So, what does identity have to do with freedom? The basis of my argument is that how I answer the question, "Who am I?" has a lot to do with the answer to the question, "What am I free to do?"
I should make clear that much of the thinking here is far from original and is merely a distillation of what many have thought before. My friend and I did, however, offer a somewhat unique (if exceedingly minor) addition to this line of research and theory with a paper in 2006.
Basically, this all has to do with a particular understanding of the relationship among language, meaning and action. Someone once told me that rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke said that to call a man a murderer is to prepare for a hanging in the morning. I don't know whether Burke actually said that, but it is consistent with what he and others understand to be a fundamental characteristic of language -- We speak our world. What we say about something has an awful lot of influence over what we do about it. This is because language -- the words we use -- is the basis for the meanings we make. And I define meaning to be a socially constructed symbolic framework for action.
The meaning(s) I have for something both results from the language I use in relation to it and triggers how I act in toward it. The same can be said for the self. The identity I have is basically a collection of meanings that I have (and others have -- we have together) about who I am. That identity then forms the basis for how I act. If I construct (with others) an identity for myself that includes the element "idiot," then I am highly unlikely to consider obtaining a PhD among my options (unless I find that to be a legitimate pursuit for idiots). Therefore, my freedom to act -- in this case to enter a doctoral program, complete my coursework, pass my candidacy exams, complete my dissertation and successfully defend it, thus earning a PhD -- is constrained by my identity, my self-concept.
Now, there is a legitimate question regarding whether or not I possess the intellectual potential to successfully complete a doctoral program. Nonetheless, there is also a possibility that even if I have adequate intellectual potential, my identity may be structured in such a way as to preclude me from exercising true choice if it excludes this potential as part of my self-concept.
The point my friend and I made in the paper mentioned above is that we cannot ever come close to "true" freedom unless we raise our awareness of how our identity could be constraining our freedom of action by automatically limiting our range of choices. Alternatively, the extent to which we cede control over our identities to others, we enslave ourselves to them. This is how Madison Avenue makes its money.
I should make clear that much of the thinking here is far from original and is merely a distillation of what many have thought before. My friend and I did, however, offer a somewhat unique (if exceedingly minor) addition to this line of research and theory with a paper in 2006.
Basically, this all has to do with a particular understanding of the relationship among language, meaning and action. Someone once told me that rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke said that to call a man a murderer is to prepare for a hanging in the morning. I don't know whether Burke actually said that, but it is consistent with what he and others understand to be a fundamental characteristic of language -- We speak our world. What we say about something has an awful lot of influence over what we do about it. This is because language -- the words we use -- is the basis for the meanings we make. And I define meaning to be a socially constructed symbolic framework for action.
The meaning(s) I have for something both results from the language I use in relation to it and triggers how I act in toward it. The same can be said for the self. The identity I have is basically a collection of meanings that I have (and others have -- we have together) about who I am. That identity then forms the basis for how I act. If I construct (with others) an identity for myself that includes the element "idiot," then I am highly unlikely to consider obtaining a PhD among my options (unless I find that to be a legitimate pursuit for idiots). Therefore, my freedom to act -- in this case to enter a doctoral program, complete my coursework, pass my candidacy exams, complete my dissertation and successfully defend it, thus earning a PhD -- is constrained by my identity, my self-concept.
Now, there is a legitimate question regarding whether or not I possess the intellectual potential to successfully complete a doctoral program. Nonetheless, there is also a possibility that even if I have adequate intellectual potential, my identity may be structured in such a way as to preclude me from exercising true choice if it excludes this potential as part of my self-concept.
The point my friend and I made in the paper mentioned above is that we cannot ever come close to "true" freedom unless we raise our awareness of how our identity could be constraining our freedom of action by automatically limiting our range of choices. Alternatively, the extent to which we cede control over our identities to others, we enslave ourselves to them. This is how Madison Avenue makes its money.
No comments:
Post a Comment