Redd 1

Who Do You Think You Are? Personal Identity Theory Personal identity is an elusive concept which no person has ever managed to fully describe. So many different facets of a human being must be considered when thinking about the subject, and the very word identity carries various different meanings. However, when most people define identity, they refer to their names, or they attempt to name their own traits which they deem most significant. Yet, the man who, in his youth, describes himself in a certain way would undoubtedly supply a different answer later in life. It seems that who we are changes constantly; to admit anything else would lead to personal problems. It is important to specify what exactly I mean by identity. The word is closely linked with the related term identify; it is sensible to say that when we identify a thing (or person), we apply an identity to it (or him/her). Therefore, identity is the result of identifying major noticeable traits of a thing or person. Then, when applied to the self, it follows that what I call my identity is the sum of my self-described noticeable traits.
Consider a young man, Jerry, for an example. He mopes out of the First Union

bank on South Street, dejected and melancholy, in a rumpled navy blazer and red tie. After barely catching the bus, he is surprised to find a narrow seat between a wanna-be mobster and an attractive young waitress, and as he sits he begins to wonder where the
job interview went wrong. Pulling out the folded application he had filled out only just

before the interview, on the bus ride downtown, he glances over the questions and wonders if he would have been hired had he supplied different answers. He had easily filled in his name, address, gender, and similar objective questions, but his progress had

slowed when he had reached the second page. What are your strong points? he had read. What are your weak points? These were only a few of the deeply personal questions posed on the application. At a loss for what to write, Jerry had scribbled, I am a hard worker, for the first question and, I sometimes am easily distracted, for the second. I wish that all of this information could be conveyed in a name, he thinks. If only my name, Jerry Stevens, could tell them how great an asset I could have been.
Names are just labels. False labels. Jerry gets off at the NWU campus stop, feeling

worthless at his failure to secure the job. It is true that names are labels; they help us to identify the world around us. However, a name does not contain enough information to capture the entirety of what a person is, and in other respects, labels are in inefficient as well. If a friend recommends Catcher in the Rye as my next easy read, I still do not know anything of the books content (assuming I have not read it); I only know the title, a sort of label for everything within the books binding. The concept of labeling is relevant to the discussion of identity, as we apply labels of identification in order to communicate easily and to construct the manner in which we see the world. For instance, when Jerry first met his interviewer, Mr. Vasquez, he did not really see a new person; he immediately defined Mr. Vasquez in relation to labels that he already knew. This man is Hispanic, older than I am, my height. He is balding, appears to be an outgoing person, Jerry thinks subconsciously. As they continue to talk, though, what Mr. Vasquez is to Jerry changes. The two find common ground on the topic of baseball, and for the first time since they met minutes ago, Jerry begins to relate to Mr. Vasquez, to accept him as somewhat like himself.

This phenomenon of Jerrys mind is a result of binary thinking, the construction of the two groups us vs. them. This mindset, which causes us to immediately judge other people as either with us or against us, is centrally concerned with how we identify ourselves. In the words of the practiced master of rhetoric Kenneth Burke, ...Even without being subjected to deliberate persuasion, we spontaneously identify with some groups or otherwe spontaneously, intuitively, and often unconsciously, act upon ourselves (Lindsay 7). Kenneth Burke, who died in 1993, was a critically acclaimed writer and nonconformist thinker who meditated extensively on the power, use, and true meaning of words. His theories on rhetoric were vastly different than any others that preceded him, and because of his unique and original ideas, he won the 1981 National Medal for Literature (Brock 1). Constantly attack[ing] the conventional wisdom of his time as he reflected a concern for both micro- and macroscopic issues (Brock 1), Burke examined the way people present themselves to one another, and realized that this in itself is a kind of rhetoric (Mecklenburg-Faenger.) Much of Burkes ideology revolves around the concept he calls identification, which is easily summed up in Brooke L. Quigleys essay on the topic. Identification involves at least three types of processes or states: 1) the process of naming something (or someone) according to specific properties; 2) the process of associating with and [dissociating] from otherssuggesting that persons (and ideas or things) share, or do not share, important qualities in common; and 3) the product or end result of identifyingthe state of being consubstantial with others. It is the associating process, whereby individuals persuade others, or themselves, that they share important qualities in common. - Identification as a Key Term in Kenneth Burkes Rhetorical Theory (Lindsay 7) And so, from Quigleys definition, we see that the idea Burke calls identification

