Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson, Pt. 2

Pg 106 – Author delves into how language changes as those who immigrated to the country and their first-second generation families interpreted the same words. ~ Basically explains the concept of trying to fit into two identities simultaneously makes both identities change. Neither language is spoken “correctly” and both become part of the personal heritage of the speaker and changes the main culture of the language.

Pg 107 – Kind of funny story of the main difference between Protestant and Catholic languages in Ireland and how their pronunciation of the letter ‘h’ is rumored to decide whether a captive lives or dies. ~ Goes into how strongly two identities can relate to each other and how they influence each other. The Protestant say “aitch” while the Catholics say “haitch.” Identities influence each other. No single aspect of one’s personal heritage can be examined without further examining the other aspects that make up their entirety. Question of if one’s entire collection of personal heritage aspects equal their identity (singular) or if all of their personal heritage aspects make up their many identities (plural). Does a person just have one identity or many? Is it one identity with many different aspects, or many different identities that make up one person? I need to think on that a bit more…

Pg 108 – “A striking similarity between Australia and America is the general uniformity of speech compared with Britain. There are one or two differences in terminology across the country – a tub of ice cream is called a bucket in New South Wales and a pixie in Victoria – but hardly more than that. It appears that size and population dispersal have little to do with it. It is far more a matter of cultural identity.*” “*However, unlike America, Australia has three layers of social accent: cultivated, used by about 10 percent of people and sounding very like British English; broad, a working-class accent used by a similar number of people (notably Paul Hogan); and general, an accent falling between the two and used by the great mass of people.” ~ Interesting notion of class affecting language identity more than size and population dispersal. Not sure how I feel about the author thinking that cultural identity relates only to class. I think it is again another example of two identities affecting each other.

Pg 108 – “Technicolor yawn” meaning throwing up…bahahahaha!

Pg 114 – Explanation of Gullah (called Geechee by native-speakers). Combination of 28 separate African tongues. ~ Identity mixture made new identity. Identity brought on by outside circumstances. This identity was not chosen, but forced onto individuals. Adaptation of the identity came through mutual change and a give-and-take process of each other’s languages.

Pg 117 – “The mainland of Europe never produced an alphabet of its own. Our own alphabet has its roots in pictographs.” ~Interesting how the identity we think of so much of as our own actually came from another identity. As the Semitic alphabet lost it’s importance the English alphabet picked up on importance. This connects losing identity with gaining a new identity. How something can change completely but still have its roots in another culture and identity, but neither those who had the original identity, nor most of those with the new identity realize this connection.

Pg 118 – “Yet although the person from Fukien couldn’t talk to anyone from Canton, he could read their newspapers because the written language is the same everywhere. The ideographs are pronounced differently in different areas but read the same – rather in the way that 1, 2, 3 means the same to us as it does to a French person event though we see it as ‘one, two, three’ while they see it as ‘un, deux, trois.’”
~ Interesting idea that the framework for a culture can be viewed and known as the same thing while the actual identities and personal heritage’s of individuals makes the determination on how the framework will be interpreted.

Pg 122 – Talking about the work colonel and how “…We settled on the French pronunciation and the Italian spelling.” ~ Great example of cultures merging and changing with an influx of different people with various personal heritages.

Pg 125 – “More than eighty spellings of Shakespeare’s name have been found, among them Shagspeare, Shakspere, and even Shakestaffe. Shakespeare himself did not spell the name the same way twice in any of his six known signatures and even spelled it two ways on one document, his will, which he signed Shakspere in one place and Shakspeare in another. Curiously, the one spelling he never seemed to use himself was Shakespeare.” ~ Idea that a culture can be called many different things, even by those who are a part of it. The part of the culture that the rest of society (those outside of the culture) will remember might not be what those inside the culture refer to it as.

Pg 128 – Talking about how when English, unlike other languages, borrows a word from another language we do not pronounce it according to English standards, we pronounce it like the foreigners do, for example, brusque, garage, and chutzpah. ~ This is a good example of borrowing things from other cultures to reform the same culture. I need to come up with a word for this because explaining it takes forever. Perhaps culture reformation – the idea that minor things within the culture changes, while the overall culture remains the same.

