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.