Do We Have A Single Identity?

Recently the question of personal identity has been everywhere for me. The question of what makes a person who they are and how that is changed or built upon. Almost everywhere we look, we see something that can alter us. The extent to which it alters us is a choice we are all granted with and must deal with internally before any change can be made to the “self”. The real question in this, I suppose, is do we a single identity? Does each change produce a more articulated “self” or add another identity to the pile we may have already inside us?

It is easy to notice that a person's etiquette changes with each situation. From work, to school, to your home, or out with your friends, changes are made in your demeanor. The clothes, the vocabulary, the way one speaks to those around them, and even the body language all change. Some situations call for more drastic changes than others, but are these changes the call to another identity?

Upon studying this question I stumbled upon the work of Sigmund Freud. His theory on the “self” is that within each person there are three parts. The id, which is a person's immediate reaction or want, the superego, which is the morals and ethics one learns over time, and the ego, which balances the two to produce what one actually does in any situation. So at all times, these three parts are in conflict with each other, trying to gain control. But once again, I am provoked to wonder, are these separate identities? Are we just an allusion to “wholeness” or are we simply one? Does the confines of one body mean that everything inside is “one” as well?

Webster's definition of “identity” is “the distinguishing character or personality of an individual”. With this definition it is easy to rush to the conclusion that we have a single identity. The word “the” seems to be the distinguishing word. It puts forth the idea that we have one distinguishing character, but that is no concluding point for me. One's distinguishing character trait or personality changes, as I brought up in paragraph one, with each situation. By the definition's rule, one could say that we do have multiple identities.

The world around us changes who we are. The situations, the events, the people, and the places all affect us more than we like to admit. One thing I feel I can take comfort in after studying these questions, is that one is never fully lost. In order to lose who you are, you would have to lose yourself far more times than one. For we have multiple identities. Although some would say we put on masks, I feel that is a negative point of view on a positive situation. Change, no matter how uncomfortable, is not always a bad thing. Multiple identities, no matter how many there are, are not always a bad thing.

Reviews

[Michael Kevin Spencer]

For me the idea of a separate identity and individuality is a historical construct that is actually quite recent, maybe 500 years at best, in reality, we are so influenced by our upbringing, culture, environment and social life it's hard to fathom to me how a capitalistic individualism even works, actually it's entirely possible it doesn't work well at all...

[Angela Abate]

I've researched this topic from the angles of Philosophy, Psychology, Cultural Studies, and History. I have yet to come to any solid conclusion. It seems as though we have no agreed upon definition of "self" or "indentity" among these topics. Fascinating topic though, the idea of multiple identities.

[Michael Kevin Spencer]

Well it's a patriarchal invention for the control of nature and other people, a construct that perpetuates profiteers, exploitism, elitism, class consciousness and inequality.

It's also the major formation of ideals like the American Dream, and degenerates pretty fast into a warped capitalism where people lack real community but their nuclear family.