We've been discussing and exploring the differences between essentialism and anti-essentialism. The following theorizations offer a way for us to break this down even more. The first is an essentialist conception of identity, the latter two, in different though overlapping ways, are anti-essentialist conceptions. Read through them and think about how each perspective would consider how symbols relate to the self, to identity.
The enlightenment subject or Cartesian subject – a conscious and unified subject. Humans are centred and unified – in that they have constant characteristics, something innate which grounds them. That essence – or characteristic – would remain the same across time and culture… for instance: an essence of maleness grounds somebody in their gendered identity; a spirit of Englishness gives someone a bounded and unchanging English identity…
The sociological subject – the human being is created through the internalisation of social norms which ensures that they ‘fit’ in with the social structure – the person is thought to have an inner core – but that inner core is created through an interaction between the inside and outside world. They have a unified identity – kept in check by coordinating what they internalise – which lends unity
The fragmented self stands in contrast to the above conceptualisations. The self is continually shifting and changing – often in contradictory ways. We are pulled in different directions and so are our identities. If we have a sense of unity it is because we delude ourselves – or tell ourselves a comforting story or narrative of the ‘self’. No single aspect offers us a stable identity – because our identities shift according to how we’re being addressed or represented. We comprise multiple identities which are dislocated and fractured. The apparent unity is merely an assertion or articulation – which under different historical and cultural circumstances would be articulated in a different way: such as masculinity, sexuality, even what music we like….
More essentialist thinkers consider symbols to be expressive of a pre-formed identity. On the hand, anti-essentialists suggest that we actively draw on symbols to create and construct identity. Indeed, with technological innovation we can even create a different biological reality for ourselves... Biology, understood in these terms, is symbolic, and like all symbols they h
elp to create a self. Thinking of symbols broadly (anything which articulates meaning, and that includes, of course, language) consider how you construct identity. In doing so, think about what symbols you're invited to identify with (even though this is largely an unconscious process), and thus what identity positions you're invited to identify with.
1) Do any of the above perspectives resonate with you? Does identity feel like something you express or something you construct?
2) When postmodernists say: 'I buy, therefore I am', what do you think they are suggesting about consumption and identity... examples of your own experience would be be valued.
3) In what way is identity a process of becoming? and what role does media play in your own becoming?
4) If identity is always linked to cultural symbols and language, is identity ever unique in the way we generally understand it to be?
26 comments:
I feel that identity is a combination of all these descriptions. There is definitely a part of you that is innate, such as what culture your born into and certain maneurisms. Yet, I also believe that the media has a lot to do with what we think we should be, so we are constantly building and changing our identity. That's somewhat clear when we compare ourselves in the past to ourselves in the present. Media has a lot to do with this. It helps determine what we like and what we don't like. Thus, it influences the clothes, music, food, everything we like. That influences how we are perceived as a person. For instance, if someone buys all black, baggy clothing and wears a lot of dark makeup, we see them as being "goth." It is the collaboration of acquired and innate traits that make each of our identities unique,
In terms of identity, it is really tough for me to associate with one of these three identity groups. While I remain strongly rooted in my own beliefs, I feel that those beliefs have changed with the times and will continue to do so for as long as I live. It is important to also keep in mind that we as a human species are always growing and changing. It’s just part of the life cycle. While part of me wants to associate myself with the non-essentialist, fragmented self, part of me also wants to associate with the essentialist Cartesian subject because there are components of my own identity that I feel will never change such as my intolerance to alcohol, my male gender, ideology, and personality. Personality and ideology is something that is developed in childhood and becomes fixed when one becomes an adult. This I feel will never change or will be hard to make a change to. Therefore, I know that I do not fit into the sociological category because I do not follow the norms and can distinguish right from wrong. I only do what is I believe is acceptable in my own mind and buy whatever I feel fits my own personality. Although I do follow more of the pop culture trends of modern day society, I still admit that the sociological perspective associates itself a lot more with gender identities.
