Language and Literature and Identity

[Kooker]

Identity, or the self, is created through language. We are a collection of labels: Adidas on my shoes, Nike on my back, Puma on my jacket, Arabic on my face, terrorist on your mind, a believer on Tuesday, an atheist on Wednesday, agnostic by Thursday. Young today, you tomorrow. All working together to form the idea of “me.” However, find me someone with the same labels and there will be a difference—excuse the cliché, but we are all unique. The problem, then, is that these linguistic labels, in all their plenitude, do not allow for the rise of the individual.

Thus, we find ourselves outside of labels, outside of words—but not outside of existence, and hence, we feel alienated from ourselves because the words that contain us do not define us. Why English then? How does the study of English literature fit into the question of individual being? Essentially, who are you, and how can English help find out who you are? If the problem posited is that no labels are adequate, or individual enough, to capture our self-hood, the only avenue left, in my mind, is self-creation.

Create the words that describe you. Yet, these words have to be understood by the common cognomen of this world; in order to realize yourself, someone must realize you—but how does someone realize you through your language and not the labels presupposed by the dominant symbolic order?

We do this through metaphor. Metaphors become a subversive way in which to create the self while existing under the structures that be. Poetry, perhaps, is essentially a dissident struggle for identity. In order to find yourself—to realize who you are as an individual—you must write the metaphors of your own being. Metaphors arise from the imagination, an imagination that is cultivated through the arts—in this context, the study of English literature. Literature helps us realize ourselves on our pilgrimage towards metaphor.

Yet, the problem is twofold: If, more broadly, art is that which cultivates our identity, what if we are presented only with the artistry, or imagination, of capital industry? No change will come about. Art is the basis of change. If our imagination is cultivated through the imagination of a corporate capitalism that dominates the forms of communication, then the corporate mentality, or the corporate metaphor (e.g. money)—will continue decay the metaphors that stand in its way, (e.g. democracy) . Subsequently, to ask the question: "What transferable skills does an English degree give you?" is to succumb to the influence of the corporate imagination before you have given yourself the opportunity for growth.

The study of English literature democratizes identity by widening the space of language through metaphor. No one imagination stands atop the study of literature—to find yourself, look through the eyes of your own mind, unfetter your Fancy[1], as your own path is but a metaphoric step away.


Note:
[1] The eyes of your mind, your imagination, or your "Fancy" are guided through the study of art till it reaches a point of critical mass (or unfettering), after which you now guide yourself--hence self-realization, and the creation of your own metaphor/identity.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Kooker

Identity, or the self, is created through language. We are a collection of labels: Adidas on my shoes, Nike on my back, Puma on my jacket, Arabic on my face, terrorist on your mind, a believer on Tuesday, an atheist on Wednesday, agnostic by Thursday. Young today, you tomorrow. All working together to form the idea of “me.” However, find me someone with the same labels and there will be a difference—excuse the cliché, but we are all unique. The problem, then, is that these linguistic labels, in all their plenitude, do not allow for the rise of the individual.

Thus, we find ourselves outside of labels, outside of words—but not outside of existence, and hence, we feel alienated from ourselves because the words that contain us do not define us. Why English then? How does the study of English literature fit into the question of individual being? Essentially, who are you, and how can English help find out who you are? If the problem posited is that no labels are adequate, or individual enough, to capture our self-hood, the only avenue left, in my mind, is self-creation.

Create the words that describe you. Yet, these words have to be understood by the common cognomen of this world; in order to realize yourself, someone must realize you—but how does someone realize you through your language and not the labels presupposed by the dominant symbolic order?

We do this through metaphor. Metaphors become a subversive way in which to create the self while existing under the structures that be. Poetry, perhaps, is essentially a dissident struggle for identity. In order to find yourself—to realize who you are as an individual—you must write the metaphors of your own being. Metaphors arise from the imagination, an imagination that is cultivated through the arts—in this context, the study of English literature. Literature helps us realize ourselves on our pilgrimage towards metaphor.

Yet, the problem is twofold: If, more broadly, art is that which cultivates our identity, what if we are presented only with the artistry, or imagination, of capital industry? No change will come about. Art is the basis of change. If our imagination is cultivated through the imagination of a corporate capitalism that dominates the forms of communication, then the corporate mentality, or the corporate metaphor (e.g. money)—will continue decay the metaphors that stand in its way, (e.g. democracy) . Subsequently, to ask the question: "What transferable skills does an English degree give you?" is to succumb to the influence of the corporate imagination before you have given yourself the opportunity for growth.

The study of English literature democratizes identity by widening the space of language through metaphor. No one imagination stands atop the study of literature—to find yourself, look through the eyes of your own mind, unfetter your Fancy[1], as your own path is but a metaphoric step away.


Note:
[1] The eyes of your mind, your imagination, or your "Fancy" are guided through the study of art till it reaches a point of critical mass (or unfettering), after which you now guide yourself--hence self-realization, and the creation of your own metaphor/identity.

kooker,

Actually, when one is stripped of personal identity one is left with the self, personal identity is I think govern by experience; so, language would be elemental in creating evaluations of said experience. Personal identity is limited to its experience. The essence of what you are is the self, and the self is undiffreniated from any other self, or as the Upanishads put it, "The Self In One, Is The Self In All" The individual as personal identity could only arise through the selfs journey through the world of experience. Realising personal identity as an abstract concept, an illusion, is to become self-realized.

[Kooker]

I like that very much, thank you.

Experience is inherent to identity--but how are you to express the experience in a way that is particular to yourself? If I experience the loss of a loved one, how do I encapsulate /my/ loss and not just /a/ loss (that is, we all experience loss, but these losses are particular to our individual feeling). Through metaphor, or poetry, I think. And therein lies the creation--or realization, of a "self."

Upanishads put it, "The Self In One, Is The Self In All"

Read in the above context--the loss in one, is the loss in all; the greatest poetry is universal, or "In All," yet it is particular to that poets feeling, or "In One." A paradoxical convergence.

More stuff for me to mull on, thanks for the post.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Kooker

I like that very much, thank you.

Experience is inherent to identity--but how are you to express the experience in a way that is particular to yourself? If I experience the loss of a loved one, how do I encapsulate /my/ loss and not just /a/ loss (that is, we all experience loss, but these losses are particular to our individual feeling). Through metaphor, or poetry, I think. And therein lies the creation--or realization, of a "self."



Read in the above context--the loss in one, is the loss in all; the greatest poetry is universal, or "In All," yet it is particular to that poets feeling, or "In One." A paradoxical convergence.

More stuff for me to mull on, thanks for the post.

kooker,

We are not really at odds with each other on this, your statement reminds me of a saying by Carl Jung, that to speak in universals is to speak with a thousand voices. Being an individual is not a unique experience, it is in fact common. If one speaks however in the voice of self confession, of most particular woes, it will reach the heart of a limited number of people, speak in universals concerning the human condition and you have the world's ear--to speak in universals is to expand your concept of the self, which embraces all of humanity, past, present and future. I am glad you liked my previous response, such a positive response, thank you as well!!