COLUMN: Reconsidering personal identity

From David Kim's, "Aspirin for Your Postmodern Headache," Fall '98 From David Kim's, "Aspirin for Your Postmodern Headache," Fall '98At the age of six and having never known my grandfather, I asked my mother about him -- what had happened to him, and why I had never met him before. My mother answered, "Your grandfather was a bad man. He was a communist," to which my automatic response was, "Is that like being Jewish?" As a child with his family roots in the Koreas and, furthermore, raised in late-Cold War America, I was also learning to treat communism and its supporters (regardless of the fact that I had no idea at the time what communism was) in the same way. I was a Korean-American Christian. This was my identity, and it was formed just as much by what did not belong to my identity as what actually did. Today, we all have the ability and responsibility to discover our identity for ourselves, rather than simply allowing it to be determined by our upbringing. At some point in our lives, the question is inevitably raised: Who am I, and what does it mean to be me? And in response to this question, we have myriad answers to choose from: I am black, Asian, Latino, a jock, an artist, a fraternity brother, a sorority sister, gay, straight, male, female, liberal, conservative, bohemian, alternative, intellectual, et cetera. Yet how important is it to decide who we are? In some cases, it's crucial. Having the ability to attach some kind of tangible characteristic to our identity gives us security and a solid foundation to stand upon. We have a group to relate to and some sort of guideline as to how we are to behave or respond based on whom we've decided we are. For a time, this part of our identity envelops us. We explore it and place it in contrast to its counterpart. But to allow our identity to be defined thereafter by this facet of our lives -- one fragment of our complicated dasein -- is to cheat ourselves and others of our own fascinating complexity and eclecticism. Quite often, we decide which specific pieces of our identity are going to be dominant, almost contriving a sense of "who we truly are," such that an individual whose background as an African-American could just as easily be the most influential component of her identity might think of herself first and foremost as a free-spirited, liberated woman, perhaps only because the first friendly acquaintances she made at school seemed to be of that nature as well. And unfortunately, when we make this choice of our identity, we too often create a dichotomous relationship between ourselves and others -- between those who share in this subset of our identity and those who do not. None of this is new, however. This almost arbitrary creation of the self and the other is practiced in every facet of life, especially in political affairs. How did Shakespeare's Henry V quell rising dissatisfaction at home? Quite simply, he made war with France, creating a common enemy and an explosion of English patriotism. How did we make it "morally" possible to expand westward when the land was already occupied? We characterized the Native Americans as savage, uncultured and uncivilized people. Whether it's been the Jews, Muslims, bourgeoisie or the communists, the world has found reasons for rendering them all expendable. And the chilling Cold War, which in the end did not bring worldwide violence, was instead fought in our minds as both sides fiercely attempted to create the larger demon out of the other. While I am obviously not suggesting that our practices of marginalization on campus and in everyday life are as evil and grave as the examples I have cited, they are nevertheless real, and they do have their repercussions. What's my suggestion? Clearly, we cannot deny ourselves of any kind of identity whatsoever. But perhaps it's reasonable and sufficient to simply be aware that we are much more than that role we've dressed, prepped and made the appropriate friends for. And in doing so we will hopefully also be reminding ourselves of the same in others, rather than construing them through a lens of some perceived identity, noting primarily their differences and lack of membership to our realm of comfort. So be an artist. Be an intellectual. Be black. And by all means, be proud of it, explore it and learn to understand it and it's bearing on who you are. But at the same time, don't allow it to achieve hegemonic status in your identity to the extent that it trivializes your other important facets and those of others. For although we can't expect our government to discontinue the practice of demonizing individuals, parties or countries for its own purposes, we certainly have the choice to live without them in our own lives and reap the benefits of doing so.