As for the above quote, “I buy, therefore I am,” I feel that this defines a ton about sociological norms, gender stratification, consumption, and identity. In light of consumption and identity, this just simply means whatever you buy defines who you are. So when one buys something, its looks, the way it functions, its brand, its color, taste, texture, and many of those types of elements says something about your identity. I think this is particularly true of the clothes I buy. Every year I go school shopping, I always feel like I have to buy something from a major outlet store such as Abercrombie, Aeropostale, or American Eagle because, according to modern culture, that is what’s “in” for the times. However, every year I always have to settle for only an outfit or two from those places and a ton more from Old Navy (not that I dislike Old Navy, I actually like their line of clothing) just because of the costs of those higher retail chains. This just goes to show that what we buy also defines ones identity in terms of social class as well.
Also, I do believe that identity is a process of becoming and that media has a lot to do with it. A person’s consciousness has a lot to do with how one would view this statement, but this is only my interpretation from experience. As for that experience, a lot of my friends feel that I hate drinking because I believe what I see in the news in terms of the bad things it does, but that I am not allowed to justify my viewpoints because I “have not tried it.” While here’s something for all those sociological subjects out there, not only has the media influenced my viewpoints, but also personal experiences around me have as well. For confidentiality reasons I will not go into detail with the personal experiences, but I have not even drink a single bit and have witnessed the destruction that alcohol can cause to people. It is not until we see something occur that we believe it. In other words, humans have to see in order to believe. Media, because of its own deception and high expectations, can only convince to an extent, but when it comes down to it, it is with what we have seen and who we associate with that makes us who we are. This is where I believe ideology comes into play because we always tend to put our beliefs and standards ahead of us, especially as adults, kids need some convincing sometimes, but that’s another story! However, through a non-essentialist form of ideology, identity is a process of becoming, especially for those of us who do not watch a lot of television.
According to the readings that we have read thus far, it seems that language and culture have a lot to do with identity. This is what distinguishes both collective, national, ethnic, social, gender, and class identities, which are the group identities, but it is also important to keep in mind our individual, unique identities. While it is what we make of language and cultural symbols that helps to define our unique identities, it is also, according to my above experiences, what we go through and see that makes us who we are!
Respectfully Submitted,
Shamus M. Shea
As with most people, I am also a victim, or could I be called a culprit....? of the consumerism that has swept over the US in the past few decades. I am constantly influenced by the media. Most of the time I flow in accordance with the general population of society. So, in a way I am constantly changing and rehashing my self image or identity in relation to the chameleon that is "pop culture." Therefore I can understand and agree with anti-essentialist ideas....yet, I firmly believe that there is some innate, unique, and utterly indefinable spark in each of us that claims us as "seperate"...as "individual."
As part of the human species many of us follow the crowd, the trends, the popular idealogies, because its the safe road to travel. Its a known fact that there is safety in numbers. Look back into human history- we have learned that lesson well. It is very hard to go against the grain, and deliberately step out into center stage, with a bunch of gawking and leering faces waiting to pounce on you at any second....which is probably how some people feel when they are contemplating not following the crowd. Its a scary thing- to truly be an individual.
So I feel that there is always a chance for compromise. I feel that neither of these radically extreme concepts of identity- anitessentialism and essentialism-can truly describe who we are. Because we arent so black as white as these definitions describe us human beings to be. We can be an intensly predictable species, but there are those who shock and surprise, and that is when truly interesting things can happen- we can shatter these two seemingly constricting labels of identity conceptualizations if we want to- but its only for those strong of heart who have the guts enough to do it.
Personally, I feel like my family, friends, and the media have been integral in shaping my identity. The clothes I wear, the music I listen to, it's all rooted in something that I've been exposed to. Media definitely has a BIG effect on consumption and identity. What we see as "cool" in the magazines and the commercials is the starting pad for what we all see and attractive or positive. My iPod, hoodies, shoes, jeans, movies, video games, sunglasses, posters, food, drinks, shampoo, and books were ALL directly influenced by what I have personally observed in the media.
