Who Am I? By Ian Burkitt Essay

Our identity is comprised of inner qualities and outer representations of self. It consists of innumerable defining characteristics that make up the whole of who we are in any given moment. These fragments of self include our sexuality, gender, and sense of belonging to a particular culture, nation, religion, family, or some other group. Our identity includes our looks, personality, beliefs and fears. Each individual in society assigns themselves a particular role, whether it be as a mother, brother, retiree, performer, sportsman or as a part of their occupation, a doctor or lawyer. Often one’s entire sense of self is consumed by

In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matters. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question about identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism.

George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman are two theorists in the study of sociology that have impacted the way we see sociology today. Their works, when closely examined, actually share some extreme similarities. Both of these men seemed very interested in the perception of self in the eyes of others as well as yourself. “Mind, Self, and Society” is an article written by Mead which was placed in the book entitled “Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism” which was edited by Farganis with the copyright of McGraw-Hill in 2004. This primarily deals with the development of one’s self, or their identity. “Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” is an article written by Goffman which was arranged to be in the book “Inner Lives and

“What are we going to do! What about my graduation?” Linz repeats frantically over and over, as the daunting reality slowly sat in.

Individuals often find the definition of identity complex and difficult to comprehend. A balance must be struck between the contending concepts that a person’s identity is founded on how they view themselves, or how others perceive them to be. During the 20th century, strict adherence to archetypal roles was expected. Who an individual was, how they interacted with others, and their status in society, was determined through the judgement of others and subsequently, the archetypal roles they were placed in. For Stephen, a young fifteen year-old who is struggling on achieving true self-fulfillment in a society that is male dominated, he drives his sense of identity and self-perception from how others see him.

The world has become modern and global. Identification of the self is a complicated, though, an important problem of every individual. Self- identity is based on inner values and reflections on culture, politics and social interactions. The main point is that people label themselves to any particular group in the society (Worchel etc., 1998). According to Ferguson: “Identity commonly refers to which it makes, or is thought to make

There are many factors that shape us into who we are, and who we will become. Some of these factors we can control, while others we cannot. While we are born into many traits of our identities, much of our other behavior is learned. My identity, for example, is “based not only on responses to the question ‘Who am I?’ but also on responses to the question ‘Who am I in relation to others?’” (Allen, 2011, p. 11). My identity and the question of who I am, are both influenced by many aspects of my life, including my hometown, my family, my friends, and my beliefs and moral values.

This theory looks at how we present ourselves in social situations in terms of our identity.

A person’s identity is shaped by many different aspects. Family, culture, friends, personal interests and surrounding environments are all factors that tend to help shape a person’s identity. Some factors may have more of an influence than others and some may not have any influence at all. As a person grows up in a family, they are influenced by many aspects of their life. Family and culture may influence a person’s sense of responsibilities, ethics and morals, tastes in music, humor and sports, and many other aspects of life. Friends and surrounding environments may influence a person’s taste in clothing, music, speech, and social activities. Personal interests are what truly set individuals apart. An individual is not a puppet

Our identity can sometimes be shaped by the way others see us. As we have seen, the way in which others view us can have some sort of impact on how we see ourselves. There are also other contributing factors such as our years of adolescence, the basic human need of wanting to belong and maturing; all play an equally important part in the forming of our character and who we are. On balance it appears that there is not only one influence in the shaping of our identity, but there are many.

While numerous philosophers have debated how to quantify personal identity, It is my contention that Rene Descartes presents the best argument .This essay will examine the strengths and weaknesses within his theory. This essay will also also compare Descartes argument to Rick Parfit and David Humes individual interpretations of what personal identity is. Lastly, this essay will examine the weaknesses within Descartes argument and the points some have contention with.

Giving an Account of Oneself, a compelling piece of work written by Judith Butler, digs deep into what it means to give an account of oneself and how it is nearly, if not entirely, impossible to do such an activity without becoming “a social theorist” (Butler 8). Butler states “the story of my origin I tell is not one for which I am accountable, and it cannot establish my accountability,” (Butler 37) since the story is always changing. We are not able to give our accounts as the accounts we give will always be told in different lights and we, as beings, are always changing as the norms around us change. The sense of being ties into us not being the same person we were when we came into being, and nor are we the same being as when we begin to tell the story of our origin of being. However, other notable influences, such as Levinas, believe that fully exposing our origin of being would act as a sort of “surplus” (Levinas 79) meaning those we expose our origin of being to will be so overwhelmed with the situation that we would never be able to give an account of ourselves overall. Levinas’ views coincides with Butlers’ on the topic of norms and how we will never be able to act outside of norms when he states, “the moment I realize that the terms by which I confer recognition are not mine alone… I am, as it were, disposed by the language that I offer” (Levinas 26).

According to Hecht (2015), the “Communication Theory of Identity” began with the study of “self” (p. 176), which found its origins in philosophy (Mead, 1913) and, more modernly, in psychology and sociology (Hecht, 2015, p. 176). The focus on individualism began as early as the 1950’s under the constructs of self-esteem and self-concepts when questions arose about how people thought and/or felt about themselves. Scholars believed that understanding how individuals thought and felt about themselves would pave the way to better understand how people communicate. When scholars referred to “self” in a singular form it assumed that an individual had one single identity. The problem with this perspective is that, as found later, people assume a “layered” identity. For example, an athlete may be hard working on the basketball court, but aggressive and self-protected on the streets of Richmond, California. The more modern study of “self” in the disciplines of psychology and sociological describes “self” as forming from social interactions and perceptions of others. For example, how key adults such as teachers, coaches, and/or church leaders influence a child’s development. Over time, the term “self” became the term “identity. “Identity” draws on the sociological “social role theory” that detailed how people define themselves through the roles they play in society. Veering away from “self” and assuming the “identity” approach presented a more complex and precise depiction of people

     The social constructionist perspective holds the view that the self is continuing "shaped and reshaped through interactions with others and involvement in social and cultural activities" (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996, p 220). Social constructionist is concerned with explicating the processes by which people come to describe, explain, or otherwise account for the world (including themselves) in which they live (Gergen, 1971). Thus, the social constructionist approach implies that the self is shaped by social interaction within historical, cultural and social contexts. Social constructionist's apply an analysis of societal level which explain the self through social relations. Conversely, the

When I look in the mirror I know whom I am, but society makes it difficult to understand who I am, because I was born to immigrants of Nigerian descent, and I am a first generation American, that term is sometimes used so loosely. By looking at my name they assume that I am from some island, but I am so quick to tell them that “I am Nigerian”, there is another statement that normally follows this. “You do not have an accent”. I wonder if I had an accent would I be considered Nigerian and not American; then I say that “My parents are Nigerian” and then that changes, so to them I am just associated with the Nigerian culture it does not make me Nigerian, there has been many discussion between my friends who are the same like me confused to