The object of being
Applying the verb to be followed by a noun or adjective to a person has vast and profound implications of which we are normally unaware.
In fact, we commonly say (or think) phrases such as “I am (an) xxxx” (e.g., “I am an employee,” or “I am free,” or “I am an artist”) without asking ourselves who established that identity or quality, nor who ascribed it to us, nor what are the consequences of that attribution.
On first reflection, it occurs to me that the identities and qualities of a human being make sense only in a social context. In fact, it would never occur to an individual totally and hopelessly isolated from others to think “I am (an) xxxx,” not least because that attribution could not be shared and therefore could not have any consequences.
It then occurs to me that the identities and qualities of a human being are meaningful to the extent that they are (or can be) recognized by others. Indeed, there is no point in believing that one “is (an) xxxx” if one is certain that such an identity or quality is invisible to others and always will be. We can therefore say that we are what others recognize (or will recognize) in us.
What does xxxx (i.e., the object of being) mean and how can it be instantiated? To answer, it is convenient to turn to the idea (of Gregory Bateson) that we cannot know things (nor people) per se, but only the relations between things (or people). The object of being is thus a relation, specifically a social relation.
Being = belonging
For the above, I hold that the object ofbeing is a social role assumed by the subject or a social category to which he believes he belongs (or to which others believe he belongs). In more general terms, and considering the role a kind of category, I would say that the object of being is constituted by belonging to certain categories.
We can therefore, almost always, replace the verb to be with the verb to belong. For example, saying “I am free” is equivalent to saying “I belong to the (social) category of free people.” To say “I am a merchant” is equivalent to saying “I belong to the category of merchants.” To say “I am stupid” is equivalent to saying “I belong to the category of stupid people.” To say “I am Italian” is equivalent to saying “I belong to the category of Italians.”
It follows that before one can say “I am (an) xxxx” one must define the category xxxx. For example, before saying “Tizio is stupid,” the category of stupid people needs to be defined, and before saying “I am free,” the category of free people needs to be defined.
The definition of social categories is, of course, a social process. When an individual is born, categories are already defined by those who came before him, and he only has to learn them, as he cannot invent new ones (at least until he becomes an intellectual, political or religious authority).
The definitions of categories used by ordinary people are rather imprecise and vague. Indeed, few people consult a vocabulary before using certain words. These are usually generalizations and simplifications that everyone can interpret as he or she pleases. It follows that the identities and social qualities that we ascribe to ourselves or that others ascribe to us are always subjective and coarse.
Belonging = imitating
As we saw in the chapter Learning, imitation, empathy, conformity, learning is based on imitation. This also applies to the learning of social categories. Through imitation we not only learn what such categories are, but also how to behave in such a way as to belong to those we wish to belong to. On the other hand, we desire to belong to certain categories because the people we wish to imitate belong to them, as René Girard teaches.
To be = to imitate
If Being = to belong, and belonging = to imitate, then being = to imitate.
As a consequence of these equations, we might say that an individual’s identity consists in belonging to the categories of people he or she has imitated and/or is successfully imitating.
In light of the above, a phrase like “be yourself” (used in exhortations such as “be yourself”) does not make much sense since one cannot be something without belonging to some category, that is, without imitating someone. Therefore, the issue is not whether to imitate or not to imitate someone, but who to imitate.
On the other hand, the choice of people to imitate can be problematic and give rise to external and internal conflicts. Indeed, if one belongs to a certain community, the members of that community expect him to imitate people from the same community, and not from others. At the same time one may be torn between the desire to imitate certain people and the desire to imitate certain others who are incompatible with the former because they belong to antithetical communities.
Wanting to be different from everyone else, that is, not wanting to imitate anyone, is a mistake that can cause mental disorders, since it is impossible to interact with other people without imitating some role model. On the other hand, as far as choosing models to imitate is concerned, the study of humanities and social sciences and narrative allow us to broaden and deepen our knowledge of many different models of humanity, enabling us to choose the ones to imitate that best suit our personality.
In any case, it pays to avoid, as far as possible, ascribing (to oneself and to others) well-defined identities and social qualities, since these are subjective, reductive and limiting of the freedom to change the models of behavior to be imitated. On the other hand, a person whose social identity is undefined and mysterious can have a certain appeal.
Next chapter: Human Differences.