On Identity - on the transition to social identity

Man was never made to transverse upon this world alone. This is the fundamental reason why humans have been, since the beginning, social.

Over the past few excerpts we have discussed about the makings of the individual. We have focused greatly on the conscious self and how it is via Moderation and objective qualitative achievement that we may find the ‘living best’ that we seek. Indeed, we may theoretically understand ourselves holistically if we were to explore down to every nook and cranny of our thoughts and feelings or give serious consideration to all our prior explorations and commitments as demonstrated in Erikson’s Psychosocial Development model. But we must understand that Identity, being an abstract concept itself, is impossible to define empirically. Even with the given framework of personal continuity and consciousness, which most scholars tend to work upon, we know that the concept of Identity is more than just the self-perception of the conscious self. Just as how our identities are also dependent on Biological and subconscious factors (although I had not dwelled into the details because it is very difficult to change their existing traits), there are other factors that need to be considered before we may transit from the ‘workings’ to the ‘functioning’s’ of ourselves.

Now, some of us would have immediately realized that there is a very major factor that I have not addressed in this topic of identity. A simple question of ‘who are we?’ usually entails a legitimate response of not only our workings in both biological and psychological disciplines, but also about the roles and assumed responsibilities we play in society. As much as we are strands of DNA and a personalized balance of Logic and Intuitive feelings, we are also fathers and daughters to people around us. We are office workers and managers of the companies we work in; we are counselors and teachers, students and trouble-makers. In fact, more people would actually give a reply of the latter over the former two.

Why? The reasoning is rather straightforward and obvious: what good does it does to me to know that you’re genetically structured as such or what specific point in the balance does your psyche lay? Now, it may be objectively good to know that those factors also make you- but that is no more than for your personal reference and understanding. To me, I am more interested in your personality in general and the roles you assume in our society. It is more constructive for me to know that you’re a happy and outgoing student and daughter of nineteen years of age for you to be a prospective girlfriend, rather than the arrangement of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms in your cells or the exact thoughts and feelings that run through you that makes you be that happy and outgoing person that I perceive you to be.

Of course, we still have to understand that thoughts and feelings are essential to address if we wish to understand and control better our personalities and our conscious being. But if we are to fully understand about our existence, we need to not only consider it from a personal point of view, but also from the subjective point of views of those around us about us.

From which lies the transition from psychological identity to social identity. As described succinctly:

In psychology, a psychological identity relates to self-image (a person's mental model of him or herself), self-esteem, and individuation. An important part of identity in psychology is gender identity, as this dictates to a significant degree how an individual views him or herself both as a person and in relation to other people. In cognitive psychology, the term "identity" refers to the capacity for self-reflection and the awareness of self

Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from the learning of social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her identity.

Psychologists most commonly use the term "identity" to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. Meanwhile, sociologists often use the term to describe social identity, or the collection of group memberships that define the individual. However, these uses are not proprietary, and each discipline may use either concept.

From here, there is a myriad of issues that we are able to address. For a start, we now know that there are now two broad categories to distinguish Identity- namely personal and social identity. Biology, Consciousness and sub-consciousness would generally fall under the first category of personal identity- not because it is entirely personal; but rather just because less people would be concerned with these aspects of our lives. Roles, responsibilities and personality traits would then generally fall under the second category of social identity; of course without compromise of personal identification from them.

Our full identities definitely comprise of all of the above.

But intuitively, we immediately know that this transition from personal and social identity is not as a simple integration an integration of both aspects. We know that there is actually a great discrepancy between the way we look at ourselves, and the way society looks upon us. And we know that it is precisely because of this fundamental reason why people choose to put on the ‘masks of life’ and have ‘split personalities’. After all, if we were to be made of a personal conscious ego- to a certain personal aspiration; and at the same time equally denoted by the conformity of social responsibility to do otherwise; how are we able to be ourselves throughout without the expense of ourselves in the first place?

Moreover, we are also aware of the increasing state of de-individualization of individuals today. De-individualization is defined as the diminished sense of personal identity out of social conformity or for social recognition. Indeed, identification of oneself in a social context is believed to allow one to gain a sense of positive self esteem, a sense of self categorization, and a further sense of distinctness. But we are aware (see on Logic Education and Our Lives Part 2) that over-emphasis of the technicalities over the true philosophy of a system can warp logic and lead to integrity failure. The same holds for the act of identification of oneself in a social context- or in layman’s terms, socializing. We return to the topic of Teenage Culture which we had studied extensively on General Paper- the main by-product problems of Teenage Culture includes a diminished sense of ‘self-identity’, stereotyping and Identity confusion. It is also no wonder that in Erikson’s Psychosocial Development Model, the crisis of Identity and role-confusion is generally touched by Adolescences (see The Qualitative Consciousness).

If simple integration has been impossible to reconcile both aspects of our identities, how are we going to find the objective ‘living best’ of ourselves? From the beginning we have acknowledge the existence of an objective truth in this world. And it is from this we have established a need of moderation and balance of logic and intuitive feelings, in both material and ideal conditions- to find the objective makings of ourselves. From here, we have returned to the former question of objectivity and subjectivity. From the subjective-objectivity of our biology and our consciousness, to the objective-subjectivity of the roles we play to others and ourselves (no I am not playing with my words); how are we to find the Objective answer to our true identity, without falling into the traps of personality ‘masking’ and De-individualization as many people of the world have fell victims to?

This I believe requires on final concept to be addressed- not as a means of moderation of ‘the tension of the opposites’; but more as a means to re-alignment of both personal and social aspects of our identity as quoted in the book Tuesdays With Morrie by Mitch Albom. Indeed, this concept could be considered the most congenial of concepts that have been addressed in this entire project, but paradoxically it’s a concept that we have most often taken for granted in our lives. I would be addressing this final concept in the next post, but meanwhile, do allow me to re-quote an excerpt from the book-

“A tension of opposites, like a pull on the rubber band. And most of us live somewhere in the middle.”
Sounds like a wrestling match, I say
“A wrestling match,” He laughs. “Yes, you could describe life that way.”
So which side wins, I ask?
He smiles at me, the crinkled eyes, the crooked teeth.
“Love wins. Love always wins.”