As humans, each of us assumes a cluster of identities – some of them chosen and changeable, others immutable. My grandfather, for example, proclaimed himself Dayton’s Leading Republican Plumber, invoking a host of other identities as well: Mason, Protestant, middle class, married. I don’t think “grandfather” was high up in his awareness. Being male or female or teenaged or elderly, on the other hand, are simply givens. And the history of what we’ve done or failed to do cannot be altered, except in our own perceptions and retelling.
The range of identities is astounding. They include but are not limited to race, religion, nationality and locality, occupation, family (household and near kin to genealogy itself), education and educational institutions, athletics, hobbies and interests, actions and emotions, even other individuals we admire, from actors and authors to athletes, politicians, and historic figures. They soon extend to the people we associate with – family, friends, coworkers, neighbors. And, pointedly, our phobias and possessions.
Curiously, it becomes easier to say what we are not than what we are specifically. That is, set out to define yourself in the positive and you’ll find the list rapidly dwindling, while an inexplicable core remains untouched. Turn to the oppositions, however, and the list becomes endless. I am not, for instance, a monkey. Sometimes, moreover, a specified negative becomes truly revealing: “I am not a crook,” for instance, as the classic revelation.
Behind the masks of public life – our occupations, religious affiliations, social status, economic positions, family connections, educational accomplishments, and so on – each of us engages in another struggle, an attempt to find inner balance and direction for our own life. As we do so, we soon face a plethora of interior and exterior forces that must be reconciled. We get glimmers into this struggle – both within ourselves and within others – in statements that begin “I am” and “I am not,” as well as “I have been,” which recognizes the history and habits we accumulate and carry with us. There are also the voices – “he remembers” or “she insists” – that also recur in our lives, defining and redefining ourselves both within, as conscience or the angel or devil on our shoulders, and without, as any of a host of authority figures and friends or family members.
When I turned to this is a series of poems, I found myself identifying many of the subjects by occupation, even though their confessions or interior monolog typically reflected the more intimate concerns of their lives – relationships, activities, even the weather. The resulting poems are, then, overheard snippets more than public proclamations.
What began as an exercise in self-definition breaks out nonetheless into an entire spectrum of personalities. Do we know any of these people? Or are they somehow eluding us, masked by the bits that are revealed? Those we recognize, moreover, happen by accident – none of the portraits are of known individuals, but rather the inventions of the poet’s craft and imagination.
Listen carefully – especially when others talk of their romantic problems or other troubles – and another portion of a mosaic appears. My collection builds on such moments, constructing a cross-section of community like a web of each one of its members. Sometimes, a place appears; sometimes, a contradiction; sometimes, a flavor or sound or color. Even so, in this crossfire, then, we may be more alike than any of us wishes to admit. We may be more like the part we deny, as well. Our defenses wither. Our commonality, and our essential loneliness, are revealed.
In the end, I’d say I have a Village of Gargoyles.
The real question that comes to mind here is why do human beings feel this incessant need to label everything accordingly and then sort it into neat little boxes and file it in alphabetical order? Why can’t we be content to just let things be what they are and stop trying to define what exactly that is? When did this conditioning start that we felt the need to have all these definitions or labels in order for something to be legitimate and validated so to speak?
I didn’t even used to realize this is what was occurring but since it’s been pointed out to me, I notice it all the time. Society has conditioned us to do this, but why? And when did it start? And why can’t we shake that nagging urge to have to define it all even once we see that we are doing this? I think about these things frequently…
hello, sir Jnana… this is one of your best posts, I’d say. it is able to put so many questions into one simple, unassuming essay. thanks for sharing. 🙂
i have the same or similar, questions and attempts to answer them. some i have put into words already, in essays in my Tagalog blog. i guess the attempts revolve around the question about what must be put into the private and what into public. and how does one integrate the two and still make for an acceptable and loving individual, living a productive, cheerful and connected life. ahaha, something like that… 🙂
hope you and dear ones are okay. please don’t be surprised should i reblog this wonderful musings of yours, one day… best regards 🙂 ~ san
Feel free to reblog! Glad it struck a chord.