Identities

[MrFlibble]

I am, at least in part, human (although sometimes I doubt even that). I am educated as a linguist, and that I am, too. I can't say I have national or regional identity. I have a name (it has even got different variants), but it's nothing more than a name, really.

[Acriku]

Wow, did they ever teach you hypotheticals in school Edric?

Also, I'm pretty sure if English and Mandarin ever combined, they would influence each other. Such as Mandarin's enunciation becoming less specific, using one (maybe two) primary tonation to go smoothly with English. Also, English and Mandarin are both stress-timed (instead of syllable-timed, where each syllable is evenly stressed). I think they'd be interestingly combined.

[MrFlibble]

Also, I'm pretty sure if English and Mandarin ever combined, they would influence each other.

Ever heard of pidgin English? That's one of the many examples of combining different languages - to amazing results.

[Dante]

On the subject of family name, I thought I should clarify something.

It's not the name itself that is important. If it was then the Smiths of the world would probably have formed some sort of collective by now. What is important is the family unit, usually (but not always) symbolised by the name. Call it what you like, clan, tribe: family, extended or otherwise, is the most intimate of social circles and one to which membership is very exclusive.

Or, to borrow a line from Buffy, family are the people who treat you like family. And families, incomplete or dysfunctional or adopted as they may be, (should) give one a sense of belonging. A sense of identity, be it "this is my heritage," "this is where I come from," or my personal favourite, "these are my people."

That's what it's about, really. Not the name itself, but the sense of identity that comes from the family. So while there are people out there with my name, and it's not a common name so we're almost certainly from the same line, I don't feel attachment to them other than through a vague sense of shared history. And my extended family, while nice people, do not give the impression that they'd take a bullet for each other.

It's an overly romantic notion of family, I'm aware of that. But whatever.

[Edric O]

Wow, did they ever teach you hypotheticals in school Edric?

Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. :P

It's not the name itself that is important. If it was then the Smiths of the world would probably have formed some sort of collective by now. What is important is the family unit, usually (but not always) symbolised by the name. Call it what you like, clan, tribe: family, extended or otherwise, is the most intimate of social circles and one to which membership is very exclusive.

Or, to borrow a line from Buffy, family are the people who treat you like family. And families, incomplete or dysfunctional or adopted as they may be, (should) give one a sense of belonging. A sense of identity, be it "this is my heritage," "this is where I come from," or my personal favourite, "these are my people."

In that case there's no particular reason why your family should be composed only of people you are related to by blood. So you might as well drop the title "family" from the social unit you are describing. ;)

[Dante]

In that case there's no particular reason why your family should be composed only of people you are related to by blood. So you might as well drop the title "family" from the social unit you are describing. ;)

Nah. :P The point is that the word family is slightly redefined, not that it ceases to matter.

[Acriku]

Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. :P

I didn't say rhetoricals, I said hypotheticals. As in, pretend aliens exist and pretend they were observing our species. Now, go:

[MrFlibble]

Oh how I long for the entire society (humanity, even) being a "family" in the sense you describe, Dante. Sadly this seems to be a sheer utopia :(

[Sneakgab]

Well, his description about family is mostly seems to be about.

1:A sense of belonging. Not sure how important this. Seems like it might give you the feeling that since you ''belong'' to a certain group, you can count on them for help. However, that second bit is extending it past strict definition.

2:family are the people who treat you like family.

A tad vague. Basically people who treat you much better than most, with respect, and as a valued and important person.

Well, that second one would be nice if applied to the whole world. What we call ''dreams of utopia'' would often be achievable if the majority of humanity agreed to service such an ideal rather attempting to garner as much wealth as possible. Not always the thing holding such dreams from reality of course. Much of the time there are those who would not pursue such harmony because it would make them a ''pansy''. Many different reasons I suppose, but not to many are what would generally be accepted as justifiable. Of course in the end there is the simple element of knowing it to be impossible to convince others of this.