Pg 142 – “It is one of the felicities of English that we can take pieces of words from all over and fuse them into new constructions – like trusteeship, which consists of a Nordic stem (trust), combined with a French affix (ee), married to an Old English root (ship). Other languages cannot do this. We should be proud of ourselves for our ingenuity and yet even now authorities commonly attack almost any new construction as ugly or barbaric.” ~ Another example of culture reformation. Or maybe a better word would be culture amalgamation – the joining of various cultures to become one. But that’s not really what this is all about. It’s not just a merger of cultures. I would like to find a phrase for the idea of bringing various pieces of culture together into one culture and making it a part of one’s own culture.

Pg 144 – This is just for you Dr. Dilley: “I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive.
1. Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical percepts
of a language that died a thousand years ago.
2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.”

Pg 162 – Talking about how we took some of our words from Native Americans. “…There was a lake that the Indians called Chargoggagomanchaugagochaubunagungamaug, which is said to translate as ‘You fish on that side, we’ll fish on this side, and nobody will fish in the middle.’” ~ Another example of culture transference. That might work better. The idea that culture spreads onto other cultures. I think either culture transference or culture transmission works best, but really, I am thinking culture transference.

Pg 169 – Idea that Americans on the mainland basically speak the same language even though they are hugely spread across a vast amount of space. This happens for three reasons:
1.    People were constantly moving around on the continent so local language did not really develop (social mobility)
2.     People all had different backgrounds (cultures and personal heritages) so they all wanted to form a new form of culture and be more homogenous
3.    People faced pressure to act and be a certain way (Melting Pot theory) so it forced people into speaking like everyone else
~ This is a really interesting reasons for the development of a completely new culture. I should go back and reread The Opening of the American Mind. I wonder what happened to people’s opinions/personal heritage’s/cultures that they held before coming to America and being Americanized?

Pg 180 – Speaking of bad translations from other countries. “On the bottom of the eraser is a further message: ‘We are ecologically minded. This package will self-destruct in Mother Earth.’”
~This just makes me laugh a little. Cultures cannot always interpret other cultures well, even if they have the manual. To completely be fluent in a culture you have to be a member of that culture.

Pg 200 – Explanation of how people were given names, either by place/hometown, nicknames, trade names, or by relationship with parents. Apparently people could have multiple names throughout the course of their lives. ~ This is the idea that personal heritage changes as a person’s culture changes. To change to a new name a person would join a new culture, for example John Moline (hometown) could become John Carpenter (trade) when he joined the culture of the carpenter.

Pg 203 – This section goes into detail on how immigrants would change their name to blend in better to their new country (culture). ~ This is again the idea of culture changing effecting one’s personal heritage.

Pg 207 – This  is funny, its talking about weird pronunciations of places and has Cairo, Illinois.

Pg 217 – It talks about the emotional charge related with certain words. There is a kind of funny note about how London once had a Gropecuntlane that prostitutes worked on. It really just gives good background on words that we now consider to be inappropriate.

Pg 240 – It goes into language differences in various countries causing issues when minority languages are suppressed. ~ Shows how powerful a culture can be.

~Overall, reading this novel gave me a basic understanding of the loss and gain of various cultures over an extended period of time. Language is one of the most basic cultural aspects of humans. Understanding the change of language habits of people helps me to better grasp how culture forms and transforms over time. While I am not focusing specifically on language, it gives me a starting point for the basis of many of my ideas on culture and personal heritage. In terms of language an individual’s personal heritage would be based on the phrases/catchphrases that they use or make up on their own. For instance, I used to be notorious for the phrase, “What the trash?” I guarantee that it’s not a common English phrase, but it’s made up of the basic building blocks of the culture of the English language. My heritage is this language, and this phrase, which form a piece of the English language culture.

The Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson, Pt. 1

Pg 12 – “Indeed, Robert Burchfield, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, created a stir in linguistic circles on both sides of the Atlantic when he announced his belief that American English and English English are drifting apart so rapidly that within 200 years the two nations won’t be able to understand each other at all.” ~ The same culture can adapt and change in hugely varying amounts. While this means that individual’s identities might seem similar (for instance, all Americans and English say they speak English) the truth is that their definition of English greatly differs.

