WHO IS IDENTITY?

On one hand it is just a word, but on the other hand it is the core of one’s being, the "who" of what we are.

There are several dictionary definitions for the word, and I find it interesting that some, on the surface, almost seem to contradict one another. For instance…

3) The quality or condition of being the same as something else.

4) The distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality.

As though on one hand identity is the thing which makes something unique, while on the other it is the condition of being the same as something else.

Hmm…

I also found it interesting that several of the definitions I found surrounded the identity of a group or of an individual as being part of a group:

1) The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known: "If the broadcast group is the financial guts of the company, the news division is its public identity" (Bill Powell).

2) The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group

In fact, these were given as the number one and two definitions, implying that the other characteristics of identity are less popular in this day and age. Somehow, I doubt that was always the case.

At any rate, in the common vernacular identity is usually used to indicate what is, in this example, the number four definition, i.e. that it pertains to "[t]he distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity."

Does this imply then that personality is immutable? Unchanging? Static? Permanent? Is personality identity? Does this mean that if a person changes they are no longer "them"? If I paint the blue chair red, is it still the same chair?

Often I find that the ambiguities found within human nature are also reflected within the language, mirroring our thought patterns and beliefs. This can also be a cultural issue, in that languages reflect the beliefs of whatever culture utilizes that language.

I find all of this fascinating…

Identity is an area which I have looked at and questioned throughout the years, either from viewing it within myself or from looking outward to how that concept is portrayed in the people / culture around me. Usually, though, it is the former since I am a closer subject for study and have a much deeper insight into my own workings than I possibly could into any other.

But is identity even defined solely within the individual? If that was the case, then I could (theoretically) define my identity as something wholly contradictory to my outward actions. I could claim to be a "good Christian" and truly believe that while I simultaneously steal the purses of little old ladies or hate people who are different than myself. I could see my identity as "equality minded sensitive male" while at the same time sexually assaulting women and treating them as objects.

So is identity contingent upon a personal belief about the self? Or is that something different?

Just in writing that, it seems to me that "self concept" is different than identity. A self-concept is the way one sees one’s self, a story told in a narrative of one’s own life, and may or may not reflect the beliefs or observations which other people have of the same subject.

Identity (to me anyway) is an almost completely non-verbal concept which Just Is. It is not something that I could show or tell someone else about, nor could I draw a picture of it. Rather, it is something that I feel, like a solid core of rock in the center of my being. I(t) feels like a planet turned inside out – molten and liquid on the outside with a solid center.

But does it have anything to do with personality? Not really. Personality (again, to me) is almost like ego – it is something that people, by nature, must put on in order to deal with other people.

What is my personality when I’m alone? Not speaking? Sitting perfectly still? In those situations, I don’t need a personality to "do" anything, so it ceases to be. And yet, surely, I am still "me" in those situations. But, as soon as I open my mouth or move, there’s personality waiting to manifest.

And the personality is still me – it just isn’t all of me. All of me couldn’t fit into one personality at one time.

Examining the word itself actually answers some of the questions I’ve had regarding it, especially within its cultural context. Seemingly, for those of us in this culture speaking American English, identity is in some way tied to unchanging parts of one’s personality.

Over the years, I have occasionally encountered people who seem to form very concrete images of Who I Am. This image is not deviated from, despite any information contrary to that image.

This has always fascinated me – I find it very odd. It is not a "good" or "bad" thing, just an odd thing.

Sometimes this image has been a positive one, i.e. everything I did was perfect (even when it clearly was not) or everything I did was terrible (even when it clearly was not). Sometimes the first view would eventually (inevitably?) be followed by the other, since no one can live up to someone else’s perceived pedestal of perfection indefinitely.

Sometimes I have been aware of these rigid perceptions, other times I have not. Usually, with me being me, I am oblivious until, suddenly, I’ve "done something" which falls so outside of that image that someone else will bring it to my attention. Usually this "anomalous behavior" is completely within my normal range of attributes and proves no problem for me to integrate, but for others… well, sometimes they’ve had difficulties.

One thing that I’ve found amusing during recent years is how very differently people see me who have met me within the past five or six years as compared to those who have known me longer. These views are often terribly divergent, though neither / none of them are necessarily incorrect.

In discussing this issue with someone recently, I described it in the following way:

"It isn't really my job to reconcile my ‘public image with my private reality.’ There are so many completely divergent ideas of my ‘public image’ that for me to even address it would be sheer madness. For instance ..... to use universal terms, some people see me as an all-loving all-compassionate infinitely patient mother goddess type who would never be unkind with anyone for any reason. Others see me as a Kali type who would happily tear off someone's head unprovoked and laugh while I drank their blood. Usually, people who see one can't imagine how anyone could possibly see the other.

"Both views are correct and there is no way for me to reconcile those two things (or any other two things) to people who see a universe so small as to believe that paradox really exists. Both are true in an inner and outer way, as are twenty-odd other aspects of my personality, all equally co-existent and seemingly paradoxical. To me, all reside in harmony and it is not my job to show others how that can be."

