Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 September 2013

If It Looks Like A Duck...

Who am I?

That's a question to which I struggle to find an answer that satisfies me. Oh, there are no shortage of answers: I'm Ben, I'm a husband, I'm a 40 year old, I'm a programmer, I'm an Aspie... But these are only labels. Some can conjure stereotypes: in the case of programmer that might well be of a pale-skinned, glasses-wearing, high-IQ social misfit with poor personal hygiene, no girl/boyfriend, the muscle tone of a blancmange and a diet of pizza, soda and Twinkies. As with most stereotypes there are elements that broadly fit and others that are way off. The imprecision nags at me like a label in the back of a shirt.

Tell me about yourself.

I won't deny that I do describe myself as above -- the labels, not the stereotype! But with limited time, space, or both, I can't keep on supplying descriptive tags until I feel I've completed the picture. Where does that leave me? Well, people have to fill in the gaps from their own observations and that depends on how I appear to them.

I can tell you that I care very much for my wife but that obviously didn't show to a group of doctors recently who were urgently treating her for an allergic reaction that caused her tongue and throat to swell. I think they were expecting me to appear agitated and fuss over her but I remained calm -- fussing or panicking would not have helped either of us, so I sat there out of the way and let the doctors get on with treating her. That's what I judged to be the most helpful course of action, and because I care I wanted to act in the way that I thought would benefit her the most. They asked my wife whether I cared about her because I appeared cold and unemotional.

But you don't look <adjective>.

Some people set great store by their belief in their powers of observation: seeing is believing. And when they're told something that is at odds with what their own eyes have seen they are inclined to disbelieve it. In this case of the doctors -- maxilla-facial surgeons and registrars -- even with a passing knowledge of autistic behavior they didn't believe my wife when she told them I do care about her but I'm not expressive: I didn't look like I cared. You just can't win sometimes.

It quacks like a duck, therefore...

If I tell you that I'm 5'11" and 210 lbs, stockily built, physically strong and bearded you will have a particular image of me. You might expect certain traits that correspond to that image: stereotypical masculine traits such as:
  • self-confident
  • independent
  • hard
  • thick-skinned
  • aggressive
You'd be in for a surprise: I'm none of those. So I present as male which matches my biological sex but I don't necessarily think or behave in the corresponding way. Told you I was weird! ;)

It's a platypus?

Conan-Doyle wrote  in Sherlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". And the truth here will have to wait until I have eliminated the impossible. You see, I can't accurately answer the question with which I opened this essay. I don't know how to describe who I really am: I'm as reliant on labels as everybody else. To myself I am just me -- I know what that means but the collection of thoughts, feelings, behaviors and physical matter doesn't have a name. Any words I or others use are an approximation, a simple sketch of the reality.

René Magritte in his famous painting La Trahison des Images (The Treachery of Images) captured this perfectly. As the caption on the picture states, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" -- "This is not a pipe". The realization for me of the literal truth of that statement was profound.

And finally...

I hope I've not left you disappointed that I didn't answer my own question. Instead I wanted to explore what identity means and how my perspective cannot be translated to anybody else without losing fidelity. All anybody else will ever see is an imperfect reflection through my words and their eyes.

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Identity

We all go through life acquiring labels: abstract, shorthand descriptions of how others see us. Some are positive: intelligent, caring; while others are negative: weird, rude, crazy. I've picked up several over the years. But how do these labels relate to my self-image, my identity?

The short answer is that they don't. I see myself as an individual, unique, with a set of behaviors and thoughts that is mine and mine alone. Yes, I share certain traits with others to varying degrees and this induces people to file me under certain categories in their minds. To put me into particular boxes bearing little hand-written labels, identifying me as a set of characteristics.

When I think of these labels I picture a dark, dusty, wooden cabinet, perhaps in a Victorian museum, with row after row of small drawers. Each has a tarnished brass handle and above the handle is affixed a small, age-yellowed paper label with one or two words written in a neat copperplate hand; the black ink has faded to gray. Inside each drawer, in perfect alphabetical order, is a stack of plain cards and upon each is written a person's name in the same hand as the drawer's label.

This view of a person as a collection of basic, orthogonal characteristics has its uses. It provides a point of reference, a sketched outline upon which to build a more detailed representation. But the picture must not be confused with the subject it represents - a portrait of somebody, whether painted or written, cannot describe them fully. The picture is not the object. That is the message in René Magritte's La Trahison des Images (The Treachery of Images) with its caption, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ("This is not a pipe").

As in mathematics, membership of any number of sets does not predicate that those attributes are the sum total of being, of identity. It's just like saying that a particular number is prime and odd, and attempting to infer its other attributes from that incomplete description. Can you guess what number I was thinking of? The number of possible answers is literally infinite.

When I consider myself reduced to a meager collection of adjectives my hackles rise and it brings to mind the rebellious outburst of Number 6 in The Prisoner, "I am not a number, I am a free man!" By simplifying me, painting me with a palette restricted to primary colors, you deny my complexity and individuality. To understand a person in any depth it is necessary to consider the subtleties, the fine nuances of their character. To be aware of those aspects that set them apart from others who appear superficially similar. To understand that your labels are no more than a frame that limns the gross outline within which lies the colorful richness of detail.

I reflect upon my own identity and I can recognize traits, but they are not me - they do not define me. They are the bold strokes from a broad brush upon the canvas - no fine detail is possible. I am a complex system emerging from the unique combination of more factors than I can name, each contributing to the whole and generating new additional behaviors through their interactions. In this whole world of some six billion people there is not one other who is the same as me. I am me, no more and no less. My being is my identity in toto.