Pg 12 – “Already Germans talk about ein Image Problem and das Cash-Flow, Italians program their computers with il software, French motorists going away for a weekend break pause for les refueling stops, Poles watch telewizja, Spaniards have a flirt, Austrian eat Big Mäcs, and the Japanese go on a pikunikku.” ~One culture/identity can greatly influence other cultures/identities to the point that the cultures/identities begin to merge certain aspects together.

Pg 14 – “…Other languages have facilities we lack.” The author goes into how English has numerous synonyms and many words that other languages do not have. At the same point in time he points out that other languages have words that English lacks. Like (pg 14) “Much the same could be said about the curious and monumentally unpronounceable Highland Scottish word sgiomlaireachd, which means “the habit of dropping in at mealtimes.” That surely conveys a world of information about the hazards of Highland life – not to mention the hazards of Highland orthography.”

Pg 14-15 – Goes more in depth on languages of different regions and cultures and how the set of words for each language tells something about the culture that created them. For instance, “The Eskimos…have fifty words for types of snow…” (p14), while the Italian have over 500 words to represent the various kinds of pasta, in Papua New Guinea the inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands have 100+ words of yams, and on New Zealand the Maoris have 35 words for dung.

Pg 15 – Talks about those who speak the same language can have different ideas for what a single words means. Uses an example of a blizzard in Britain being considered more like a flurry in Illinois or Nebraska.

Pg 23 – Talking about the difference between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. Says Homo Sapien speech could “…Deal with concepts such as: ‘Today let’s kill some red deer. You take some big sticks and drive the deer out of the woods and we’ll stand by the riverbank with our spears and kill them as they come towards us.’ By comparison Neanderthal speech may have been something more like: ‘I’m hungry. Let’s hunt.’” ~ As culture advances we think of things being more civilized and better, but the truth is, that the ideas remain the same while the method in which ideas are transferred differ.

Pg 37 – “The number of languages naturally changes as tribes die out or linguistic groups are absorbed. Although new languages, particularly creoles, are born from time to time, the trend is towards absorption and amalgamation. When Columbus arrived in the New World, there were an estimated 1,000 languages. Today there are about 600.” ~ As varying cultures meet certain pieces of individual’s cultures die out or change and adapt to the other culture.

Pg 54 – ~The same identity with a different name is viewed as something completely different. Or, taken a different way, the same identity with a minor change is renamed and viewed as different. For example, “…Animals in the field usually were called by English names (sheep, cow, ox), but once cooked and brought to the table, they were generally given French names (beef, mutton, veal, bacon).” Also think of things like baker or cook vs. chef, bricklayer vs. mason, etc.

Pg 56 – “Because English had no official status, for three centuries it drifted. Without a cultural pivot, some place to set a standard, differences in regional usage became more pronounced rather than less.” ~ Without defining specific cultural attributes the cultures are left to change more freely than when they become defined. Once we define what fits into a culture and what does not we inherently shape the manner in which the culture, and the personal heritages of those in that culture, will change.

Pg 59 – Like the influence of London on English during the 16th century, the more populous an area with a certain culture is, the more it is likely to exert influence over the main culture. Those with personal heritages similar to each other, like they tend to be when individuals live in close proximity to one another, the more those have an effect on others. (Group theory)

Pg 72 – Poet Robert Browning thought the word ‘twat’ meant some sort of piece of headgear for nuns, even though it meant then what it means now, so he wrote in his work Pippa Passes

The owls and bats,/Cowls and twats,/Monks and nuns in a cloister’s moods,/Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!

Bahahahahahahahaahhahaahahah!

Pg 89 – ~ As culture matures things change. While we might know within a culture what we mean when we do/say/think something, those outside of the culture looking in might not understand completely. “Where the British will say howjado for ‘how do you do,’ an American will say jeetjet for ‘have you taken sustenance recently?’ and lesskweet for ‘in that case, let us retire to a convivial place for a spot of refreshment.’”

Pg 90 – Interesting paragraph on how we really talk.

Pg 91 – Look back to page 89, as culture matures things change. “In Chaucer’s day, helped was pronounced not ‘helpt’ but ‘hel-pud,’ with the two syllables clearly enunciated. By Shakespeare’s time, poets could choose between the two to suit their cadence…”

Pg 92 – “When Chaucer died in 1400, people still pronounced the e  on the end of words. One hundred years later not only had it become silent, but scholars were evidently unaware that it ever had been pronounced. In short, changes that seem to history to have been almost breathtakingly sudden will often have gone unnoticed by those who lived through them.” ~ As culture changes things happen sometimes rather quickly. To those in the culture it will seem very obvious, and they will think nothing more about it. To those outside of the culture, with a personal heritage unrelated to that of those inside of the culture, these changes might seem abrupt, or rushed. But, it is these jumps in culture changing that forms identities and adapt personal heritages to be able to maintain multiple identities at once.

