Forming identity through relating experience to craft

Section III: Forming identity through the object of my work

This is what I discovered the practice of channeling my experience through work, thus turning my identity into an active construction built through studying novels that have dealt with my experience. I felt as though I was back in those living room corners actively engaged in a new conversation. By engaging with my identity crisis this way, I maintained full control of my experience, nobody could tell me what book to read or how to read it. It was only my opinion that mattered. You could call it poetic justice (I call it dumb luck) that the journey to understanding myself began in the classroom—the place where many of my past doubts began. While studying literature in college, I encountered two fictional characters who continue to deeply impact my own sense of being and belonging in the world. Gogol, the protagonist in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake, and the narrator in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, gave me the tools on how to exist in spaces where the content of my character was defined by others based on erroneous assumptions that were skin deep. In The Namesake, the internal conflict Gogol felt in having to choose between an American and Indian identity paralleled my own. Like Gogol, I carry the dreams and hopes of my parents that at a younger age felt burdensome but, with clear eyes, illuminate the beauty and strength of our upbringing in immigrant spaces. His story reminded me that living in two worlds did not force me to choose but rather enabled me to see the world for the mélange that it is. Similarly, through Invisible Man, the deconstruction of self that the narrator embarks on showed me that while my race may inform parts of who I am, it was never the full picture; that my blackness is just that, mine. Over time, I finally grew to live and define myself on my own terms.

Section IV: Conclusion

Now that this draft has been reset for public readership, we need to think about it differently than we did last time, when its only readers were you and me. My suggestion to improve the last draft was to look for the larger ideas personal experience signifies; this revision meets that suggestion by importing a slab of Hegel. Whether this is what a broader readership for your idea most needs is unclear to me. But for the increase in complexity and the large investment of space involved it seems to me that the return is not very substantial. Do we need all the machinery of Hegelian dialectic to know that the "relationship between the master and slave is asymmetrical in power and understanding"? Is Hegel actually what we require in order to understand that "Most of us have felt this feeling of not truly feeling that we are understood or understand ourselves and the theory nails that feeling on the head by explaining it in the age old terms of dominant versus subservient"?

Lessons from Hegel about Identity

-- By DawitAklilu - 22 Feb 2021

Section I: Introduction

Identity. A word that carries a complicated connotation and a concept that we all encountered, for better or worse over the course of our lives. One of the most complex analysis, at least that I have read, about identity comes from Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit which can be applied in a variety of contexts to help explain why forming our identity can be such a turbulent experience.

Section II: An experience

I remember like it was yesterday, my first day in a new school. I walked into my science class. We were learning about the periodic table and our teacher was asking questions to gauge our knowledge. Being the diligent student, I had already gotten a leg up on the rest and answered in rapid succession, much to the surprise of my classmates; However, their astonishment wasn’t caused by my knowing the answers but rather because the "black kid" was smart.

Section III: Hegelian Dialectic and Phenomenology of Spirit: An Overview

According to Hegel, self-consciousness “exists in itself, and for itself, in that, and by the fact that it exists for another self-consciousness” meaning that our self-consciousness exists in order to be recognized. Recognition plays a major role in Hegel’s theory of identity because it is acts as both the means and ends of consciousness, which is to say that to be seen and understood validates our existence. In his theory, Hegel articulates how the process of recognition takes place when “the self”, acting both as an evaluator and as the evaluated, interacts with “another self-consciousness [that] has come outside itself”. This other consciousness is no different than our “self” yet, in order to distinguish who we are Hegel believes it is necessary to have this “double significance” in order to define and distinguish between our sense of self and our actual self. According to Hegel, both of these consciousnesses are “independent, shut up within itself” and thus are not affected by any notion or influence outside of themselves which furthermore demonstrates that recognition is self-contained and ahistorical. The two versions of consciousnesses thus act as “the mediating term for the other, through which each mediates and unites itself with itself”, essentially positing that our sense of self and our actual self are in constant negotiation to form one consciousness. Hegel’s process of recognition is, as opposed to being a singular act, a dynamic and recursive cycle, where the self is constantly evaluating and being evaluated as its presented against a new self-consciousnesses birthed over the course of repeated recognition. Also central to self-consciousness is that the two consciousness “recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another,” further ingraining the importance of independence and equal standing that Hegel places on consciousness. In his phenomenology, Hegel employs a master-slave dialectic to articulate the difference between independent and dependent consciousnesses. Hegel defines the master as being “independent, and its essential nature is to be for itself” while the slave is “dependent, and its essence is life or existence for another”. The master, according to Hegel, is able to “bring himself in relation to both moments,” that is, the master is able to exist for itself as well as being mediated through its interaction with another, in this instance the slave. The slave however, lacks such independence of existing for itself and is thus dependent on their relationship to the master to find definition. This dependence is what “keeps the [slave] in thrall…from which he could not in the struggle get away, and for that reason he proved himself to be dependent” as the master shapes the way in which the slave understands themselves through “the shape of thinghood”. In regard to “thinghood”, Hegel writes that the slave, through work, “becomes conscious of what he truly is” essentially transcending the definition and dependency on the master by engaging with the fruits of his labor.

Section IV: The Takeaway

In short, Hegel’s theory espouses a relationship between the master and slave that is asymmetrical in power and understanding. The master, through their self-understanding and ability to project consciousness in objects, is able to control the slave by mediating the slave’s existence through projections of consciousness which traps the slave into a state of dependence. In other words, the master controls the slave by projecting itself onto the slave’s desires. This theory translates well, as it was intended, into our conversations about the role that social dogma over race, gender, ability, and religion act as disruptive force that complicates our process of forming our own identity. Most of us have felt this feeling of not truly feeling that we are understood or understand ourselves and the theory nails that feeling on the head by explaining it in the age old terms of dominant versus subservient. Yet, in this section of the book Hegel offers little regarding a way out from this vicious cycle maybe because the way out is simply not engaging, to simply accept that you are what you are and that the world will continue to project things onto groups regardless of whether one does find that self-acceptance (and maybe that’s something we already do in a sense as we get older and more comfortable in ourselves). Nevertheless, Hegel provides us with an interesting perspective into one of the most fundamental aspects of the human experience that we all should keep in mind as we remind ourselves that we are not all of what

As you have restricted the readership, so that you and I are the only readers of the essay, I infer that it is only written for you and me. You know this story, which doesn't mean that it isn't written for you, and I don't, which doesn't mean that it is written for me. You tell what is to you a familiar story well, and it wouldn't be for me to interrogate or "correct" it even if I had any basis to do so. So there isn't much I can do to help improve it as it stands. There are places where words are missing, which I have highlighted, suggesting that as carefully as you wrote it you didn't proofread it with equal care. One paragraph needs rewriting for continuity.

If I am the intended reader of the essay. the best route to improvement is to replace the simple ideas that lie outside the boundary of the autobiography with less simple ideas. You and I both know what stereotypes are, how the US population is roughly demographically composed, how ethnically-based implicit assumptions work to support existing structures of social power. So if we want to have a conversation about the ideas that flow for you out of your autobiographical narrative, we can start further along.

If I am, on the other hand, merely a bystander and the essay is written mostly for you, then even those criteria of judgment are barely applicable. We would not be trying to figure out how to make your legal writing better, because this isn't legal writing. Minimal editing to remove confusion, which I have done, is all I am qualified to do. To the extent that there is any opportunity involved in working with me, this is all we can make of it. In which direction you might want to take the rewrite is entirely up to you.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, DawitAklilu
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.

Paper Title

-- By DawitAklilu - 22 Feb 2021

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, DawitAklilu
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.