***

What I find terribly ironic is that, often, people feel as though one or the other views must be "correct," as though one of them is "real" and the other is "fake." And, of course, there must be only two views from which to choose – people seem to like diametric opposites.

I also need to pause right here and say, for the record, that I’m not talking about all people, or even most people – I’m only talking about some / a few people. Most people I know, really, expect that people will and should change over the years. Frankly, it seems that those who don’t expect it are the ones who don’t change themselves, and perhaps it is human nature to base one’s expectations of reality upon our own experiences.

My friend Myo put it very succinctly:

"I always thought it was a good thing that people's lives change over time. Life was not meant to be a static thing; it's kinetic, ever changing, whether it be for good or bad. Our outer wrappings may change, but (for the most part) the person inside those trappings is the same person they always were, even if they're wearing the Mom hat or the Corporate Drone hat or what the hell ever hat was hanging on the coat rack that day. Hershey's changes the color of the wrappings on Kisses for the holidays, but it's still the same chocolate inside. Anyone who decided that they're not buying Kisses during the Christmas season because the wrappers are green and red is just being silly, in my opinion.

"I mean, can anyone honestly look back at the person they were twenty years ago and say that they are EXACTLY the same person they were in 1985? If so, can they honestly say that's a good thing? Probably not."

***

One example that I find shocking is that sometimes people are shocked that I have feelings which can be hurt. This is one of those things which apparently goes against whatever static image they have of me, and it is as if Who I Actually Am is somewhat of a disappointment.

Oh well. To quote myself, "to deny vulnerability is to embrace weakness."

And why would someone "need" to see me as someone with no feelings? Do they perhaps project aspects that they feel they would like to manifest within themselves onto others? Who knows… not having feelings doesn’t seem to be anything to aspire to or be proud of if one has "achieved" it, so I’m sort of at a loss.

In very scary cases I’ve known people who seemed to be trying to "borrow" my identity, as though they could manifest parts of me within themselves if they just stood close enough and acted the way their image of me would act. (Perhaps this is an example of the number three definition, "[t]he quality or condition of being the same as something else.")

Of course, they always have to end up hating me since there can’t be two of us/me standing in the same place at the same time, so I would have to go away to make their identity believable to themselves. I mean, the Real Me couldn’t be around to shake the believability of this new, not really improved quasi-me… people might get wise and notice the cheap knock-off.

I always found it sad the few times that that happened, but, really, I have enough identity to deal with those sorts of things. No one can "take" what is inherently me/mine, so it just seemed a strange, psychotic one-sided dance of some kind. I just moved away quickly and tried not to get caught up in the madness.

(And, now that I’m older and wiser, I totally avoid anyone who repeatedly, excitedly, notes how similar they are to me and/or insists on being called my best friend. Yep, I run like hell – I know where that path leads.)

I’ve come to realize in the past many years that not all people have a strong sense of identity. For some reason or another – perhaps as a result of trauma during formative years or the truly dysfunctional culture in which we live – they seem to lack this very basic security. There is no "home base" where all is safe from outside attack, where the solidity of being stands immovable against all obstacles and shelters one from any storm which may occur.

It must be terrifying, I would imagine, to have a shifting space of nothing in place of identity. Perhaps this is why so many people in this culture try to buy, borrow or steal identity from other sources. It is one big reason why advertising works:

Hey! Don’t have an identity? We’ve got one to sell you! See this famous guy drinking our product? You can have some of his identity! What great news – you don’t have to feel insecure anymore. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Of course, this never works, which is why consumerism means buying more and more and more. It is chasing something unreal, unobtainable. And, of course, it will never take the place of an actual identity.

Perhaps that is the immutable feature of identity – it can’t be given, taken away or changed from the outside; if it changes, it must come from within.

Even the most solid surfaces change over time – mountains crumble, tectonic plates shift, planets are pulled apart by gravity. Deep down, though, I believe that identity is even stronger than any of these entities. To me, it is the only permanent thing in my universe, the only thing I take with me when I leave here, the one thing which stays with me always.

But does it change? Yes, over time, though it is still itself. It changes slowly, like a cooling solar system or geologic ages. Can it be destroyed? Hmm… perhaps, but not by any outside force – the only thing strong enough to destroy it is itself.

I would say that it counts as a "persisting entity; individuality," though I would argue that it has very little to do with personality. Surely, personality is somewhat of a manifestation of identity, perhaps the manner in which it interfaces with and expresses itself within the world, but I do not think that identity is contingent upon personality.

Rather, personality is the weather, the climate, the atmosphere, while identity is the planet itself. Under all of the layers of one, one finds the other. Over the years the weather changes, the climate shifts, the atmosphere expands and contracts, and while the planet may reflect these changes on the surface, the core remains untouched.

To me, identity is like that.