This text is relevant to better understand the Autognosis and, consequently, to better understand my music.
The definition of 'identity' seems to be one of the most complex questions to be answered. In this text, I will try to find some definitions that can help contextualise my creative practice and my role as an artist. The difficulty in finding a clear explanation of this word comes - as with 'culture' - from the many possible meanings it can carry. It can sometimes only refer to “to social categories or roles, in others to basic information about oneself (as in ‘my identity was stolen’)”[1].
The current perception of identity in the West, according to F. Fukuyama, begins to emerge during the Protestant Reformation[2]. The modern concept of identity emerged only in recent centuries when societies began to modernize[3]. This concept emerged due to a belief in a genuine and authentic identity within each individual, which “is somehow at odds with the role they are assigned by their surrounding society” [4]. Therefore, it begins to exist “a supreme value on authenticity, on the validation of that inner being that is not being allowed to express itself” [5]. Thus, the foundations of identity “were laid with the perception of a disjunction between one’s inside and one’s outside” [6]. According to the same author, it is no coincidence that this distinction between “an inner and an outer self” has appeared in Europe “between the Reformation and the French Revolution”[7]. At this time, European societies underwent profound economic and social changes, which created substantial conditions through which such ideas could spread[8].
S. Hall, in “Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’?”, argues that the notion of identity in Western cultural theory changed in the second half of the 20th century from an essentialist discourse on "integral, original and unified identity"[9]. Intellectuals such as Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler introduced, from their critical discourse, a concept of identity 'under erasure', accepting 'that identities are never unified and, in late modern times, increasingly fragmented and fractured; never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and antagonistic, discourses, practices and positions’[10].
When answering the question of "Identity, who needs it?", Hall presents us with two distinct viewpoints. In the first, one observes “something distinctive about the deconstructive critique to which many of these essentialist concepts have been subjected”[11]. Hence, identity is “an idea which cannot be thought in the old way, but without which certain key questions cannot be thought at all”[12]. The second perspective to answering the question “requires us to note where, in relation to what set of problems, does the irreducibility of the concept, identity, emerge?” [13].
Hall uses the term 'identity' as a reference “to the meeting point, the point of suture, between on the one hand the discourses and practices which attempt to 'interpellate' (...) and on the other hand, the processes which produce subjectivities, which construct us as subjects which can be 'spoken'”. Therefore, identities are “points of temporary attachment to the subject positions which discursive practices construct for us”, which “are the result of a successful articulation or 'chaining' of the subject into the flow of the discourse”[14].
To Hall (1991:21), identity is seen as a “structured representation which only achieves its positive through the narrow eye of the negative. It has to go through the eye of the needle of the other before it can construct itself”. Thus, identity “is always a temporary and unstable effect of relations which define identities by marking differences”[15].
Hall also argues that “identities are constructed through, not outside, difference”, that “can function as points of identification and attachment only because of their capacity to exclude, to leave out, to render 'outside', abjected”[16]. Fukuyama, on the other hand, describes “a distinction between one’s true inner self and an outer world of social rules and norms that do not adequately recognise that inner self’s worth or dignity” as the first moment of identity growth[17].
Identities arise, in this way, from the fabrication and “narrativization of the Self”, marking the difference and exclusion from “the play of specific modalities of power”[18]. It is also these “play of power and exclusion” that create “units proclaimed by identities” which, therefore, “are the result, not of a natural and inevitable or primordial totality but of the naturalized, overdetermined process of 'closure'”[19]. Identities must therefore be understood as being produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific training and discursive practices, through specific enunciative strategies[20].
There is a steady element in the concept of identity, which remains unchanged over time and history. Starting from a 'cultural identity', it can be considered that there is also a whole part: history, established practices, traditions, culture. These aspects are both common and shared among individuals, having different identities themselves, in constant transformation and change[21]. Identity implies the discovery of history, language and culture, at the same time, the use of these resources in order to transform and create oneself. Therefore, identity is based on tradition, but also on its 're-creation': not as a return to the roots, but as understanding and acknowledging them.
Identity can also be established “in spatial terms of geographical displacement or in temporal terms of having to negotiate different ‘traditions’”, defined, by Bhabha, as “the non-synchronous temporality of global and national cultures opening up a cultural space a third space”[22].
