New revelations on identity and inquiry

Over the past 2 weeks, I have listened to several intensive discussions on identity in my class. These discussions, along with reading the theories of several philosophers have changed my perception of identity. Previously, I considered identity to consist of the characteristics a person used to define himself. It was something I thought to remain constant in all situations. For instance, if someone was an athlete, he would express himself as an athlete regardless of his social surroundings. However, I have come to learn that identity is much more complicated than what I previously defined it to be, and that it cannot concretely be defined. A person’s identity may depend on the audience, and could constantly be changing according to the social surroundings. This is exemplified in the theory of William James, who discusses the empirical social self. James says “a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him” (The Self We Live By, 24). He is saying that social identity does not consist of what one thinks of himself, but also of what others perceive him to be. Recognition from others is the key factor in determining identity. For example, an individual may be recognized as a husband, a father, a coach, a scientist, or a religious zealot depending on who he is interacting with. James says this man’s identity is the sum of all that he can be, and is a combination of who he is around others. I guess one could say that identity is a combination of one’s own self concept and how others view him. James also breaks social identity into “me” (the essence of a person that makes him who he is) and “mine” (the possessions a person owns). I am still a bit unsure about the differences between these two concepts. From my understanding, James says a man’s identity is determined by all that he possesses, which would essentially make all that is “mine” into “me”. Yet he questions if our bodies are “ours” or “us”? I too wonder if our physical appearances (bodies) are part of our identity, or if our identities are solely based on the essence of our thoughts, actions, and souls. Are our bodies part of how we perceive ourselves and others perceive us, or are they simply something we own, but serve as a shell to coat our actual identities?

Skimming the remainder of “The Self We Live By”, I am curious to read some of the chapters on self narration. I have seen the socially constructed side of identity, and I would like to learn about the other side, about how an individual narrates and expresses his own identity. I would think that these chapters would delve into the mind of an individual and how he is trying to portray himself in society.

It is a little difficult for me to connect my ideas about identity to my major, which is biomedical engineering. In class today, we were discussing arguing to inquire. This taught me to look deeper into an argument and probe for questions within the argument to learn more. I am all for clarifying terms and thinking deeper into a situation, but I feel that some facts need to be accepted to serve as a foundation, and only then can further questions be raised. The example used in class, which questioned whether Columbus discovered America, had a lot of ambiguity to it that had to be defined, and therefore was a subject for inquiry. However, from an engineering standpoint, there are some facts that we learn as scientists and mathematicians that are taken for granted. For instance, two plus two is four, always was four, and always will be four. No question about it. Similarly, an atom will always be an atom regardless of what context one is in. However, after the basics are learned, a person can inquire about future ideas. Biomedical engineering is not really a social profession; however, it does encompass a lot of teamwork. One’s identity in a group could be constructed by how he perceives himself (i.e. a diligent and dependable worker) and the traits his teammates recognize in him (i.e. a strong communicator and leader). Arguing to inquire can also tie into biomedical engineering because it is a profession based on innovation and constantly revamping ideas to release the highest quality of products to consumers. If a biomedical engineer was developing a dialysis machine that was used in cases of renal failure, and argued that it was the best of its kind, several questions could be posed to inquire more about the product. Some questions may include the increase in life expectancy, side effects, patient safety concerns, cost/benefit ratios, who has access to the product, etc. Although science and philosophy are completely different fields, I suppose there is a way to tie in identity and inquiry into an engineering discipline.