When
reflecting upon the concept of identity, it is important to look at one's own
understanding of the subject first. To do this it would be wise for one to
consider questions such as what sorts of categories can be a part of identity?
How broad is it? How does one identify themselves, and how do others identify
them? What influences can identity have in the unfolding of circumstances?
Taking into account such questions while reading and reflecting I believe can
bring out some key concepts within text that maybe aren’t so obvious and don’t
often get acknowledged.
Outside
of this course, my understanding of identity primarily comes from social
understanding. I think it's beautiful that in the 21st century the way people
view identity is really being reshaped - anywhere from in terms of sexuality to
gender roles. We’re living in a society that’s fighting for change and is
really working to raise questions in terms of rights and equality. In terms of
identity, how people should be recognized is a key topic, and based on how
people identify themselves may have effects on their rights. Which is just
crazy to me. Sometimes when I see what’s being debated, and it seems to me that
obviously equality should win out, I can’t help but be frustrated that this is
still an issue that undergoes much opposition. It’s simple: we’re not living in
antiquated times anymore, like the likes of Shakespeare (I mean no offense).
But that being said, in his own time I love how Shakespeare plays with identity and is willing
to say things or go where others may not, and get risky. Take for example any
of Shakespeare’s plays where cross-dressing occurs; people are taking on other
roles and assuming identities so that they may do things they previously wouldn’t
have been able to do. I think that’s a real social message for back then, and
even still relevant today.
Another
understanding I’ve garnered of identity comes from my class last semester with
Dr. Sebastian, Reading Historically I. In that particular course, we took a
look at texts and considered the role in identity in them. That brought up such
categories in our studies like the notion of comitatus – a body of companions
(OED) – which spurred reflection on other related ideas like identity in
relation to loyalty and brotherhood, the role of outsiders (and who they
could be identified as – mostly
women), and gender roles, stemming from that. It really made me realize while
there can be a singular concept of one’s own identity, it’s really interwoven
with how we identify ourselves with and to others. In Beowulf, for example, our
title character identifies himself not by name at first but rather by his
people, his king, his role, and his father. So it can be seen that identity,
though it may not normally be viewed as such, belongs to the community and not
always just the individual.
The
definition of identity in the OED (the Oxford English Dictionary), is identified
(no pun intended) as thus:
Identity,
n. – The quality or condition of
being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular
qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness, oneness.
I find this definition curious when considering Shakespeare's early works because as discussed in class, he's going to play with forms, and challenge the constructs, much like how his characters that take on different identities in his plays do. The origin of the word identity is Middle French and as listed in the OED has a few different ways of being defined. That makes me laugh, given the staunchness of the above definition, because even identity itself can be loose in it's own identification. I can tell already that identity will be a diversified and deep topic because of the many ways it may go.
Your opening questions are great, and I think they'll lead you to some insightful readings of identity formation (and deformation?) in Shakespeare. One thing we have in common with early moderns is that we see identity as plastic. At the same time, the ways it's formed and revised now (which are largely focused on who individuals think they want to be) are quite different from the ways identity was constituted then (which is less about individuality than about relationships).
ReplyDelete