Other definitions for 'identity' can be found in the French philosopher Daniel Sibony’s texts - defining identity as “a ‘movement in-between’, ‘an open process’ in which one has to integrate the ‘stranger’ and ‘the event of otherness as well as oneself’”[23]. Sibony also presents the distinction between identity ‘in-between’ and the concept of ‘difference’, the latter being “a static division, marked by a borderline and symbolized by a trait”, a “simplistic polarity between the sexes, between religions and cultures, between life and death, between have and have-nots, between good and bad” [24].
This concept of "in-between", presented by Sibony, is associated with the notion of “a shared but unstable ‘origin’” [25]. Our origins are points of departure shared with others and are therefore not fixed points in time or space. Thus, our identity is created by the journey we undertake, always influenced by the world(s) around us, learning “pilgrim” (Bauman) or “wayfarer” (Ingold): someone who is continuously and continuously moving, gathering his or her knowledge throughout the journey[26].
This network of identity aspects, creating a whole identity of an individual, is also claimed by A. Malouf: “The identity of a person is not a juxtaposition of autonomous aspects; it is not a ‘patchwork’, it is a drawing on a tight skin. If you touch one aspect, it is the whole person that vibrates”[27]. Malouf also presents two directionalities of our multiple-identity. The first, horizontal, is defined by our daily life's choices; the second is established by "our heritage, including notions such as race, nation, and religion" and is at the core of most conflicts[28].
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, in his essay ‘'From Pilgrim to Tourist - or a short history of identity', opposes the modernist vision - what he calls 'the problem of identity that was how to build an identity and keep it solid and stable' - the postmodern which is 'primarily how to avoid fixation and keep options open'[29].
Also, in "Questions of Cultural Identity", L. Grossberg (‘Identity and Cultural Studies: Is that all there is?’) summarises the debate, presenting different positions. Departing from the model argued by S. Hall (1990) where the constitution and identity policy are often based on a distinction, “two forms of struggle over - two models of the production of- identities”[30], L. Grossberg presents the two distinct points of view. The first model introduces a “common origin or common structure”, in which the struggle “against existing constructions of a particular identity takes the form of contesting negative images with positive ones, and of trying to discover the 'authentic' and 'original' content of the identity”[31]. The second model, presents "one fully constituted, separate and distinct identity in place of another”, emphasising “the impossibility of such fully constituted, separate and distinct identities”[32]. This model, “denies the existence of authentic and originary identities based on a universally shared origin or experience. Identities are always relational and incomplete, in process”. Thus, any identity “depends upon its difference from, its negation of, some other term, even as the identity of the latter term depends upon its difference from, its negation of, the former” [33]. Although Grossberg considers that the latest model presented “defines work around identity in cultural studies”, he does not mean “to suggest that this model defines a singular theoretical position or vocabulary”[34]. Therefore, Grossberg introduces us “a number of different, overlapping, intersecting and sometimes even competing figures which, taken together, define the space within which cultural studies has theorized the problem of identity”. These figures are différance, fragmentation, hybridity, border and diaspora”[35].
Grossberg also presents “three corresponding alternatives: a logic of otherness; a logic of productivity; and a logic of spatiality” to refute the theories which consider identity as a central focus “in both theoretical and political discourses is a 'modern' development” [36]. Grossberg also adds that “the modern constitutes its own identity by differentiating itself from an-other (usually tradition as a temporal other or spatial others transformed into temporal others), identity is always constituted out of difference”[37]. Thus, “the modern constitutes not identity out of difference but difference out of identity”[38].
To Grossberg, identity “is entirely a historical construction but that each of the three planes of individuation is constructed temporally: subjectivity as internal time consciousness; identity as the temporal construction of difference; and agency as the temporal displacement of difference”[39].
political identity
According to F. Fukuyama, “contemporary identity groups politics is driven by the quest for equal recognition by groups that have been marginalized by their societies”, although the desire for “equal recognition can easily slide over into a demand for recognition of the group’s superiority. This is a large part of the story of nationalism and national identity, as well as certain forms of extremist religious politics today”[40].
Still in the words of F. Fukuyama, “demand for recognition of one’s identity is a major concept that unifies much of what is going on in world politics today”[41]. This occurs because much “of what passes for economic motivation is, I will argue, actually rooted in the demand for recognition and therefore cannot simply be satisfied by economic means” [42].
The awareness of the population that their dignity “had been affronted, disparaged, or otherwise disregarded”, has also had an emotional bearing on this struggle and the growth of the extreme right.