[Dante]

Family are the people who treat you like family, but the definition of 'to be treated like family' varies from person to person. For some it is simply to be respected, loved, and protected. Others may choose to focus on only one or two of these facets. Personally I see things a little less romantically.

Families to me are imperfect by nature. They are a mess of infighting, vendetta, disagreement, anger, confusion - but ideally at the heart they are a close social group either in spite of these things, or because of them. The kind of people who will spend an entire day hurling insults at each other and then sit down to a meal and laugh about it. Or two people who hate each other but will fiercely resent anyone else hinding the efforts of the other. Families to me are the people to whom one can be absolutely foul and not only will it not have any lasting effect, it will not matter. In short, families tolerate each other. The love and respect and protection is usually important as well though.

[MrFlibble]

Families to me are imperfect by nature. They are a mess of infighting, vendetta, disagreement, anger, confusion - but ideally at the heart they are a close social group either in spite of these things, or because of them. The kind of people who will spend an entire day hurling insults at each other and then sit down to a meal and laugh about it. Or two people who hate each other but will fiercely resent anyone else hinding the efforts of the other. Families to me are the people to whom one can be absolutely foul and not only will it not have any lasting effect, it will not matter. In short, families tolerate each other.

That's very true :)

[Dunenewt]

I know this is an old thread, but after doing another couple of essays on the subject, I thought I'd bring it back up.  Does anyone else believe, that in general, people that identify themselves as something pretty unique, are more passionate about identifying themselves as such, than others?  Such as ethnicity groups, like Cornish or Welsh, in comparison to larger, broader groups such as British, or European?  Obviously this has exceptions, but in certain forms of identity, I'd say it holds true.  I've got an essay on societal security coming up, which will be quite interesting, as I have to talk about how the a society's identity can be threatened, e.g., vertical threats like I mentioned before, where a British societal identity is threatened by a European one above it, and an English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or Cornish one beneath it.

[Purge]

Jewish > American > Etc

Many Jews have loved, fought for, etc. their nation only for their nation to turn around and scapegoat them in one way or another.  While I don't necessarily see something like that happening in America (at least in my lifetime), if I were ever put in a position to choose between being Jewish and being American there would be no question that first and foremost I am a Jew.

[Dante]

Depends very much by what you mean by society. A nation's population, a particular subset divided by culture or geography, a specific racial group, perhaps a combination of the above...?

I would say that, in general, you may notice that smaller groups would feel more strongly about their identity than larger groups for several reasons. Firstly, they know that they are small and are more likely to feel threatened or impinged upon by a larger neighbour. Secondly, a small group will by its very nature not be part of 'the majority,' and if they choose to remain so then they must have good reasons. Thirdly, simple arithmetic: you may find the same proportion of "strong identifiers" in both large and small groups, but in large groups they are drowned out by the neutral majority. Related to that, larger groups are more likely to cover differences in whatever variable you are measuring. The Scots tend to feel quite strongly about Scotland, but the British have to consider differing loyalties in different parts of the country. In short, smaller groups have more in common with each other.

Alternatively, those who have the most in common will form small, unique groups as opposed to large, diverse groups.

[Dunenewt]

Depends very much by what you mean by society. A nation's population, a particular subset divided by culture or geography, a specific racial group, perhaps a combination of the above...?

Any of those can be considered a society in one way or another.  For example, possible threats to 'British' societal security involve the aforementioned regional identities, but also the large migration of Islamic/Hindu/Eastern Orthodox people to a (formerly) predominantly Protestant country, the loss of fishing rights (given Britain's identity as seafaring nation), it all depends on what you classify as 'British society'.

[Dante]

And also whether such identities are static or not. I would argue that trying to hold a community based around shared values or suchlike to a particular standard would be foolish. Let things change, evolve, develop. "British identity" has been so much harping on about the empire for a long time now. It was fun while it lasted, and I for one won't stop making jokes about the Channel Islands, but perhaps the time has come to reevaluate what it means to be British eh wot.