What is Identity?

Hello

I've been wondering about identity. What makes me, me and you, you? 

Philosophy says: -

identity is whatever makes something the same or different.

Sociology says: -

an individuals comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity.

In fact the more I look into this the more I realise no one has a definitive description of identity. Everyone approaching the question from their own perspective and experiences. So, what goes into our identity? Are we born with it? Is it our soul? Our DNA? Our life experiences? Is it what we mean to others? Is it what we do? Is it all of these things? 

I'm sure we've all heard people day "I'm not the same person I was X years ago, I've changed." So, lets assume that identity, primarily our self identity is flexible. Is it identity chosen by us then? 

Three main factors of identity

1. DNA - Our building blocks, mapping out what we will look like, what our brain's capabilities will do. 

2. Social Impact - Learnt behaviour, socially accepted norms, psychological development etc.

3. Personal Will - Our ability to take control of our naturally born attributes and our learnt behaviour and change them. Learn more, change our behaviours use or disregard any biological characteristics. 

All three components are intrinsically interwoven. 

(Ok, so you're probably thinking DNA doesn't change. Well. yes, DNA doesn't. But we do change what we do with our DNA. I used to love swimming, I could be genetically predisposed to being a fantastic swimmer. But I haven''t been swimming for years. The DNA is the same but it's relevance is questionable. You may have brown hair but dye it blond. DNA is massive, but it's impact on identity is derived by personal will, social impact and yes, DNA. One DNA characteristic counteracting another. I'm great with three dimensional strategy, I can anticipate what a footballer will do when he's heading towards me in a football game, I can plan how best to stop them. I can train my body to have the physical capabilities to stop them. All influenced by DNA. But I have a hypersensitivity to pain and my social awkwardness makes it difficult interacting on a team. Both caused by DNA. So I don't play football.)

So, how do we identify our self? 

• Photo's - DNA
  
• Names - Social 
  
• Our jobs - Personal will 
  

When introducing yourself to someone else you cover all of these three characteristics and probably don't realise it. We all identify ourselves on these three levels. 

Which one is stronger? hmmm..... all of them are strong. All of them balance each other. 

• Your personal will, will only go so far before social pressures or physical limitations kick in. 
  
• Your social role is limited by your physical attractiveness and capabilities as well as your willingness to interact with society. 
  
• Your physical characteristics are limited by your desire to act upon them. Social influences and personal will impact our diet, exercise, what products we use, what skills we develop.  (For an odd example, I may be genetically predisposed to being a fantastic psychopath. But society would not approve, I've learnt that it's bad and I personally don't want to do it.)

How do you define the identities of those around you? Is our identity purely what people perceive of us?

Our brains store a catalogue of people in our minds. We need to define each one as differant in order to interact with them. So we define that person's identity for them and treat them accordingly. 

Even if you are married to someone you can't know their whole identity, it's to complex. So we generalise. We use stereotypes. We track common characteristics of people with similar details and build up a picture of their identity in our minds. 

Recently there has been outrage at bankers for loosing all the money. If we see a banker we automatically assume now that they are money hungry, risk taking valueless people. Without even meeting someone you have defined someones personal will identity as uncaring. You've defined their social identity as being corrupted, they've learnt the wrong lessons, their parents must have done this to them. And you've defined their DNA.. "I bet they have a small penis." "They were bad at sports at school so they're making up for it now." 

So, in reality, identity is both something so massive and personal that no one can ever understand. AND something someone can define you as, without knowing you at all. 

Which I think it why it makes it so hard to define exactly what we mean by identity. The word is imprecise. The way others perceive your identity is uncontrollable. So if you say identity is what makes you the same or different, it depends on who's actually making that decision. If I was a banker I'd be the same as all the other bankers. But if I'm your child I'm unique. If I'm your child and a banker then the credit crunch is automatically my fault, but you forgive me for it and start telling the neighbours that you were the only one who predicted it and tried to stop the madness. The one good banker! 

Identity then has two perspectives. Self identity and Social identity.

Self identity is what you define yourself as. Ironically most people define themselves as whatever their social identity is. So let's look at social identity.

Social identity is defined as how others see you. Social identity is based on such little information it can be easily manipulated like the mother above telling the neighbours about the valiant struggles of her son to stop the credit crunch. Or advertising on television. 

When people pick a career they want to go into, they typically are using their personal will to pick the social identity they want. Therefore someone saying "My son's a doctor" you might jump to "is he cute/married?" On the other hand "My son's a Republican senator", I'd probably just politely walk away. 

Personal will is influenced by social and DNA so you assume the doctor is smart and has been raised well. That he's passionate, caring and rich. 

The Republican senator is also smart, more than likely rich. But you automatically question his upbringing or his caring nature. Maybe the mothers overprotective and the father abusive. (At least you do if you're a Democrat. Sorry Republicans, that's how you are perceived.) 

Coming back to self identity. If it's so infuenced by social identity. Then is the self identity the weaker of the two aspects? Or because our self identity influences our social identity so much is self identity the stronger? 

Most people live their lives trying to understand their self identity at the same time they try and control their social identity. We all want to be liked. We want our identity to be something people like. We judge our own success based on how others percieve us. So the two identities are both important. Everyone weighs the two differantly. 

The people who are nervous and the people who are confident. The balance I think largely relates to how they balance their self and social identities. Nervous people value social identity more, they are more likely to view themselves and thier accompishments through the eyes of others. They worry more about how they are seen in society. Confident people are more likely to value their personal identity more than their social identity. They do what they feel is best suited to their own beliefs and how they define themselves. 

Whether we favour social identity or self identity is also an aspect of our identity. It is influenced by what we've learn't, personal will of how it affects us and is influenced by our DNA. Natrually attractive people tend to value that attractiveness less than someone who isn't attractive. The DNA making them attractive, plus social impact and perception of that attractiveness giving them confidence, helps define their view of the world and their personal will. 

Those of us with a poor perception of our social identity, worry about our social identity. Those with a good social identity tend to worry more about their personal identity. They complain that they're idea's aren't taken seriously because they're cute. Their social identity, whilst being positive, compromises thier personal identity and that's what they're more concerned about. 

This seems to lead to a self fulfilling policy and moral of the story, but which one. 

• Be true to yourself and you'll be happy? 
  
• If you focus on pretending to be good then people will think you are and therefore you'll be good? 
  

I've always focused on the top one. I have strong personal values, although I am nervous. But the second one, although it seems odd, seems to be the key to happiness. Can faking our identity really be the right thing to do to make us happy? 

What do you think?