Anyone doing identity and belonging? Struggling a bit! :P

[Curmudgeon]

Hi everyone,

I recently completed this response to the prompt: 'Some people wonder who they really are. The better question is who do I want to be now and in the future', from the 2012 Radiant Heart Trial Exam. I found it quite difficult, so was looking for some feedback/rough score!

‘There are no facts, only interpretations’, posited the Existentialist philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Our interpretations are formed by our own views and values, our identity. The lens through which we ‘interpret’ the world around us is as complex and difficult to understand as our identity. Our development of identity is subjective, and unique to the individual. But it is us that are in control of who we are and want to be. Despite the influence of those around us, to strive to be something more in the present and in the future is to create and control one’s own identity.

The question ‘who do I want to be’ allows us to exist outside the tumultuous setting that we find ourselves in, and create meaning in our life despite hardship.  Through asking ‘who are we?’, and not considering the future, the prejudiced society we inhabit can often lead to confusion and despair. In Skin, Anthony Fabian’s 2008 biographical film, Sandra Laing’s society’s prejudiced views and values prevented her from understanding who she really was. Fabian utilizes the reporters who question Sandra’s identity in her childhood to represent the chaos that prejudice brings. The ‘freak show’ of the reporters and paparazzi confuse and confound the young Sandra, leading to ask if she really was ‘black’, to her ‘coloured’ servant. Thus, it is often unhelpful to ask ‘who we really are’, as our present situation may be complex and difficult to comprehend. Fabian further highlights the complexities of situations and setting external to us through his depiction of ‘the end’ of Sandra and her two children’s nomadic journey. The ‘chiaroscuro’, that is, juxtaposition he presents, of Sandra and her children’s shadows against the vast city of Johannesburg is evocative of the view that factors external to us are complex and confounding arguing that we need to focus on what we want to achieve in the future.

In order to gain a sense of self, we must ask ourselves who we want to be in the present. In times of conflict, it is imperative that we question our desires for the future, and then act on this volition through use of taking control of our present. The My Lai Massacre of 1968, by American Soldiers in Vietnam, is evidence of conflict at its most brutal. Many soldiers, in an act of revenge, raped and killed an entire village of unarmed civilians. Thus, many soldiers may be seen as guilty of ‘groupthink’, conforming to act in a certain way, pressured by their peers. In spite of this, there were a handful of soldiers who decided they would not conform to the actions of the group. In intervening, and saving countless civilians, these few soldiers questioned the repercussions of their actions committed in the present, with an effect on their future lives. Their actions display the effectiveness and need to question not only who they would like to be, but also their identities, intrinsic and inalieble. For these soldiers, who they really were, affected who they wanted to be. In this way, it would be remiss to argue that there exists a fundamental dichotomy between present and future identity. Who we want to be is affected by who we really are.

The complexity of one’s identity illustrates the relationship between identity in the past, present and future. Though we are capable of changing our identity, the wish to change it emanates from our own identities in the present, in response to a reflection and analysis of stimulus around us. For change to occur, we must analyse the mistakes and merits of the past, present, and our goals for the future. Evidence for this need for reflection may be seen in Australia’s history of national identity. In our past, the Stolen Generations, symbolising prejudice in the 20th century, was seen as detrimental to our national identity. Thus, a period of acceptance and pluralism followed, leading to the future, now the 21st century, of multiculturalism and diversity. In Skin, Sandra reflects on her and society’s view of viewing identity as a ‘black and white’ issue, only conducting a ‘skin-level’ analysis. Thus, she chose not to characterise her identity not on harmful views of society in the past, but sought to create a deeper meaning for her life. Thus, we must reflect on our identities in the past and present, so as to understand what we really want in our future.

Despite our need to question our identity in the present, a balance must be struck between reflection of identity in the past, present and future. It is often difficult to find meaning and create identity, amidst prejudice and conflict. In this way, we must look to who we want to be, as a source of hope and inspiration. This sentiment is epitomised by Winston Churchill’s message to ‘never, never, never give up’.


Thanks everyone, and good luck with exams