GRE Issue Topic 36

Sample 1:

Identity has always been a delicate issue, even more so in recent times when people have gotten the courage to break away from socially accepted norms and declare themselves as outsiders to the groups they have been relegated to since birth. Identity seems to require constant work, and it changes based on our personality, interactions and experiences. As Gabriel Garcia Marquez said, “He allowed himself to be swayed by his conviction that human beings are not born once and for all on the day their mothers give birth to them, but that life obliges them over and over again to give birth to themselves.” The issue at hand here is not about establishing whether the process of identifying ourselves through social groups is appropriate – but rather about observing the actual practices of identity formation. Currently, we can reasonably extrapolate a person’s views based on the social groups they belong to, as long as we stick to general traits, and the person’s association with the group was done voluntarily.

When looking at a self–proclaimed ‘foodie’, we can deduce that they treasure experiences above material possessions, that they place a great deal of importance on food, especially it’s taste and presentation, and that they are quality driven people (for them a meal is an experience, not a necessity). These extrapolations are easy to make because social groups tend to have shared beliefs, goals, norms and values – even more so when we are talking about official groups that make public statements about their values. In current times, even companies promote having a shared philosophy and work ethic. Creating social groups with shared values happens because we are social animals, like Aristotle says. We like living in groups, perhaps as a former survival mechanism based on the strategy of safety in numbers. Moreover, we do not look just for company, but for a sense of belonging – which is why social groups form based on commonalities.

The world, on the whole, is highly complex – there is too much information to process for our minds – which is also why a significant number of processes are subconscious or automated. This complexity leads to a so–called proximity effect – as individuals, we are primarily interested in those closest to us, in ever widening groups (from family, to friends, to neighbors, neighborhood, city etc.). The closer the group, in terms of emotional attachments or similarity of values, the more impact would the group have in the way in which we define ourselves. This influence is especially noticeable in conflict situations, when our identity is threatened. It is then that we look for models to either re–establish our identity or re–define ourselves, and the role models we use are those we know of (have acquaintance with).

People in general seek to imitate others – whether to conform to preserve harmony, out of fear of exclusion or as a learning mechanism. It is such an ingrained behavior, that it even occurs at a subconscious level. Studies have shown that in a conversation, people that like each other borrow gestures and speech patterns, even when it comes to people that have just met. As individuals, we are always aware of how others see us, and we always strive to be liked – the concepts of shame or guilt only make sense in a social setting.

Given the attention and importance that we ascribe to the people around us, especially to the groups we identify with, it is no wonder that they play a major part in defining us. If you care about an opinion, you give the opinion maker power over you. And, as demonstrated above, we are constantly on the lookout for models and subconsciously imitate those around us. As Piaget discovered, our identity is formed through comparisons – careful selections of who we are and who we are not – and social groups provide the external validation that we crave.

Sample 2:

The identity of a person is his characteristics, features or beliefs that help in distinguishing him from others. It gives the answer to a stranger who is unknown to you and thus helps in defining your persona. However, one wonders what the best definition of a person would be. I believe the definition of a person depends upon the people he is interacting with. While superficially we can identify ourselves with social groups in order to define ourselves, a deeper definition becomes explicit, giving importance to ndividual identity within a social group. Holding this view, I agree with the statement only partially, and I would like to add that a person does not only define himself by identifying with a social group but also by his personal characteristics that differ from others’.

People are generally a part of some social group or the other. This social group can be identified for its distinct characteristics from another and these characteristics help the person define his personality. This is the definition of an individual as taken in the superficial sense. For example, if a student visits a foreign country for an exchange program, he refers to himself according to his nationality, which is the social group he belongs to. In an international beauty contest, we have different contestants from various parts of the world and they are referred to as Miss Africa, Miss Venezuela etc. Sometimes an individual is a part of more than two social groups at the same time. That means that a person can be a Christian as well as an Indian. Belonging to a social group helps to identify peculiar characteristics of a person with the members of the same group and distinguish from those of another. It is not only a matter of convenience to refer to the broader social groups that a person belongs to but also the only thing that significantly distinguishes a person from others.

On the other hand, I hold that the true definition of a person lies in what he is when he stands as a single unit, without attaching himself to any social group. It is this definition of the self which is more important and detailed when it comes to the description of a person. For example, if a person goes for an interview for a job and is asked to define himself, he would have to bring out his personal definition by introducing himself by his name. Further, the employer would like to know his personal achievements, interests, experiences and skills. It would not matter to him if the candidate belongs to any social group. Similarly, the personal achievements of people like Newton and Graham Bell is what helps to define them.

Further, the view expressed in the statement also does not help to define a person who does not belong to any social group. There could be many people who are not socially active and thus do not identify themselves with any group in particular. The statement does not help in defining these people who however may establish their personal identities.

In the end I would like to conclude that defining a person by identifying him with a social group only defines him on a superficial scale. However, on a detailed scale, it is the personal characteristics, interests, sex, achievements, skills and ideas that make a person different from the other.