is the exact thing that occurred between Jerry and Mr. Vasquez. However, at the center of this process is the act of self identification; when Jerry first met Mr. Vasquez, his subconscious progression of thought concerned questions like, What things does this man have in common with me? In order to answer that question, he first answered, What are the things that I use to describe myself? This latter question, as well as Jerrys thought process as he filled out the application, is concerned with self identification. The subconscious questions each passed through Jerrys mind as he sat in Mr. Vasquezs office, but he did not notice. It is amazing how easily people ignore these subtle, personal questions, which end up being so significant for our interactions with others and even for our very existences. Furthermore, it is the failure to recognize the importance of these questions that leads to most of our existential and social crises. Consider the case of Todd Marinovich, former Los Angeles Raiders quarterback. Almost from the moment of his birth, Todd underwent a strictly regimented exercise program, and his life was completely pervaded by the goal of becoming a professional athlete. His father was the driving force behind this aspiration, but in time, Todds entire frame of reference for the world was based solely on athletics, and this became what he thought of as his identity. Needless to say, Todd developed serious psychological problems and a drug problem later in life (Curry 98). Here we see the danger of a stagnant view of identity. It is foolish to define ourselves in a certain way, and to expect to be able to adhere to that persona in any situation, given any occurrence. This is not to say that there is no good in knowing what our morals are and attempting to abide by them at all times, but it is when we try to establish our behavior as an unchangeable code that we encounter problems. A stagnant

sense of personal identity leads us to say things like, Just be yourself. But what does that mean? And when Jerry experienced a seemingly causeless breakdown a few weeks ago, he simply said, I just dont feel like myself anymore. But both sayings are devoid of meaning. For one thing, a person is undeniably always himself or herself. Who else could they be? And when advised to just be myself, how does that mean I should act? WHAT IS MYSELF? Is it my set of morals? My persona which I take on around certain people? My personality? Sociologist Erik Erikson developed a theory called the epigenic principle, which describes eight stages of personality development through which all people pass. The concept includes various age-determined phases of life, at which developing humans experience the learning of trust, guilt, integrity, and a myriad of other virtues and emotions. Most importantly, at Stage 5, age 12 to 20, Erikson describes a ones effort to define himself or herself as a person. Almost all teens experience some confusion as they struggle to establish an identity, and this challenge can be very stressful (Curry 82). Now, the previously described model reveals a number of truths, both intended and implicit. The theory recognizes that people are concerned with different issues at different times in their lives and that a personality develops over the entire course of a lifetime. However, what Erikson does not put together is that this development is actually the evolution of the personal identity; instead, he places gaining identity within Stage 5, when it really encompasses the whole process he describes. There is also another issue with the model: if identity is defined between the ages of 12 and 20, it would be ludicrous to expect to carry on far past this phase, living in accordance with what one once believed to be the most significant aspect of oneself.

As I have previously described, when we think of ourselves in this stagnant, unchangeable way, we encounter problems. Binary thinking (the us vs. them sentiment) leads to social division, opening the door for generalization, stereotyping, and prejudice. Additionally, it is extremely stressful to try to maintain our personas, and that is what they are: faces we put on for other people. But the false persona is never truly reflective of the person. This is not really identity. Eriksons model implies one indisputable truth: individual human identity is constructed over an entire lifetime, and because of outside forces, it is constantly changing. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus cryptically describes a related idea in his most famous observation. [It is not possible to step twice into the same river].It scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes (Cohen 30). He is attempting to capture the idea that the world and the universe are both constantly in flux, but later, he puts the same concept into different words, applying it more to human beings. Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow (Cohen 30). What he means is that the world around us changes at every moment, even though we may believe ourselves to be constant entities. However, only if we think of the river as a metaphor for a human being do we understand the philosophers full message. Even though the river may seem to be the same, the waters that constitute it are always shifting, never the same. Buddhist thought recognizes this truth as well, but goes even further to deny that the river itself is even a real thing; only the waters that constitute it truly exist. The ancient Indian philosopher Nagasena presents a different metaphor: a chariot. A myriad of parts make up the chariot, but only when the wheels, spindle, harness, and the other

innumerable pieces are arranged in a certain way, only then do we call it a chariot. Nagasena deems the word chariot a convenient designator; that is, an easy way of referring to the conglomeration of parts arranged in working order (Siderits 54-55). This metaphor is extended also to humans. However, besides using the convenient designator human body in order to refer to the collection of arranged organs, Buddhist philosophers recognize that a person is far more complicated than a chariot. In a very scientific manner, Buddhism insists that a person exists only in terms of the traits they possess at a specific moment. These traits are referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as skandhas, and encompass all describable attributes, concerning appearance, state of mind, and even the actions being committed by an individual. Each of these skandhas is momentary; as soon as it comes into being, it is destroyed, and the only way
in which a person exists is in terms of these fleeting states of being (Siderits 35-36).