Identity is a process of becoming because it takes time. My identity has been formed over the past 18 years as I grew, matured, learned, and observed. Media changes over time, so influences from one year (shoulder pads?) may not carry on into another time (studded belts). These trends over time shape not only individual identities, but that of the community in which the media exists. Furthermore, identities now help to form identities of the future.
I don't think that any current identities could be viewed as unique, original identities. Influences on identities and symbols are too old, so any identities in today's world have already been long influenced by symbols and identities of the past. At one point far in the past there may have been some original identities, but these would be more based on biological and environmental qualities outside of the realm of society.
I agree with some of the earlier comments, in that I don't feel that identity is a black and white issue and that it can be seen in a strictly essentialist or non-essentialist manner. I think both concepts are at the root of everyone's identities. It may be true that there are certain broad identity features that are common to a group of people, such as modern trends, language, and overall culture. The media has a great deal of influence over how these larger concepts are formed and change over time. However, I think in looking more closely on the individual level, I think there are definite central ideas and concepts that each person possesses that have been drawn from their own experiences and makes them unique. Those are the types of things that are not likely to change over time, regardless of how much they are exposed to changing and radical ideas in the media.
While we are all undeniably influence by the media on a daily basis, I feel that this influence can only scratch the surface of who we really are. Yes, we may buy into the newest fad or trend, but just because we do so does not mean that our values and beliefs are going to be seriously altered in the process.
I tend to identify more with the "tabula rasa" sort of theory of identity formation. For me, identity formation begins when a child is born and begins the process of culturalization. There is nothing innate, or predestined, about the nature of identity when you look at it this way. Cultural values and norms, of course, vary wildly between different nations and cultures; the ways in which a young man forms his sense of self in Sri Lanka will be different from the way that a young man in Canada develops his own sense of culture and self. I believe that we are direct products, literally, of the context in which our most basal traits of personality develop. These traits include gender norms and expectations, religious values, environmental influence and socioeconomic pressures. I see these as being some of the most crucial influential factors that serve to create a solid framework for the creation of identity.
In American culture, the above factors certainly are (in my mind, anyway) the largest and most impactful. As we mentioned in class, identity formation of gender begins right at birth, when babies are assigned the "proper" colors for their sex. Depending on the sex of their child, parents begin to project gendered traits onto their child, which sets in motion the process of socializing a child to fit into the established cultural values. For example, say the father of the new baby boy was an athletic fanatic throughout his life, playing many sports and following favorite teams across the board. This father might be so excited about the prospect of raising a new little athlete, that he dresses him in little uniforms, and gives him little stuffed footballs or baseballs to play with. As the child gets older, having been raised with the expectation of being an athlete, the child will be faced with the identity forming choices of what sports to play, or even whether to play sports at all. Even if the child grows up without having played sports at all, the pressure to choose whether to be an athlete or not has been central to the formation of his sense of self.
This is not to say that parental expectations are the largest influence on a child's identity, but they do certainly play a large role. The same notion can be applied to religion; being raised in a Muslim culture, with the expectation of growing into a role within the Muslim community, drastically increases the chances of that child adopting the Muslim faith. However, that same child, taken at birth out of the Muslim community and placed into a agnostic family, would be much more likely to grow up questioning religion than he would be to step immediately into a religious role. This is to say, that there is nothing intrinsic about identity.
In this country, we all have been raised in a culture steeped in the expectation of consumerism. The notion of "i buy, therefore i am" speaks directly to this idea. From birth, we all (who have been born in the United States) have grown up with the notion that we must constantly buy and consume. We are pressured to go to school in order to acquire skills that will allow us to make money so that we can spend money. The more money we make, the more money we want to spend. But i don't think that we are born with any of this consumerism within us innately, but rather we are squeezed into this mold by virtue of the dominating culture. We are born little blank slates, onto which dominant society and culture rushed to fill in with it's particular brand of identity.
These are all good comments. I don't have anything to add during this time around because it would just be repeating what has already been said....
I think that identity will always be expressed due to the type of clothe we wear, the music we listen to, the things we do in our free time, the food we eat, ect. People also construct identity because it grows with the person as they get older and things in their life changes which could be caused by the media which makes people believe that they should be something else than what they already are.