Pg 96 – “Presumably because of their proximity to France (or, just as probably, because of their long disdain for thing French) the British have a somewhat greater tendency to disguise French pronunciations, pronouncing garage as “garridge,” fillet as “fill-ut,” and putting a clear first syllable stress on café, buffet, ballet, and pate. (Some Britons go so far as to say “buffy” and “bally.”)” ~ People are protective of their culture and their personal heritage. They want to be distinguished from other identities and cultures. They do this in many different ways, even if the ways seem to be a little silly to others, it is how they define their personal heritage that makes their culture unique.

Pg 99 – Great opening paragraph on the differences of American English. Goes into everything from pop/soda/coke/tonic to stone/rock, cottage cheese/Dutch cheese/pot cheese/smearcase/clabber cheese/curd cheese, to bucket/pail, baby carriage/baby buggy, etc.
Idiolect – “the linguistic quirks and conventions that distinguish one group of language users from another.”
~ If there is an idiolect I wonder if there’s a culturelect? Link the customary and traditional quirks and conventions that separate one group of culture uses from another? I should look that up…or maybe just create a word to mean that, because that is a lot of what I am basing my ideas off of.

Identity ideas from The Cheese Monkeys (by Chip Kidd)

Pg 44 – “Oh, why can’t the world be interesting?”

Pg 44 – “The Venus de Milo. Do you really think anyone would give a good whoop about it if it was intact? Okay, maybe it would still be stuffed away in some museum, but we wouldn’t know about it. I wouldn’t be talking about it right now. It – she’s in our heads because she has personality…What she’s missing intensifies the effect of what she’s got.”

Interesting idea that what we are missing makes more important the things that we have. In terms of identity, it means that the identity we have is not the important piece ourselves, it is the identity we lack that people notice. For instance, in college students, those things that do not fit are the ones that we notice more than those that do fit. It seems a pretty universal theme, the more you do like others the less you are noticed. In terms of identity loss, if you lose the parts of you that make you stand out are you completely losing yourself, or are you gaining a part of someone else. Can you adapt to another person’s identity? Can you gain a piece of identity that is not yours? Like picking up language that you would not use had you not heard another person use it. For instance, all the people who say “That’s hot” after Paris Hilton used it over and over again on television. Did they lose a portion of their identity? Or did they gain a piece or Paris’s identity?

Pg 104 – “You are a designer. You have to eat the world with your eyes. You must look at everything as if you’re going to die in the next five minutes, because in the relative scheme of things, you are.”

Pg 106-7 – “…Commercial Art tries to make you buy things. Graphic Design gives you ideas. One natters on and on, the other actually has something to say. They use the same tools – words, pictures, colors. The difference, as you’ll be seeing, and as you’ll be showing me, is how.”

Pg 107 – “Even though it’s existed since the dawn of man, it’s also in its infancy – not even a name for it until 1928, when a book designer named William Addison Dwiggins changed it – in print, naturally. And he was right. It’s not Art. And Art is not Design, though it used to be.”

Pg 107 – “Design is, literally, purposeful planning Graphic Design, then, is the form those plans will take.”

Pg 108 – “Once we no longer had to depend on drawing and painting to record our existence – once they became an option – the mutated…into a form of expression. And Art for its own sake, God help us, was born.”

Pg 108 – “But Graphic Design for its own sake will never happen, because the concept cancels itself out – a poster about nothing other than itself is not Graphic Design, it’s…makin’ ART.”

Pg 109 – “Design must always be in service to solving a problem, or it’s not Design.”

This thought could also be applied to identity, in terms of identity design. With this sort of knowledge identity design “must always be in service to solving a problem” the problem would just be the issue of a person’s identity. Sometimes this might occur when a student first goes to college and their identity at that time does not mesh with others. When this happens one might start to design a new/reformed model of their own identity to solve the problem of not fitting in or not being the person they desire to be. Really, in terms of identity atrophy (still working on a new term for atrophy, since it does not sound completely right yet) maybe identity design is a part of the atrophying process. Perhaps the opposite of identity atrophy (the loss/deconstruction of one identity) is identity design (the conscious creation of a new/reformed identity).

