Ultimately, this is the end (My 1st Midnight Blog)

Sadly, as we hand in our assignment, it is the end. So to end it I suppose I’ll make myself useful and talk about identity.

Today’s reading is a relatively short piece, it’s called “Debating Identity” and it’s written by Simon During, a New Zealander who is an academic living in a bourgeois society and an ectomorph as well as having a star sign of Aquarius. What he mentions here is quite interesting since it mentions that identity is different across many cultures and continents and into many different societies. As a result, there is this debate about who you really are. But before moving on further let’s take a look at a clip from a UK documentary series, entitled, Who Do You Think You Are?

Here in the 1st clip, the person whose being interviewed, Ian Hislop tells his life story of where his ancestors come from. So his father is Scottish, his mother is English although she was born on the Channel Islands and he was born in Wales. He then mentions that he lived in Wales for a while, but then he moved to Nigeria, then Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong and then finally back to England again for school. He finally settled in Kent where he saids it’s where he’s belong. The interesting thing he mentions though was that he’s from everywhere but nowhere in particular, but he sees himself as a person in Kent. But what’s his identity? He can’t be Arab or Chinese but he has lived in those places before. Referring back to that article, Simon During mentions that identity is partial and as a result, “they leave spaces outside of themselves” (page 147).

He thens mentions about Identity Politics. Identity Politics is, according to http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-identity-politics.htm, “When members of a specific subgroup unite in order to affect political or social change”. Here During asked the question here: “In terms of modern Identity Politics: did African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled form political associations on the basis of their autonomous will for liberation, or did they organise themselves politically because they were enabled to do so by circumstances? (page 148)” It’s an interesting question to ask since it is here identity politics plays a major part in our society at that time.

It is here he then moves on to talk about Hybridity. He believes that instead of discussing about Identity politics, “Hybridity” should be the new form of Identity. He mentions the reasons of hybridity as something on the lines of ‘subaltern’. The second reason is something much easier. Like Ian Hislop, everyone has multiple identities, so as a result hybridity is something that we all got whereas identity is something that is one.

So that is the end of my blog believe it or not. It’s nothing much, but hey I’m doing this just to cap off a week of extreme pain and suffering. Anyways I will say farewell by the following picture:

Advertisement