Questioning Identity

So, what do you guys think about Identity?
Is a person's identity only a social construct, based on the positions of power they hold in life?
Or is it something separate, something someone has that is his own
and is not reliant on other people and things for definition?

I do not think that how a person defines himself, what he sees as his Identity
has to rest on outside people or things.
I think that there are the types of people who do need to define themselves by those things--
who need to define themselves by their jobs, friends, politics... and I think most people do at times,
but I think that they just don't realize that they are something beyond that... that they have an "Identity" that is all their own.

But then again, maybe I am thinking of something else besides identity... maybe I am defining it wrong

here are three definitions of identity (thanks to dictionary.com)-
1. the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitely recognizable or known
2. the set of behavioral/personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.
3. the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality

Does that change anyones opinion?

Comments

[Kara D.]

After we had the discussion in class about identity I started thinking about the points that were brought up. The one that was the most striking to me was the idea that if someone was locked in a room by themselves for the majority of their life, do they have an identity, or it just a social construction. I think that a person's identity stems further than just their social position. I think it has a lot to do with the personal characteristics that make them who they are. Pertaining to the dictionary's definition, 1. The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a think is definitely recognizable or known, I think that everyone needs an identity that makes them unique, but I must admit that it gets really sticky and confusing if someone is not part of society. This comment really did not get much accomplished, I am confused.

[guangzhou]

The social constructionist approach demystifies (simplifies) scientific justifications of racist behavior in understanding human behavior. Discuss this in light of the various social constructionist debates and specifically that of social scientist Kum Kum Bhawani.

[robinh]

I think Identity itself is something that is very convoluted because of the way we define it. We know no more of one's true "identity" than we do of the ins and outs of that person's DNA code. It's something that is just too complex to understand as a whole, so we break it up into subsets that are more easily defined and understood- a certain set of DNA code determines skin color, just like a person's skin color determines race. Placing people into generic categories such as we do today cannot possibly but scratch the surface of what true identity is. It is an enigma innate in each and every human being.

Yo Mr. HK,
It's Robin Hargadon all the way from Rochester, NY. Mady Greene and I were talking about our old blog, which I have to say is much better than this one (sorry guys), and I decided I had to check it out. I've been thinking about blogging a lot lately because I created my own (on Google, which is really nice and easy to use) so that my extended family could keep up with what I'm up to at college and everything. It's actually really cool and addicting. Anyways, I hope this year has been stellar, and you have prepared your seniors for the AP coming up soon. Keep up the good work!
-Robin Hargadon