Pg 177 – “…Graphic Design, if you wield it effectively, is Power. Power to transmit ideas that change everything. Power that can destroy an entire race or save a nation from despair.”

Going back to the idea of identity design being like graphic design. If graphic design is power, then so is identity design. The difference being, while graphic design gives one the “Power to transmit ideas that change everything. Power that can destroy an entire race or save a nation from despair.” Identity design is power to change one’s own personal ideas and heritage. Power that can destroy/atrophy one identity or start a whole new culture through one’s own personal heritage.

The Cheese Monkeys; Chip Kidd; Harper Perennial; NY; 2001

Thoughts on Identity: Basic Model

Thoughts on Identity Atrophy

Definitions to Remember:

In order to understand fully my ideas of identity atrophy it is important to remember certain terminologies I will be using. While these definitions do not encompass what one necessarily thinks of as the meaning of these words, these explanations will be what I will be referring to for the rest of this paper. Used in their typical context the words can conjure a variety of connotations, therefore, I am entering my definitions as a means of clarification. While this initially might be a bit confusing, as the paper continues these words will become clearer in relation to the subject of identity. The two words I am describing, culture and heritage, many people use interchangeably, but it is their differences in relation to a person’s identity on which I am elaborating. It is a person’s backgrounds and traditions that influence a person’s identity due to their impact on the individual’s culture, a set of beliefs through which a group of people act, think, believe, and create. Heritage exists as the personal history with which one identifies. In other words, heritage is kind of a person’s own personal culture. In this train of thought, the cultures that an individual happens to be a part of occur innately because they come from a larger group of people who also help form it. A culture encompasses a group of people, therefore, when one person leaves the group certain minor portions of that culture might change, but the overwhelming portion of the culture will remain the same. Along the same idea, when a new person joins a culture, minor portions of their traditions might alter, but the overwhelming portion of the culture will remain the same. This presents culture as being inborn, native, a part of one’s heritage that can be continually modified, yet still remain the same.

Altering a collection of people arises at many different times. Some cultures one cannot leave until death, others one can join for awhile and later leave as they develop.  For example, when I was born I entered into the “white culture” that had been formed by all those in this grouping before me. This culture was natural to me, I cannot ever fully abandon it due to the white color of my skin. As time passed I entered into the school system culture as a kindergartener. The school system, itself, is an innate culture, but for me, it is simply a part of my heritage.  All those already going to school, working, etc. at the school had formed this culture before I entered it, making it an innate portion of culture. My own personal attendance and experiences in this setting caused me to add it to my own personal culture, my heritage. Joining it was the change, the culture was innate.

This concept of culture differs from heritage because heritage only encompasses the part of the cultures to which on belongs and chooses to embrace. In this sense, people can be a part of a larger classification that has many parts, but the element in which those persons actively believe or take part exists as their heritage. For instance, since I am white I am innately involved in the “white culture” but I do not associate with the division of this grouping that considers the white race superior to all others. So, while this white supremacy notion might be a part of my white culture, it is not part of my white heritage. I cannot leave the white culture, because no matter what I do I will still be white. I can choose to disassociate myself with ‘acting white’ and embrace another culture that will become part of my white heritage, but the white culture will remain. As others are born into the white culture, or pass away and exit this grouping, the culture might modify or develop, but it will still be known as white culture. In terms of the school system, while I am a part of the culture of education, I mostly support the portion of this category that focuses on learning. Subsequently, while I inhabit a piece of the educational culture, my educational heritage solely remains learning. This educational arena I might be able to depart if I ever choose to stop learning and left the schools. In this manner the educational culture would remain and continue to exist, and, while my educational heritage would no longer be influencing my current heritage, it would exist as a piece of personal heritage that I carried with me. (Taken from Equity and Diversity in Higher Education paper).

Proposed Model
From the above definitions, I will establish a proposed model of building one’s identity. Due to the complexities within each person’s heritage, this model will be fairly intricate. Below I will describe the stages in more detail of how I envision this model to look. Keep in mind this is only a rough, unresearched opinion of what I believe individual’s encounter within their own identities. Since one person encapsulates so many identities simultaneously, it would be possible for this model to apply to only a portion of one’s heritage, while parts continue to expand.

