Saturday, February 7, 2009

The Role of Rhetoric in Self-Identification

In John D. Ramage's Rhetoric: A User's Guide, he discusses the subject of identity and how one comes to create and understand his identity. In the beginning of the section titled, "Essence v. Substance," he defines essence as "some part of us--perhaps physical, perhaps spiritual--that make us who were are, that if removed from our identity would change our identity." Later on, he explains that we come to an understanding of things when we compare one thing to another. Rhetorically, this can be understood to mean that an apple gains its meaning by using other words such as "fruit," "red," "juicy," or "round." The same goes for "finding one's self." In order to discover one's essence, we can only look to the words that have been laid out for our choosing. Essentially, then, this search for identity is merely a search for the perfect word to satisfy our need to classify and categorize (or uncategorize) ourselves and to differentiate between what we are and what we are not.

So here's my question: How unique are we when we must resort to prefabricated words to identify ourselves? When a person spends his youth (or even his lifetime) trying to discover himself, has he always innately known who that person is but simply didn't have the words for it and therefore remained unaware? If so, do these decades of unrest and confusion circulate around the need for language to give us self-satisfaction?

If our identity depends on the right combination of words that others before us have created, then perhaps the people who have their own truly unique identities are those who cannot express at all what it is that makes them unique. If this is so, then perhaps we should all simply stop trying to find ourselves or rather begin to revere those who are mute or live in distant monasteries devoted to lifetime vows of silence. We should never attempt to discuss who these people really are because it is not possible to give them a unique identity because simply describing them breaks up the originality with our prefabricated words. And the rest of us must accept the fact that we are all the same and different, unique and unoriginal until someone creates a new word out of no other previously known words to describe us.

Or perhaps there is an infinite number of ways to combine the words we have been given and for eternity the English language will create new and unique ways to help us find ourselves?? :)

3 comments:

  1. How unique are we when we must resort to prefabricated words to identify ourselves?

    I recently read a message board post that reminded me of this question. A new mother had posted about her new son's name. She and her husband had spent hours thinking up this name and they believed it to be completely unique; that no one in the entire world had a name even similar to this one. She wanted to know if she would copyright or trademark the name in order to keep it completely unique. One of the first people to respond to her said that they knew a little boy with a name pronounced similarly. Another person responded that the name was very similar to a scientific word.

    When the new mother read these, she appeared to be distraught. Told everyone how she had spent hours crying now and how they had "ruined her day" by telling her the name was not as unique as she had hoped. She then tried to figure out if she changed the spelling, etc if that would make it entirely unique. Her posts indicated that she felt her son's "unique-ness" was dependent upon his name; if he had a special, unique name (identity), then he himself would somehow be more special than those around him. People then tried to reassure her that regardless of the name, her son would be special and unique simply by merit of being a human being.

    A few other comments on that same thread were from people with other unique names. They talked about being very excited and happy when they finally met another person who shared their name. So, I guess my point here is that do we all really want to be unique? Does it matter if how we choose to identify ourselves is not entirely unique? Most people belong to and want to belong to groups of people similar to them; mothers, knitters, students, people who like listening to U2, etc. I like belonging to groups of people like me; I also know that I'm unique in that most other people are not going to have the same combination of words/groups that identify them as that identify me.

    Gosh, did any of that make any sense? It's not too late, but seeing as I haven't eaten today (doc's orders, I swear I'm not crazy), I'm not sure I'm making a whole lot of sense :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very cool! I agree with you--a person's "uniqueness" is truly dependent on the person as a human being, but simultaneously, we would be missing something special about being human if we spent our lives trying to be different and separate from other people. Its very interesting how much value we place in a word (or name)!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Speaking of names and Unique-ness. I had a friend once named Uniq, or Unik, I can't remember the spelling. I like the "idea" that we all belong to communities of some variety or other. But for me, I couldn't pin it down to a name. I am not a knitter or reader, or football player, etc. I am a human being and the things that make me connected to the unique qualities of my community are not easy to pin down either. They feel implicit as opposed to explicit and their boundaries overlap at so many junctures. they are formed of layerings and discordances. I guess, in that way it comes back to the theory and the defiance of unifying principles that comes with "trying to belong"

    ReplyDelete