When postmodernists say " I buy, therefore i am" i think it means that whatever product you buy adds more of an identity to you, it determines your gender type, personality, believes and the main outline of a person.
The media has alot to do with a persons identity because when someone sees something on tv which they like they have to find a way to either buy it or because like it.
Identity is something that is constructed to express. I think that we have some conscious and subconscious decisions that we make about who we are going to be. I feel that I have chosen to be who I am, but it mostly happened by chance. The things that we purchase, and the things we own are a great part of who we are. I own and ride a mountain bike...that makes me a mountain biker and I identify with other mountain bikers because of it. I chose to buy one, but I did not buy it to be part of who I am. This is the "subconsciously conscious" part of identity.
Identity can be as unique as location. Ill explain. We are on earth, more specifically we are in the northern hemisphere, and even more magnified we are in the US, Maine, Biddeford, UNE, Decary, Room 209, and I sit by the window. Each time I zoom in fewer and fewer people are involved until I am the only person sitting by the window.
I would think of myself as the fragmented self. I believe identities of people shift slightly when they are with different people or doing different things. There are always a few aspects of our identity which remain the same regardless. Identity is also all about constructing. We create our own identity and then express it through what we wear, etc.
"I buy therefore I am" makes me think that what you buy is an expression of your identity. So through what you buy, people can figure out more detailed facts about your identity.
Again, I see that there are many different parts of everybody's identities. So it is quite possible that some parts are very similar to other people and so it makes sense that many symbols can be shared. However, everyone has their own unique identity because they are never exactly like someone else.
I agree with what some of the other comments. I feel my identity has been shaped by my family, friends, surroundings, music, food, and clothing. Growing up in Vermont, i had a much different up bringing then others who live in a more urban setting. I feel that this has shaped me into the person i am. I have many morals and values that came with living in a small community, being very Religious, and not being exposed to much negative. I think this along with my friends and personal style (i.e. food, clothing, music) has made my identity. Now at college, my identity might change a bit because i am surrounded in a much different setting. Each persons identities are different and change over time so i don't think that someone can put anyone into any kind of group or category.
I think that identity is explained by all three concepts, the enlightenment subject, the sociological subject and the fragmented self. I believe each human have inborn, fixed, unique essence. Each person has an unchanged sprit, I think. It may not only be expressed by gendered identity and cultural identity, but also be expressed by characteristic identity: each person has different unique inborn characters such as adamant, friendly, shy, extroversive, timidity, etc. However, I strongly believe that surrounding environment plays a vital role in creating identity. Also, the identity is changing over time by those external factors. Of course, those external factors include media. So, media has some influence on process of becoming. People tend to believe that the clear visualized image is true. So, we seek for commercial “faked image” which is made by company. I was born in Japan, and grew up there. Therefore, my identity is typical Japanese identity. Cultural factors influence creating my identity. So, I “fit” into Japanese society. Now, here in America, I see nothing same compared to Japan. Everything is different, foods, represented symbol, language, people’s attitude, speaking, thinking, appearance, cloths, TV programs, magazines and even common sense is also much different. I think one one’s identity is formed, it is difficult to change it largely. Even though, the identity is changing due to several factors, such as media, or leaning something. But, after people become adult (around over 18) or after the formation of personality, the core of identity is already fixed and not likely to be changed, I think.
When postmodernists say: 'I buy, therefore I am', I think that they suggesting that buying something are expressing your part of identity. But I think to buy something doesn’t really represent the person’s identity, because the products are limited and there are tons of same products and so many people buy same products. I think that there are more identities than products. So, it is just representing only little part of identity.
I think that identity is always linked to cultural symbols and language. I can roughly recognize the cultural identity of Japanese and Americans. They can roughly be categorized, I think. But, each person has own unique identity among their cultural identity. And, they all are different.
An essentialist conception of identity, where all humans have constant characteristics makes me think of a child being born, and mother’s unconditional love for her baby. It doesn’t matter where we live, we all experience love for or parents. We all want to be loved as well. Our families ground us, give us strength, and, sometimes, drive us crazy.
