The identity of any person forms an essential part in the psyche of the human being. Our identity has a lot to do with our "selfconcept”, That is to say, with the mental image that we have about ourselves that, in turn, is related to our "self-esteem" (the subjective assessment, positive or negative, that we make about our "selfconcept").
Thus, the "selfconcept" It would be an abstract and complex construction that would house the set of ideas that we have about ourselves. "Me".
Broadly speaking, all these ideas could be divided into three categories: first, those related to our physical appearance (if we consider ourselves handsome, ugly, etc.); on the other hand, those that had to do with our character or temperament (if we are nice, shy, etc.); and finally, the rest of beliefs regarding our role, place or position in the world (for example my nationality, my religion, my hobbies, etc.)
It is precisely in this last category (that of "Who am I about the world?") where, in my understanding, we would place the concept of identity. Identity, in turn, has a lot to do with an individual's perspective and behavior with respect to society in general. For example, if I consider myself a religious person, surely my point of view about life, family and much of the rest of my customs or daily actions, will be determined by this characteristic..
On the other hand, if we carefully reflect on the process by which, little by little, we build our identity, we can see the enormous influence that the social context in which we develop in our system of thought. In this way, we will realize that most of the ideas that we consider "Our" actually come from our external environment.
Following this argumentative logic, if we imagined having grown up in a cultural context very different from ours (for example in an indigenous tribe), we could easily deduce that most of the beliefs that we would harbor regarding ourselves and the world in general, would be completely different from what we currently have. Therefore, in some way, we could consider that we have become a completely different person than we are now..
In any case, the important thing about all this is to recognize the fact that only through the influence of society in our lives (through family, school, friends, work, etc.) is it possible that people develop our own personality. Thus, taking into account the social perspective of Tajfel, Identity would be understood as the feeling of belonging of an individual to a certain group due to the fact of sharing common characteristics (such as language, habits and customs, etc.).
Thus, identity (understood as a normal process of socialization in the human being) in principle should not have any negative connotation. Now, it is obvious that this way of understanding identity has been - and continues to be - one of the most common causes of conflict around the planet, if not the main one. And this is because this perspective, after all, is clearly reductionist and limiting with respect to human reality, since people can perfectly share characteristics with groups that are apparently very different from each other or, on the other hand, have personal beliefs considered "improper”Or uncommon of the group to which we are supposedly part.
In our present time and society, identity is usually linked to the feeling of belonging to those human groups defined within the framework of certain political limits (for example, Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian, etc.). However, perhaps in another era (or even today in other societies) this concept would be much better related to identification with certain religious groups (such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.)
However, at present we can see how many people identify themselves mainly with groups that have nothing to do with these issues. In this regard, those individuals for whom their "Idea of himself" It has to do above all with issues closely linked to social class (if one is poor, rich, worker, businessman etc.), or those for which their identity revolves around issues related to gender (women, men, homosexuals, etc. .) or even those for whom the most important thing is the race or ethnicity to which they belong (white, black, Asian, etc.)
This just to give a few common and generic examples, but it should be noted that there would be many other variants of identity depending on the degree of identification of the person with different human groups (according to different professions, interests or hobbies of any kind). It is also important to realize that each of the attributes that make up our personality tell us little or nothing about the others..
As an example, we can affirm without fear of being wrong that the fact of being “Christian"Or"atheist”, It is not related to specific membership in a specific country, nor to gender or social class, nor to any profession or hobby in particular.
So, following the same line of thought as Amin Maalouf, we can observe that the identity of any person would actually be composed of multiple elements (some are even sometimes considered contradictory) and, furthermore, it would be something that could vary over time.
According to this author, the more relevance taken together we are able to conceive in our personality, the more aware we will be of the many things we have in common with many other people in the world but, in turn, we will also realize our absolute specificity as human beings.
So much so that it is very likely that we notice our complete exceptionality as individuals to the point of understanding that it is very difficult for us to find another person around the planet who could share exactly the same references and to the same extent as us.
In this way, we can affirm that the problems that frequently derive from the conception of identity would occur because the tendency of people to submit all our multiple cultural references to just one that would dominate and subdue the rest, as unfortunately often happens with the examples that we have cited before regarding nationality or religion.
Or in other words, as long as we keep one "Tribal conception" identity (following the same terminology as Maalouf) the possibility of conflict between different groups will always remain in force, by generating and enhancing the sad prospect of confrontation of "We vs They", according to which, curiously, "U.SWe are always on the side of "The good ones".
On the other hand, it is obvious that this simplistic way of understanding identity makes us beings easily vulnerable to manipulation and control according to the interests of the institutions, political groups and, in general, by all those groups that hold power.
At this point and in order to reconcile with "the other" (that is, with the one who does not belong to our "clan") I would like to remember the "existential realism" from Alfredo Rubio from Castarlenas that invites us to contemplate the human conflicts (even the most unfortunate) that have occurred throughout history from a new point of view and, without justifying them in the least, we are able to reach a degree of understanding that allows us to see that everything that has happened over time, it has been necessary for it to happen in the way it has done in order to arrive at the present present moment, in which I am alive (and may not be if events had developed in a different).
This reflection allows us to observe the past with a new openness, leaving behind any resentment for events in which, in reality, none of us who are alive now have had any responsibility, to focus exclusively on the present in order to promote construction, among all and without exclusion of any kind, for a more solidary and fraternal future for humanity. Knowing us the same even in the difference.
Yet No Comments