Identity, Identification & the Subject

This chapter was all about whether or not the self is a given or if it is influenced by outside forces and factors.  I think that the obvious answer to this question is that it is a little bit of both.  It has to do with the classic argument of nurture vs. nature, which by the way, most professionals now agree that both nature and nurture play an equally important role in the development of self and identity. 

I think that there are definitely factors which are a given and are inherent and don’t usually change due to outside forces.  For example, growing up I was painfully shy.  I mean PAINFULLY shy.  If I didn’t know you I probably wouldn’t talk to you much.  Even some of my teachers expressed concern about how shy I was around them.  Despite my shyness, I had a lot of great (and outgoing) friends.  My family members wouldn’t normally be classified as “shy” or “quiet” types either.  I was shy just because I was shy.  External forces didn’t make me that way, or bring out the opposite side of me either.  To this day I am still shy; if I don’t know you I probably won’t say much to you.  It just is what it is, I am who I am.  You could put me around 100 of the most outgoing people, and I would still be shy.  Similarly, I have friends who are gay and they just are who they are.  All of the pressure in the world to be straight doesn’t change the fact that they’re gay.  Certain characteristics of the self are inherent, innate, a given.

A more serious example is that of sexual offenders.  It has pretty much been proven that sexual offenders cannot be rehabilitated.  My mom helped create the sex offender database for the FBI which required all convicted sex offenders to register on the database and provide information about where they are living, what car they are driving, etc.  Needless to say, I know more about sex offenders than I’ll probably ever need to know.  Anyway, recently my mother had to have a meeting with some FBI officials to go over the effectiveness of the database and any changes that could/should be made.  My mom met these officials at a compound in Northern Minnesota that essentially is a jail for sex offenders (but not actually a jail).   The sex offenders are “detained,” if you will, because the government knows that they will offend again.  I told my mom I thought this was kind of unconstitutional, holding them for a crime they have not yet committed.  She said that the sex offenders appeal all of the time to be released, and the only offender they actually did release in the 8ish years the facility has been open reoffended within 3 months of being released.  He would up right back behind bars.  The point of this is, sexual offenders are who they are.  Experts agree that they cannot be rehabilitated.  Their tendencies and preferences are innate and unchanged by external factors.     

Conversely, there are characteristics that are shaped entirely by external forces. For example, socially I am liberal.  I identify with these views based on experiences I have had, people I have met, and literature that I have read.  My liberal views are based almost completely on external forces.  Had I not had some of the experiences that I have had, I may not believe in certain things the way I do now.  My views make up a large part of my identity, my self, and they are definitely externally influenced. 

Therefore, it kind of annoys me that the book even questions this topic like it does.  It sort of pits the two viewpoints against each other as though only one can be right, when I think most people would agree that the construction of identity and self is a combination of both internal and external factors.

Finally, I think that the book raised a good question when it asked if a group necessarily needed something essentially shared in order to identify with one another.  I’ve put a lot of thought into it and I think that the answer is yes.  Otherwise, how would a group be classified?  Groups are classified given that they have certain characteristics in common.  Without these commonalities, there would be no way to distinguish a group of people from anyone or anything.