transformations

In Bynum’s article, she argues that “we need a more labile and problematic understanding of identity…one not figured primarily in terms of splits, transfers, and dichotomies” (165-66). What would you say this “new” understanding of identity would involve? What do you make of her argument that we view identity in strictly polar terms? What are some examples of our “dichotomous” identity construction?

9 thoughts on “transformations

  1. A new understanding of identity, without dichotomies, would allow for an individual to lie between two distinct identities, without losing their own distinct characteristics. Identity is often constructed in very polar terms. A person is gay or straight, boy or girl. These binary categories allow for only two possibilities, when many more exist. For example, bisexuality is the sexual or romantic attraction to men and women. It is not an experimental phase, where one dallies with people of their gender but reverts to heterosexuality. Nor is it a half-hearted step towards being “fully” gay. Thinking of sexuality as a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, allows for understanding people as complex individuals who do not always fit into binary systems. The concept of continuums of identity echoes Bynum’s idea of hybridity, where one can be two “states” at once, like the dog-headed people that Mandeville encountered.

  2. We have a racially dichotomous view of ourselves in the United States, and we obviously constructed this, because biologically there is no such thing as race, and in science there is no footing for this. But our social sciences and the way we understand our society is centered around race and we place large emphasis upon this, and it is truly harmful. For example social scientists analyze the problem with incarceration which is a very big problem, because we incarcerate too many people unfairly and unjustly due to race. And we often times statistically list what percentage of the prison population is white and what percentage is black, etc. This is very destructive and harmful for the masses because as long as we identify with a race and ascribe our identity to it, it creates these molds and patterns that people feel they need to follow in order to be accepted by society. The idea shouldn’t be what do I need to do in order to be seen as black, or white by my society it should be what is it that I will do that makes me a good and virtuous person, how do I choose to act given my circumstance. Will I choose to engage myself in positive progressions in life or will I allow myself to be defined by social constructs, people should transcend these harmful classifications and decide to identify themselves by the choices and actions of their lives and ascribe themselves to that. One should look at themselves as a compilation of many different varieties and kinds of characteristics, and this can be done by recognizing our identity inside of our actions and not by ascribing it to one particular culture or group, by doing this we can transcend these base classifications and dichotomies and become a diverse fusion of innumerable natures and forms.

  3. A new understanding of identity would involve a more moderate understanding of what are now very strict dichotomies. Some of the dichotomies Bynum mentions in her chapter are nature vs. nurture, biology vs. social construction, and mind vs. body. She goes on to suggest that the reason we have such strict dichotomies is because we “lack images, metaphors, and stories that imagine a self possessing both individuality and identity position, a self that really changes while remaining the same thing” (166). I agree with Bynum that in many cases we view identity in strictly polar terms, and it makes sense that the best way to change dichotomies is to change our understanding of identity. As Bynum suggests, the best way to change our understanding is to study, to circulate, and to accept metaphors and stories (like Mandeville’s, Never Let Me Go, or even Ex Machina) that “help us imagine a world in which we really change yet really remain the same thing” (188).

    I think one of the biggest dichotomous identity constructions—and one that we have been particularly concerned with in this course—is human vs. nonhuman. And as we quickly learned early in the semester, human vs. nonhuman is a very narrow way of approaching identity. For me, exposure to stories like Mandeville’s, Never Let Me Go, and Ex Machina heightened my awareness of just how narrow a human/nonhuman approach is. I think that as Bynum suggests, spreading stories in which we change or challenge human/nonhuman norms but still “remain the same thing” has the potential to bring awareness to the nonsense of dichotomies. And as James and Hannah suggest above, it is not just a human/nonhuman distinction that seems impractical, gender dichotomies and racial dichotomies are just as troublesome. I agree with Bynum that sharing stories has the potential to change our attitude and understanding of identity, however I would push that maybe it is the language and labels that need to change (or just disappear) as well.

  4. Since this book was published in 2001, societally “acceptable” self identity has greatly evolved since then. Though of course the fight remains not over and a long journey lingers ahead, society has grown to accept and embrace unlimited understandings of identity. From sexual orientation to sexual identity, society no longer views people as just a man who identifies as a man and is attracted to women and a woman who identifies as a woman and is attracted to men. An important note though, revolves around that though this only recently has become socially recognized, it has always prevailed and humans have always strode out of the sexual “norms.” These feelings prove to not be new, just society’s response to them. Thus, Bynum’s “new” understanding of identity would involve all of us this, in addition to so much more. I agree with her argument that people have always tended to view identity in strictly polar terms and some people still do and unfortunately always will.