As we have seen, political identity has also kept its significance. When many expected a globalised, freer world, with peoples connected among all, reality shows us that identity disputes - nationalisms, racists or gender conflicts, for example - have gained weight in the last decade. Although there are necessary and essential fights - among others, gender equality or the end of racism - there are others which, at least in my opinion, are less so. One such example is a protest held in Portugal to prove that the country is not racist[43], organised by someone who later demonstrated planning the most massive "anti-racism demonstration ever seen"[44]. This is a further demonstration of the extreme right's growth in countries on different continents, or at least a demonstration of dissatisfaction on the part of the working class, concerned with economic issues. According to F. Fukuyama, this was one of the reasons for the Brexit victory or even the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States[45]. The fear of job losses due to massive immigration by native workers, coupled with the fear of erosion of long-established cultural identities, has contributed to a growth of movements or parties focused on anti-immigration - or in the case of the anti-EU Brexit. It was not only in the USA or the UK that this idea of anti-immigration developed, with the rise of the extreme right. It also happened in France (with the National Front), the Netherlands, Flanders, Austria, Brazil and many other countries. The strength of the fear of Islamic terrorists, or of the prominence of Muslim culture over what is considered to be European culture, is another reason for this growth.
personal identity
Focusing on the personal aspect, identity is created from the experiences that one experiences throughout his or her life, thus nourishing himself or herself with the memories and different episodes that experience. We build this idea by identifying ourselves with the stories as being the same person in all the episodes. Thus, we build a feeling of continuity that corresponds to a "self" that is only known by each one of us individually.
Our identity is dependent on the other, for various reasons. Firstly, most of our ideas about who we are and how we behave come from what the surrounding people say about us. Moreover, one way of understanding ourselves is to compare ourselves with others, and these - the others - are an essential source in the construction of our identity. Therefore, we are influenced, through the way we build ourselves, by the society(s) in which we are born, and also "by how we define the objectives we want to achieve as individuals"[46]. As an artist, I have realized exactly that my way of perceiving my work, the art I create and even the way of standing in the music scene, is influenced by the ways in which those around me have taught me to be and to behold this environment. According to Lima, this influence - which I have received in an unconsciously way, and which remained unconscious until some time ago - is due to the fact that ideas which guide our lives are "largely socially constructed shared by people of the same social class or generation"[47].
Also the idea of ourselves, or the way that one thinks of oneself, is influenced by memory and collaborative creation. We preserve what we think we are, building our identity under the influence of the moments we live and the reactions of the Other, not rarely unconsciously. In essence, our identity can be seen as history (or a story) that we "build and tell about ourselves", thus defining "who we are for ourselves and for others"[48]. The creation of identity is thus illusory, invented and (re)constructed subsequently.
The memory of moments or stories, which help us in creating our identity and that of others around us, is therefore done selectively. We tell these stories over and over again to demonstrate what we are and to explain what we are to others. The act of remembering is always built, deconstructed and transformed, as our memory is subjective[49]. Sharing memories, a collaborative process, is also an essential part of creating an identity. When one seeks to remember something as a group, these memories are created by each of the participants, thus adding a common narrative to the group members, sometimes slightly modifying the initial individual memory. As explained by the belgian dance dramaturge Guy Cools, “already in the moment of experiencing through the senses, the memory takes apart factual experience and reassembles it by stressing certain parts and forgetting others, by reordering them according to a logic that seems appropriate and makes sense to the self that remembers” [50].
As previously presented, identity is created from different moments and in different contexts. Our reaction to different contexts comes in different forms, but it is this multiplicity of ‘self’ that we create which makes us identify with the whole: "despite all these incongruities, we look into the mirror and recognise ourselves; we think about ourselves and discover a consistency which, although illusory, comforts us”[51].
Both in personal life and in the professional environment, society's standards guide our conduct. For this reason, we create our way of perceiving the world, and our behaviour, through the links that we establish with others. By following what is expected of us, or by confronting it, we are creating a reaction that adds other elements to our identity. Either way, our identity is affected by the image we share about being part of a group (having a particular nationality and being presented as such). Our (personal) identity results from our interactions with each other. Therefore, although it is difficult to define the identity of each one - individual or as part of a whole - the idea that one is unique and autonomous is a socially constructed illusion. In everyday life, we need this connection, this mutual influence (to influence and be influenced) in order to survive.