We are all born with certain genetic disposition. Some of us could be great musicians, mathematicians, writers, but if no one give us an instrument, or teaches us numbers and an alphabet, we’ll never know that. And that’s where sociological subject comes to play.
From the time mothers singing a lullaby, baby already exposed to a social structure: “hush, little baby, don’t say a word, mama’s going to buy you a…”anything that baby wants. At first parents decide what baby wants from looking through a “Parenting” magazine, where the perfect moms all beautiful and smiling with perfect hair and makeup holding perfect clean and happy little baby, next to a shiny big toy. Hey, if that’s what is going to make me look so good and fresh after so many sleepless nights with my not so happy baby, I AM BUYING IT!!!! And I don’t care about the absurd price of that shiny toy! Later, when baby grows up and watches Sesame street on TV, little one knows exactly what he or she wants!!!! ELMO!!!!
The fragmented self comes as a great example in the children’s book “I love you forever”, when the little boy grows up into a strange teenager, with strange friends, who listen to a very strange music. After the teenage age passes by, little boy becomes a man. He is working now and has his own little baby girl. These changes through our life (and unlike the book we have much more of them) are inevitable. TV, magazines, friends, teachers, parents, neighbors, everything around us influences our identity shifts. It could be gradual or dramatic, but we only see them when we look back.
'I buy, therefore I am'. I buy not only something that I like, but also that I think will look good on me, and the age appropriate. I love the tiny little short t-shirts and shorts, and little bitsy bikini, (it looks so cute on models in the magazine) but God forbids you ever will see me in it!!! I don’t want to scare or disrespect anybody with the way I look. I also look at the quality of the product. That is why “Gymboree’s” for kids is my favorite store. I can wash these clothes hundreds of times and they still keep the original shape and color. From another point, I love my Chanel sunglasses! I think I am so COOL when I’ m wearing them! (Thanks to 3 years of working with Chanel and getting my identity foot printed by it) So, I guess, the way people perceive me by the way I am dressed and the way my kids dressed puts me in a specific category, and also gives me a unique identity?
ahold, interesting... Is culture innate? Primordial theorists would suggest that is (a brach of essentialist thinkers). For them, cultural values and norms can be compared to biology... in that there is something immutable about them. Also, think about whether it's possble to occupy all these identity positions. Do they contradict one another? Or is there a way to combine them in a way that makes sense?
Shamus, so many interesting comments. I think there is comfort in the Englightenment (essentialist) identity. It anchors us to a identity in a way that is comforting... Consider how ALL consumption if connected to ideological meaning. When we consume products we are always purchasing a set of meanings.. and that includes when we shop at Old Navy (ideological meanings around youth, gender, class, etc).
And yes, language has a lot to do with identity! Think about how we construct identity.. we must always use words and precepts in our mind (i.e. words and concepts) to talk about and think about identity. All we have are words. In this way, identity is always, in a sense, public, because we have to draw on words and ideas which predate us. They are not uniquely our own, and this has implications for our own identities. also, think about how personal identities are related to wider, collective identities (including our most deeply held beliefs which are usually connected to cultural meaning which we are born into).
Very interesting.
Alex
Brittany, I think you're right about there being safety in numbers. Think about the social consequences for those who do not buy into what is culturally appropriate. And this goes beyond style. Think about how even our deeply held beliefs (what seemingly makes us unique) are tied to cultural norms and values.
I think we're all culpable when it comes to consumption. When we examine the 'circuit of culture' this week, we'll be thinking about how all of us are enmeshed in this cycle.. and there is really no escaping it. If we leave one circuit (say, a dominant mainstream circuit) we simply join another....
Very articulate, Stuart... Think, too, about what anti-essentialists might say about identity as becoming. For them, identity is never finished or complete... we are constantly shifting the contours of who we are in relation to a changing social field. Norms and values are never stable and neither are the ideoogical meanings around certain identity traits. Think about how even gender norms change... as they do, we change and shift in relation to them.