  5. I completely agree with what has been stayed above, the world today has many preconceived ideas and dichotomies on what is classified as what be it ‘us’ versus ‘ them’, inhuman versus human, or even the range of sexual or gender identities. This view can be seen as starting even before Mandevilles time, where the more Anglo-centric view became the dominant one. I am, however, very glad to be alive to see the shift from this view occurring, despite the fight it has been. Not everything is black and white or this or that. I believe many things exist on a spectrum, and this sliding scale is a far more accurate representation of people’s experiences than a simple check A or B in a box.

  6. In Bynum’s article, she argues that “we need a more labile and problematic understanding of identity…one not figured primarily in terms of splits, transfers, and dichotomies” (165-66). What would you say this “new” understanding of identity would involve? What do you make of her argument that we view identity in strictly polar terms? What are some examples of our “dichotomous” identity construction?

    It seems that the description Bynum provides above deals more with metamorphosis than hybridity, which is what I think she is nudging us towards accepting. If we understand the world in “splits, transfers, and dichotomies”, then we remove the concept of a thing having complexity. As stated above, sexuality and race are two examples of how if we perceive the world in binaries, then we prohibit ourselves form fully understanding it. I would like to add not only do we misunderstand the entity we are looking at, but we also incorrectly reduce them to an identity they may not agree with. As Bynum points out in her second concept of understanding identity, “The difference between claiming identity for one’s own group and naming an “other” is often the difference between self-assertion…and denigrating stereotype, on the other hand” (164).

    An example of this could be a dark-skinned muslim. My best friend is Sudanese and on first glance, she would be considered African-American. However, her previous generations are full-blooded Arab. When people meet her, they immediately believe she is an African-American and when informed of her religion, they immediately categorize her as a reformed black muslim. The identities the West have constructed towards what an Arab looks like does not coincide with what identity she actually consumes and therefore she is constantly struggling to make others understand she is not a single identity: Black, or Muslim – she is both.
    In a way, I too, struggle with this concept. Though my skin is a little lighter, when I tell others of my Ethnicity, Egyptian, they immediately assume 2 things: I am a terrorist, or I am Muslim, and unfortunately, a combination of both.

    What Bynum delineates here is the complexity of identity and the dangers of understanding it in dichotomy, or binary.

  7. As Bynum presents in this article, the popular conception of identity is through dichotomies and binaries that have too often been socially constructed. Bynum uses the binary of mind vs. body as one example, which I think Hayles would agree with as being a problematic way of understanding personal identity. As mentioned above, conceptions of identity have been confronted and debated in different ways between generations. Gender expression is a part of identity that has recently become confronted as a problematic understanding of identity, as the gendering of a person as “boy” or “girl” – along with the socially constructed roles and stereotypes of either gender – have recently been deconstructed. As the facade of such a rigidly constructed binary is being deconstructed, gender fluidity and non-gendered expression have emerged as a more acceptable identity to take on. I feel this emergence is a great example of the labile understanding of identity that Bynum urges us to take on.

  8. Bynum’s understanding of personal identity seems to stem from an underlying sense of the self that each individual possesses. Regardless of label, each individual is just that: an individual. Any attempts to categorize could be marginalizing. Human or non-human, man or woman; these labels don’t take away from the depth of experience that a conscious individual experiences.

    Rather, the purpose of these labels are for others, not for the self. Most people aren’t willing to make a full effort towards understanding you, your behavior, and why you do what you do. To facilitate in understanding the world around us, we cannot help but categorize and make patterns of things so that we don’t have to fully examine every familiar encounter. However, you as a self are freely able to examine yourself without these labels. In this context, the use of labeling can only hinder your understanding of who and what you really are. You do not need a lingual shortcut to remind yourself who you are, because you are experiencing it.

  9. This concept of a new way of understanding identity would involve disentangling centuries worth of societal and intellectual norms. The very issue at hand is that humanity simultaneously invents and normalizes the perception of themselves. This is what fuels the strict roles and views on gender, a long and powerful line of thinking and experience that reproduces their categorical existence even as they define them. Race remains important because those who are deemed racial others, or non-white, are constantly reminded by society and their surroundings of their difference, and are forced to project on themselves the negative sentiments society has held. It is not simply a choice, it is an interpersonal, and individual, psychological process that is constantly pulled apart and reinforced by cultural norms. Redefining binary identities means redefining how every human sees the world, it involves removing the driving forces of power, discrimination, and cultural friction that forces others to live in a gendered or racialized world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *