Stepping Out and Stepping In
I have had my mind directed to a certain exercise this evening: What are the most important considerations when contemplating my own identity?
Made explicit, this strikes me as something people might consider a dry, perhaps pretentiously academic, cerebral act. But no. We do this constantly on a mostly unconscious level. Listening to another purposefully sift this sort of thing out was a great experience, so I am convinced of its worth and power. We'll see how it goes here, in my mimicry.
What am I? Canadian. Male. White. From a middle-class family. French in heritage. These are some basics, but I think that while they can say a fair bit about certain parts of me, they really are the least informative overall.
Being male is probably the condition that I am most consciously aware of most of the time. I am conscious that the things I say come out of a male body, and that influences how they are received. But beyond that, I find that I don't belong to any large, clearly defined, cohesive groups of people. I don't tend to identify very strongly with most men I encounter, for that matter. That is, maleness is not where I recognize the most important similarities happening in other people.
I see identity and culture as very closely tied up with one another. Part of culture is shared experiences. Not just common experiences, but shared ones. I suspect this is why 'anti-social' cultures are viewed with such suspicion. Who you are, for outsiders looking in, is often defined by what you are doing with which other people. If that activity is hidden, how can anyone make up their minds about what sort of person you are?
I'm trying to think of some of the kinds of experiences we try to share with one another.
Work. Movies. Books. Art. Sports. Food. Places. Rituals. And maybe most importantly, communication about our experiences, which is an experience itself.
People who act within and react to these things as we do, are our kin. The people who act and react in ways we want to ourselves, or in ways we strongly value, are our heroes. Our inspiration.
People who do these things differently are sometimes suspect. Why? Is it because if they react differently to these things, we think they may act differently, or more specifically, not act with our interests in mind, if given the chance? Is it because if they don't understand us, they cannot possibly understand our interests? Our needs? And if they can't understand our needs, surely they are only considering their own needs when they do act. Is this the unconscious thought that goes through our minds?
These people are 'Other'. These people are 'them'. I have encountered the question lately: What is the best way to understand 'them'?
Some people think that being an outsider gives you an objective perspective on what 'they' do, what 'they' believe. It lets you examine the processes without the cultural conditioning which imposes value on the components of those processes, which can be arbitrary. Others say that you cannot truly understand the value unless you look at everything from a subjective perspective; that objectivity is not truly achievable, so you should see things as 'they' do to understand their relationships with the world.
But there's no guarantee that 'they' understand why they do everything they do. You may have heard the story of the young woman who had the tradition of cutting the end off the holiday ham. Her daughter asked why she did this. She didn't quite know, it was just that her mother always did it. So she asked her mother, and she didn't know either. In turn, she went and asked her mother, who said she started doing it because the pan she had to use for it was too small, so she had to cut it down to fit. Despite the pan changing, the tradition continued, unquestioned.
You can also get varied answers for one particular practice if you ask multiple people who participate in that practice. Is one more valid than the other?
I suppose the important consideration is: How would a certain understanding be useful? If you are dealing with one individual, understanding their personal reasoning behind things can certainly be useful. But what if you are unable to deal with individuals, but instead have to deal with larger groups? Is an understanding of the majority view enough? What kind of understandings should be sought strikes me as very context dependent. Our minds are amazing, but limited. We can only understand so much. But we should try, even if it's only by millimeters at a time.
A feeling of illumination is quite nice. But what about when bits of information that make us uneasy come to light? Is there a line somewhere that dictates when we should feel threatened, and when we should be open minded? I think most people today would say that racism should be denounced, weeded out. And yet, the same sort of consensus will not be met when we say that prejudice against homosexuals should be weeded out. At what point are differences tolerable cultural quirks, and at what point are they dangerous paradigms? Do we allow groups of people to sit on their irrational fears so long as they don't act on them? And, is there some merit to trying to nip these things in the bud?
I really think there's something to be said for not having your identity rest too heavily on things which are essentially ephemeral. Catholics before Vatican II might very well not feel like they are being properly Catholic listening to Mass in vernacular, instead of Latin. But modern Catholics don't see Latin liturgy as essential to their identity as Catholics. They find other ways to construct that identity.
This is a bigger can of worms, mentally, than I was first expecting when I sat down to write. Not a bad thing, but I don't want to write forever here. Tonight's events have me wanting to echo a part of my previous post, though:
An identity which bases itself on being a fluid thing survives better in life, and I think survival is what ultimately drives us. In a gale force wind, the strong, rigid tree breaks, the pliable reed bows and sees the next day.
This isn't the only important component, but I think it's one of them.
***
This post has sat as a draft for over two months now. After finding it again and rereading, I felt it was time to post it in order to review the thoughts. It was actually posted on March 13th, 2009.
Made explicit, this strikes me as something people might consider a dry, perhaps pretentiously academic, cerebral act. But no. We do this constantly on a mostly unconscious level. Listening to another purposefully sift this sort of thing out was a great experience, so I am convinced of its worth and power. We'll see how it goes here, in my mimicry.
What am I? Canadian. Male. White. From a middle-class family. French in heritage. These are some basics, but I think that while they can say a fair bit about certain parts of me, they really are the least informative overall.
Being male is probably the condition that I am most consciously aware of most of the time. I am conscious that the things I say come out of a male body, and that influences how they are received. But beyond that, I find that I don't belong to any large, clearly defined, cohesive groups of people. I don't tend to identify very strongly with most men I encounter, for that matter. That is, maleness is not where I recognize the most important similarities happening in other people.
I see identity and culture as very closely tied up with one another. Part of culture is shared experiences. Not just common experiences, but shared ones. I suspect this is why 'anti-social' cultures are viewed with such suspicion. Who you are, for outsiders looking in, is often defined by what you are doing with which other people. If that activity is hidden, how can anyone make up their minds about what sort of person you are?
I'm trying to think of some of the kinds of experiences we try to share with one another.
Work. Movies. Books. Art. Sports. Food. Places. Rituals. And maybe most importantly, communication about our experiences, which is an experience itself.
People who act within and react to these things as we do, are our kin. The people who act and react in ways we want to ourselves, or in ways we strongly value, are our heroes. Our inspiration.
People who do these things differently are sometimes suspect. Why? Is it because if they react differently to these things, we think they may act differently, or more specifically, not act with our interests in mind, if given the chance? Is it because if they don't understand us, they cannot possibly understand our interests? Our needs? And if they can't understand our needs, surely they are only considering their own needs when they do act. Is this the unconscious thought that goes through our minds?
These people are 'Other'. These people are 'them'. I have encountered the question lately: What is the best way to understand 'them'?
Some people think that being an outsider gives you an objective perspective on what 'they' do, what 'they' believe. It lets you examine the processes without the cultural conditioning which imposes value on the components of those processes, which can be arbitrary. Others say that you cannot truly understand the value unless you look at everything from a subjective perspective; that objectivity is not truly achievable, so you should see things as 'they' do to understand their relationships with the world.
But there's no guarantee that 'they' understand why they do everything they do. You may have heard the story of the young woman who had the tradition of cutting the end off the holiday ham. Her daughter asked why she did this. She didn't quite know, it was just that her mother always did it. So she asked her mother, and she didn't know either. In turn, she went and asked her mother, who said she started doing it because the pan she had to use for it was too small, so she had to cut it down to fit. Despite the pan changing, the tradition continued, unquestioned.
You can also get varied answers for one particular practice if you ask multiple people who participate in that practice. Is one more valid than the other?
I suppose the important consideration is: How would a certain understanding be useful? If you are dealing with one individual, understanding their personal reasoning behind things can certainly be useful. But what if you are unable to deal with individuals, but instead have to deal with larger groups? Is an understanding of the majority view enough? What kind of understandings should be sought strikes me as very context dependent. Our minds are amazing, but limited. We can only understand so much. But we should try, even if it's only by millimeters at a time.
A feeling of illumination is quite nice. But what about when bits of information that make us uneasy come to light? Is there a line somewhere that dictates when we should feel threatened, and when we should be open minded? I think most people today would say that racism should be denounced, weeded out. And yet, the same sort of consensus will not be met when we say that prejudice against homosexuals should be weeded out. At what point are differences tolerable cultural quirks, and at what point are they dangerous paradigms? Do we allow groups of people to sit on their irrational fears so long as they don't act on them? And, is there some merit to trying to nip these things in the bud?
I really think there's something to be said for not having your identity rest too heavily on things which are essentially ephemeral. Catholics before Vatican II might very well not feel like they are being properly Catholic listening to Mass in vernacular, instead of Latin. But modern Catholics don't see Latin liturgy as essential to their identity as Catholics. They find other ways to construct that identity.
This is a bigger can of worms, mentally, than I was first expecting when I sat down to write. Not a bad thing, but I don't want to write forever here. Tonight's events have me wanting to echo a part of my previous post, though:
An identity which bases itself on being a fluid thing survives better in life, and I think survival is what ultimately drives us. In a gale force wind, the strong, rigid tree breaks, the pliable reed bows and sees the next day.
This isn't the only important component, but I think it's one of them.
***
This post has sat as a draft for over two months now. After finding it again and rereading, I felt it was time to post it in order to review the thoughts. It was actually posted on March 13th, 2009.
posted by Jasper C. Coligny at 8:54 PM
0 comments