Nick, really great examples. I think social context is crucial, and this, I think, can transform even beliefs and our sense of self in profound ways.
Beth, you refer to personal experience (or biography) and I think this is important. We all have a set of unique experiences, but think about how these experiences are tethered to broader cultural norms and values... and think about how those norms and values are affected by media processes (if only indirectly). For instance, you might think about how you've been influenced by your family, and family values in the US mean that we set up our families in particular ways... these meanings and norms are reinforced by media processes which represent to us how familiies should be,... Does that make sense?
Great comments, everyone,
Alex
jtaliento. I'm curious about your thoughts on expression... do you think that we choose clothes to express a pre-formed self?
Ted, what an interesting thought. You're going to have to explain it to me in more detail - but what you write about location seems very important, to my mind. Your mountain biking example is a good one, too. Think about the extra-meanings you identify with when you choose a mountain bike and all that goes with it... this is where I think your insights re: unconscious are key.
Lauren, great points. As I mentioned to someone else, think about the way in which we have to rely on language and concepts to form all of our identity. I wonder, then, if it's ever possible to be truly unique... or is just the way we put it together which makes us unique?
Chelsey, more great examples. Think about your own cultural context and how much that has affected you.. in radical ways. When we think about the media in sociology we're not just thinking about popular media, either... we're thinking about all communications forms (books, including the bible, etc) which help shape norms and values. Also, think about how your identity, emerging from your small community, are linked to wider ideas around gender, race, sexuality, etc....
ikesusu, very insightful... your comments on the way in which symbols and language limits opportunities for identity is well made. Things must be culturally available for us to identify with them, and thus to incorporate them into our identity. We'll discuss today whether it's possible to hold on to parts of all these different identity positions... They are a bit contradictory. That said, what you seem to be describing is the nature/nurture formulation of identity....
Very interesting.
Natalia, what a beautiful comment! The way you describe essentialist identity is wonderful... but you implicitly critique it and move on to the sociological theorization as you underscore that things need to be culturally available to one in order for them to tap into what is internally there...
I'm curious about your comments re: being put into a category as you consume certain products... do you feel as though the way you put them together is what makes you unique?
Wonderful comments!
Alex
I believe identity is determined by the things surrounding us. I don't see how symbols and influences are found in our genetic makeup. I believe we must be exposed to these identities and we CHOOSE to identify with it.
I really don't have much to comment on the subject matter because you are who you are. I think that all the identities are made up and are exaggerated by people (not saying its a bad thing) but without these people making up identities then we would not be who we are.
I find myself associating with a few different points from each explanation. I have never really stopped and thought about how my identity has been shaped and who has been shaping it. I think that I like what I like because I like it because I am sometimes influenced by what I see on tv or in the media, but other times I find something really enjoyable that the rest of the populous does not. I agree with the “The enlightenment subject or Cartesian subject” when it says, “Humans are centered and unified – in that they have constant characteristics, something innate which grounds them.” Because I feel that my ethnic heritage unifies me with people all across the world that I have never met and probably will never meet. This is something that is unchanging and unyielding no matter what. The part that I agree with regarding the fragmented self is that I think that the self is always growing and changing because as we grow in age and maturity level, we are continually changing. But the part that I don’t agree with is that we don’t have a sense of unity, and if we think we do, then we just convince ourselves of it.
I agree with Ted G. He said pretty much what i though when i finished reading. People make choices on how we shape our own identity. There are outside influence, things such as language and media, that affect our thinking but in the end its our own choices that really affect our identity. Like ted said about his bike. I could say the same thing about my skis. Thanks ted for saying what i was thinking.
I agree most with the fragmented self since I think that others as well as myself are constantly in a state of changing and shifting.
I think that they are saying that what you buy reflects who you are as a person in terms of not only likes and dislikes, but also things such as status, race, and gender.
Identity is a process of becoming, because it is always changed. You are never finished with your identity... you are always in a state of becoming who you are. Media is related in this because it has such a strong influence on our culture, and therefore is naturally to be involved in the quest of becoming.