This concept seems a bit extreme; it is humbling and somewhat troubling to consider the idea that I am nothing more than my attributes at this very moment. However, the relevance of the concept to the discussion here is that I refer to all of my skandhas as myself or Sam, both convenient designators. Similarly, when Jerry wished that his name alone could reveal all of his potential, personality, and experience, he was meditating on the fact that his name is just a convenient designator for his entire existence. However, contrary to the Buddhist conception that only momentary states constitute a person, Jerry feels that his whole life is part of his identity; after all, much of his application was concerned with his past experience- previous jobs he has held- one question even asked, What was the most defining moment of your life? He had probed

deep into his brain to answer, but as he sifted through fond memories, he could not help but feel that each one had been vital to his life; indeed, all his experiences had led him to the current moment. Jerry had remembered his fathers funeral, holding an umbrella to cover his mother as she mindlessly stepped from a black limousine right into a mud puddle. He remembered asking his tenth grade girlfriend to marry him, and how he had sulked in his room for days after her denial. He even thought about how when he was ten years old, he would wait for his older sister everyday on the bench outside her job, watching the same schizophrenic man swing around every single lamp post lining each side of the square. As he thought, he had realized that in each of his memories, he viewed himself in action; what he was able to remember years later were the things he had done. He could not recall his exact feelings at his girlfriends rejection, or even at his fathers funeral, but he could remember what had happened. It is true that memories are recollected in terms of action: what we did and what others did. Lying in bed, the night after his unsuccessful job interview, Jerry thinks of his life in terms of the choices he has made. He realizes that the person he is only consists of the actions he has taken. F. Scott Fitzgerald offers the same idea in The Great Gatsby, as narrator Nick Carraway suggests that personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures (Fitzgerald 7). At this point, the Buddhist view of a person becomes uplifting; despite past actions and decisions, even considering the opinion we hold of ourselves, we are free to choose any course of action in this moment. This is how we construct our identities, by our daily choices, no matter how mundane. Americans do not tend to think of their personal identities in terms of their actions,

though. Pop-culture, celebrity worship, and even literature shape the way we think of ourselves, but the most influential medium is film, because of its sheer popularity. As a result of frequent movie-viewing, many Americans (and others) fall into what I call the
protagonist delusion ; this concept is best described as the feeling of being a character

on the big-screen, so to speak. Buddhist logic also recognizes a similar phenomenon, of someone, think[ing] of his life as a kind of narrative. And [he] learns to think of [him]self as the central figure in that narrative (Siderits 76). Movies are popular because the story has a discrete beginning and end; real life however, does not. As much as we long for a happy ending or expect that luck will turn around for us eventually, neither will occur without some effort on our part. This mindset and the feeling that the world is as structured as that of the cinema are very dangerous, as our lives will seem meaningless at times, and will undoubtedly stray from the balanced progression of a screenplay. Additionally, when we think of ourselves as characters, we assume a certain method of behavior, limiting ourselves in our potential courses of action. The Buddha once pointed out, All of my teachings can be summed up in one sentence. Cling to nothing as my, me, or mine. This one sentence perfectly reflects the ultimate truth of the entire discussion here presented; if I free myself from everything around me, even aspects that belong to my own past, I can truly experience freedom of choice, without worrying about maintaining a mode of behavior that others expect of me (and even, that I expect of myself). If we act morally and honestly, with the motive of improving the world, our identities spring from benevolence and justice, and even now, we have, in every moment, the choice to act in this way. To be free from existential crises, one must abandon notions of lasting self identity. You are always yourself,

accountable for all of your actions, and that is the only fact that persists.

Works Cited Brock, Bernard L. Kenneth Burke and the 21 st Century. Albany: State University of New York Press,1999. Cohen, S. Marc, Patricia Curd and C.D.C. Reeves, eds. Reaadings in Ancient Greek
Philosophy: from Thales to Aristotle. Third edition. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company, Inc., 2005. Curry, Tim, Robert Jiobu and Kent Schwirian, eds. Sociology for the Twenty-First Century. Fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, Cambridge UP, 1991. Lindsay, Stan A. Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burkes Extension of Aristotles Concept
of Entelechy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1998.

Mecklenburg-Faenger, Amy. From a conversation held on 4/21/08. Siderits, Mark. Buddhism as Philosophy: and Introduction . Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2007.