On Identity - thy neighbour and thyself

Paradoxically, it is only from the love of our neighbors that we truly learn how to learn how to love ourselves.

The conceptual aspects of personal representations and interpersonal relationships are the two key factors of our sense of social identity. The first concept of personal representations, or Gesellschaft as postulated by Tonnies, touches on our need of integration and fulfillment of needs. The second concept of interpersonal relationships, or Germeinschaft, states that our need of social integration is for membership and shared emotional connection- with these being the partial concepts of love.

Of course when I speak of social identity, I do not merely restrict it to the mere involvement of the group and the ‘community’; in this context, I would wish to expand this concept of social identity to the identities that are conferred to ourselves when we partake in society in general. From the working mother to the basketball team player, from the retro-junkie to the nineteen year old girlfriend, these ‘roles’ that we play are all part of the social identity that has been conferred to us by others- be it a child, a boyfriend, a basketball team or our society.

If we are to take a step further back, we can see that when we be that mother or that basketball player, that junkie or that girlfriend, it is ultimately for our personal interests and for love of the community (or just the love of the other individual). In the previous posts I have argued that love is indispensible even if involvement in the community is seemingly for personal interests. From there we allude that the love actually stems from the love of the community, or the love of one’s neighbor.

What does this lead to? I do not intend to be idealistic about such issues, but the conclusions are as follows:

We are who we are (personal identity) and who we are perceived to be (social identity).
Love is the primary reason (why) and action mechanism (what) of our social identity.
From our social identity we reaffirm our personal identities and learn about ourselves.
Hence, from the love of our neighbors we learn to love ourselves.

But as for today, we must understand that it would be irrelevant to dwell excessively into the order of appearance of love. Indeed, it is initially from our identification and emotional connection with others we get to distinguish the objective ideals of our personality; but it is from our personal distinguishments and personal representations that we partake in further communal activities with our neighbors. Perhaps there is an objective truth that the chicken came before the egg (or the other way around), but beyond the initial recognition, we must know that it is equally essential for the chicken, and the egg, to exist simultaneously should the life cycle continue to be. Be it the neighbor before the self, or the other way around as some may wish to argue- the love for either of these two categories cannot take presidency on one over the other owing to their order. This love must be equal in magnitude and value. As embodied by the teachings of Christ: love thy neighbor as thyself.

If we are to take concept of love as a form of union (this approach is embodied by Christianity), we see that as much as we are in union with others, we be in union with ourselves.

Now, how do the problems of de-individualization, masking, selfishness and narcissism arise? On closer scrutiny, we find out that these issues actually arise primarily out of the imbalance of love of one aspect over the other. De-individualization and ‘masking’ occurs generally when social identity or the obsessive love for thy neighbor overwrites and undermines the personal love and identification of the individual self. Selfishness and narcissism arises usually when self interests come before the necessary identification and love for and from thy neighbor.

In the previous post I have made a very slight acknowledgement of narcissism in the argument of self interest being the holistic reason of social identification. As we read that paragraph (once more), intuitively, we immediately form an impression that such people who argue as such are most probably self-centered and narcissistic. This is in line with the argument today because in both cases, the emphasis (resulting from the identification, and in turn from the love) on the self outweighs that of the neighbor. I do not wish to dwell overtly into this issue today; ethics has taught us more than enough on such issues, and I believe that all of us are responsible enough to recognize the importance of the neighbor as much as the importance of the self.

Instead, I would like to focus our attention to the issues of de-individualization and ‘masking’. These two issues are commonly faced by many people today, be it the teenager attempting to find his individuality among his peers, or the office worker struggling to be a competitive colleague and a loving father simultaneously. But yet society has yet to address such issues adequately as how it had tackled the former with ethics and morality. From our general knowledge, we know that the mass media has enslaved the masses to a mindless subjugation of whatever the media has to offer. We know that our youths ‘lose’ themselves in the groups they partake and the ‘youth culture’ they follow, which actually happens to too be partially the working of the media.

In sociological terms, de- individualization occurs where the individual is totally immersed within the group and no longer functions as an individual but as a group entity. This increases responses to the situation and leads to a loss of normal inhibition of behavior which may cause a person, acting with the group, to engage in anti-normative behaviors. Indeed, our society has not placed much attention on this issue primarily because although it diminishes personal identity, it allows easy control and manipulation and has its fair share of benefits, as stated succinctly:

De-individuation weakens people against performing harmful or socially disapproved actions.
De-individuation heightens peoples’ responsiveness to external cues, which may be positive (or negative).
De-individuation increases people’s adherence to norms that emerge with the group.

Indeed, it may be perfectly fine to lose one’s sense of personal identity over one’s social roles and responsibility. As far as society itself is concerned, as long as the individual does not create disorder for the community (or be a disorder to himself so much that it affects the community), there should be little problem for de-individualization and ‘masking’ (a sub-problem of de-individualization) to occur.

However we have to remind ourselves that life, as nature has created it to be biologically, is structured to diversify. The simple fundamental reason for heterosexual reproduction, and the concept of forming a completely unique DNA (that forms our personal identity) out of two different existing set of DNA, is to ensure personal identity for every individual. Be it the religious reason of God wanting each and every one of us to be unique, or the secular reason for the prevention of cloning and its disadvantages (that one virus can wipe out humanity); either way, it is evident that we were made to be individuals as much as we were made to be social. And since true identity (the united self) comprises to both aspects, it is imperative that should we wish to seek out the objective living best of our lives, we have to identify, and ‘love’ our neighbor just as how we identify and ‘love’ ourselves.

We now know that love has to be incorporated for identification to truly manifest. This is the reason on why professor Morrie had stated that in a tension of the opposites, love always wins. Be it for the self or for the neighbor, that balance of love is essential should we make the moral choices of following our personal identities or our social identities. This is owing to the fundamental fact that our identities are formed from the premise of love. And hence should we attempt make a decision, and should we wish to be ourselves all the way, it is imperative that we make this decision by love- to ourselves, or to our neighbors.

At this point in time I believe that I have made a holistic address on the topic of our identity. I have touched on the fundamentals of our personal identity: that our consciousness depends on the moderation of the four factors (logic intuition material and ideal), to interplay with our subconscious to form our psyche. With the combination of our psyche with our biologics, our personal identities are formed- to be realized only with the integration of our social identities on the aspect of love. And just as we are made for union (intercourse), we have been created unique individuals (genetics). The true identity, or the united self, would be an identity comprising of all of the above- with equal emphasis, identification, and love on the neighbor as of on the self.

It is from here I would leave you with the objective identity- and the pre-requisites of the ‘living best’ that we speak of. My next post would be a short address on the Meaning of Life- I would attempt to be as objective on my address on this issue as I can be, but nevertheless we must understand that from this point onwards most of the concepts raised would be essentially subjective in nature. I personally hope that all of us, now with the knowledge of our true identities and the fundamentals to the ‘living best’, attempt to live this ‘living best’ with our knowledge of the Meaning of Life, and from then onwards be ourselves, with or without this project.