Identity Atrophy
The concept of identity atrophy I see as going in two directions. There are those who are a part of a culture and have that culture in their identity that then choose for whatever reason to leave that culture. In so doing they place themselves in a stage of ‘identity atrophy’ where they are not using a certain part of their identity, therefore, they are losing connection to it. I see this same stage also applying to those who have not yet considered what their identity, heritage, or cultures exist for their personal self. For both groups of people this stage could be described as being one of ‘atrophy’ due to the fact that, in either case, the persons in question are not actively understand or using a portion of their identity so that portion in neglected and in disrepair. For the individuals choosing to no longer have some part of their identity in their heritage, this atrophy is active. For those who simply do not realize the placement within their own identity, it happens to be more of a passive stage that eventually is deconstructed into a developing identity.

Identity Recognition
Active Atrophy: For those who, in the past, had some identity and have now decided they no longer wish that piece of culture to be a part of themselves, this stage occurs almost simultaneously with the atrophy stage. For these individuals, they almost immediately recognize they exist within cultures that are similar to others. Persons in this category will either see their heritage as including their past when they admitted to being a piece of some culture (for instance, those in high school typically admit that at some point they were a part of the elementary school culture), or they will attempt to distance themselves from acknowledging their past with a group (like a former white supremacist who has no longer believes in white supremacy). Identifiers of this stage would include persons who deny their involvement with groups they formerly advocated, or those who claim that a certain part of their prior life experiences had no influence on their current life.

Passive (Deconstructing) Atrophy: In this stage, passive atrophy begins to break down to the point where individuals recognize their own existence within a certain culture or cultures. At this same point they see that some cultures are similar to their own, while some cultures are different. This, in turn, affects their heritage due to the fact that it creates a slight amount of dissonance when the persons begin to realize that the diversity in one can be maintained by simply doing nothing, because everyone is born different in a myriad of ways. As this stage continues, individuals might exhibit characteristics similar to other development models, depending on which aspect of culture the persons recognize (hence a white person might respond similar to Helm’s White Identity Development Model, while a student might be more similar to Chickering’s theory).

Identity Development
Active Atrophy: Those in active atrophy at this point will either continue to deny or not advertise their relation to a certain culture that is a part of their heritage. By this point in time the atrophy is almost complete. The individuals will have created or expanded other identities to fill the void that leaving the previous culture made. They might become more comfortable with the cultures in which they previously inhabited, possibly to the point that they will admit they were a part of the culture, or that the culture is a part of their heritage, but more than likely not to the extent that they will openly talk about the culture that is atrophying.

Passive (Deconstructing) Atrophy: For those in this stage, this is the point where actual deconstruction begins to take complete shape. Those who previously had allowed an identity to atrophy will now take the time to learn and cultivate that portion of their identity. This might entail becoming more of a part of a certain culture or admitting and reexamining a part of one’s heritage that one previously ignored. Persons become more comfortable with identity of which they previously did not know. This might involve a kind of immersion into the identity that interests one.

Individual Identity
Active Atrophy: By this stage the atrophy of an identity has finalized. Individuals might admit that they once were a part of the identity in which they no longer participate. Others might deny they ever took part in a culture or that it is a part of their heritage. The overall theme to remember is that no matter how much individuals deny a culture that once was a part of their identity, their past experiences still make up a part of their heritage. In turn, their heritage drives their present actions and reactions, therefore, the atrophy of an identity will never fully dissolve the relationship between an individual and their identity.

Passive (Deconstructing) Atrophy: By this stage individuals create and accept their own unique identities. They also realize that certain qualities of their identity share commonalities with others. Through this they are able to find a greater interconnectedness with others in the new identity they have discovered for themselves. This can be a revelation for some, in the sense that they now understand their heritage much more so than they began. It can also lead to the development of otherwise previously atrophied aspects of one’s identity.

Final Thoughts
Overall this is a very rough explanation of how I see identity atrophy. While I recognize that the model takes two totally separate directions, I feel that both start from an almost equal point. The difference between the two of them exists in the initial thoughts of the person experiencing the atrophy.