Despite being linked culturally in terms of symbols and language, there are still other aspects to identity that are unique to the individual regardless of cultural differences. There is a part of us that is ourself, and things such as symbols and language may influence that, but do not incompass the entire meaning of our identities.
- Chelsey
I feel that today's modern idea of identity and who you are has largely become defined by what you have, the clothes you wear, the cars you drive... We are so exposed to advertising that it has just become who we are. We are constantly bombarded with ads on T.V. If you open up a magazine there will probably be more ad's in it then articles. Identity is not completely run and controlled by the media but I feel the media does play a major role. We want to fit in so we will follow others and do what they do and dress how they dress and companies realize this and use this in their advertising. They advertise that one can't be happy without the products they are selling.
I feel that identity is something that you create. You identity will always change but at some point in your life it will have to level off and stabilize. I also believe that you do express your identity. You have too because you interact with different people everyday. If you did not come in contact with people than you do not have much of an identity. What a person buys says a lot about a person. When someone goes out and buys objects on a whim and not really thinking about what they are buying, it shows a lack of character and self respect. More than likely they won't ever use what they bought. On the other hand when a person spending time thinking about what they need instead of what they want it shows that, that person is more in tune with themselves and shows more about how they really are. Identity takes a while to develop. When you are young, you do not know what you want or what to believe, and as you grow older and learn more you start to realize what you want. I do believe that identity is unique because no matter how similar two people are, they will never be the same. They won't have the exact same beliefs and needs so their identities are still unique.
The anti-essientialist veiw point in regards to identity is what I agree with the most. The idea that you are unable to mold who you want to be and that you are fixed into a certain identity through superficial aspects seems not only irrational but really quite depressing. I do however believe media plays a huge role in how people precieve themselves and others. Especially when considering adolescents. The youth watch these commercials, movies, ads, and magazines and get preconcieved ideas of what they should look like , act like, or what clothes they should wear. As they age and become more mature these factors turn more to commercial products as they try to "keep up with the Jones'." But these identifying factors can change as seen with the increasing popularity of hybrid vehilcles and compact cars. This new trend is beginning to dispell the mantality that "bigger is better" to a degree. This means on many levels that popularity (which is often thought of as hand and hand with identity) can change, but will not do so quickly.
Took a while to figure out my password.
It seems like identity can be constructed by what people are exposed to and choose to observe. If they like something, they lean toward that. They lean away from what they don't like. With something they know nothing about, such as being thrown into a new culture, they may lean toward what's most familiar to them. Even with traffic, for example. PersonA never drives 6 miles over the speed limit, but then they hit a city where everyone is driving on the freeway, at 10-20 miles over the speed limit. PersonA realizes it's actually less dangerous to speed in this city, so adapts. PersonA won't always speed like that. Eventually, they may not have a mental border between a "speeder" and a "good driver" because in that city, there is no difference. Instead of having the media's influence, it's based on the law plus "going with the flow". Also, who someone "is" may just be described as someone's most common characteristics since birth. Those are the toughest to change, and become a root to development. People may be one identity to one culture,and another total opposite to another culture. Again, with PersonA being both a speeder and a good driver, it's based on which city PersonA is in. Can't be one identity for certain, I guess.
-Fallon-
wow i wish i wasn't so late I could have put in my two cents. But these are all great. I probably strongest agree with aholt on this one though. i also believe that we change our identity to try and fit in or do what the media influences us to do. Our nation is a consumer nation, trying to create new identities so that the consumers will buy their products and in turn change their identity to something that is accepted by the general public.
SORRY SO LATE!
Although media influences people to do things in certain ways, people ultimately can make their own choices. If media made an issue over not cutting or cuttinf fingernails, then we would think more into it. But since there is not, none of us use it as distinguishing our own characters. If you tend to go along with what the norms are, then you most likely follow media. Otherwise if you are the type to rebel, you are trying to go against the media. Showing the opposing ideals requires an idea to be opposed to, therefore the media still affects you. It is not until you are completely absent from tv, ads, etc that you could say you aren't effected. But if you are in contact with other people, you will be through them.
Post a Comment