúnke]

Much like my opinion on most things regarding the nature or nurture argument, whether it's a Chomsky vs Skinner type debate on language, or something on a smaller scale, personally I think it's usually a bit of both. Things like our interests, aims in life, etc., I think are all more to do with nurture, and feed off the people we meet or the things we see and hear. Whilst our capacity to learn, and how capabable we are at doing others things that rely more on our biological make up I think is to do with nature.

Obviously these things are likely to crossover in parts and it would be hard to categorically say one thing is exclusively nature or nurture. But going back to the topic at hand regarding the self, I personally believe it is certainly more to do with our surroundings and the effects it has on us as a person that make us who we are, which let's not forget, is constantly changing due to outside influences that alter our interests and opinions, thus nurture plays a more significant role in the self.