Odyssey of identity

The sudden efflorescence of identity as a subject of intense inquiry is truly impressive. A topic which seemed to have no apparent urgency for anyone just a couple of days ago seems now to be spreading with, as Doc puts it, the arson of conversation. All thanks in large part (unless we are to assume a massive, inexplicable outbreak of simultaneous fascination with the subject) to AKMA, whose late admission of weariness seems in part due to keeping up with the course of the conflagration.

It's a rich topic that has provoked a slew of impressive collateral ruminations, which AKMA managed to index last evening before passing out. When he first broached the subject the other day, it seemed like he had mapped out a fairly complex argument that was to occur in multiple stages, and in fact at least two additional major bits have come forth, here and here.

Because of the dimension of the subject, and because it seemed he'd be unfolding his line of thought for some time, there seemed good reason to suspend commenting on it right away. Making steady headway in such a difficult and complex subject can be a daunting proposition. Add the rapid response times of bloggers and things get more bewildering. I mean, if AKMA were to provide thoughful responses to A, B, C, Y, and J, and each of those were inspired to offer a worthy rejoinder, to which AKMA would in turn feel obliged to speak, all the while provoking yet others to join in or comment on the fray, it's a pretty sure bet that the quest would remain at sea for a fairly good chunk of time.

This can be productive and exhilarating, yet to anyone who was actually looking forward to learning more about where AKMA's inquiry was going, it can also prove frustrating. As with the part-whole quandary of personal identity, so with an argument: before taking the architect to task - or praising him to the skies - it helps to have some sense of the overall plan.

Also, as more meditations upon identity are blogged, the key term seems susceptible of so many uses and definitions as to put in danger the identity of any shared definition of "identity." The outpouring of manifold insights seems sufficiently rich, diverse and open-ended as to invite suspicion that we aren't really talking about identity so much as about something much more slippery, involving selfhood, and communication, and roles, and interpretation - an even larger can of worms than "identity."

Having said that, I will now be foolish enough to try to make two quick points while remaining within the purview of identity, and will undoubtedly fall into the trap I've just described:

(1) We can say the town of Palatka, FL, has an identity - it is surveyed, incorporated, has a history, borders, buildings, a proud and bustling populace, etc. Each of its ingredients might change, but something persists, which we call Palatka, FL. So long as we have the name, we can comfortably rely on it to point to something, which yet has a protean capacity for every sort of transformation. The identity of Palatka, then, turns out to rest somewhat airily on the possibility of the ongoing repetition of the name "Palatka." Whatever else may change, Palatka can rest assured of having an identity, so long as they keep saying the name.

(2) I recently reread Homer's Odyssey, so the matter of how one is who one is was already on my mind. I doubt any other work in the West so fully sets forth what we have inherited as our understanding of identity. If all else fails and we're looking for consensus on the question, we wouldn't be entirely off base in deciding that what we normally mean by "identity" is, in fact, the Odyssey. Of course that simple ruse soon runs into complications, since Homer's notion of identity is bound up with an assortment of very hard-to-decide things, like, where does the human end and the nonhuman (divine, monstrous, etc.) begin? And, is it possible to have identity without recognition, or recognition without the technology of signs? And, if nobody recognizes him or her, is that person's identity living or dead?

In Homer, it's a kind of commonsense skepticism that does the work of sorting this out - (while Jeff the other day suggested that skepticism kills poetic faith, I tend to think it is what enables it). Skeptesthai simply means to pay close attention, which is necessary because, as AKMA has noted (and as Odysseus could tell you) nothing is more subject to the vicissitudes of confusion, error and fraud than identity. In a world without DNA testing or fingerprint analysis, in a wide open, war-torn sea-world of creative vagabonds and untethered seafarers, proving that you are who you say you are, even to your most intimate loved ones, is no simple matter.

To attend closely, and long, before giving assent is simply to do one's best to read the signs that enable us to say or to deny, with some degree of assurance, that ''this is my long lost husband,'' or ''this is my trusted dog.'' Penelope knew how the human heart will strain to believe any tall tale in order to satisfy its hunger. Hence her skepticism. No one can be more solicitous of and for our delusions of identity than we ourselves. QED.

6.13.02

© Copyright 2002 Tom Matrullo. Last update: 6/13/2002; 9:41:38 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.