People are comprised of a myriad of experiences that are
then conveyed imperfectly through words. Sometimes the spaces that are created with
those words are too narrow and have to be reexamined. In the introduction of
the book Uprootings/Regroundings, Ahmed et al brings up the conversation
of how the ideas of ‘home’ and ‘migration’ should be examined through a lens of
plurality as opposed to one that views them as specific points. This idea of fluidity really speaks to the nature of identity. In Adoptive Territories, Kim explores the relation that Korean adult adoptees have with identity and how they claim to navigate this terrain.
The creation of identity is something that at once straddles both the private sphere as well as the public sphere. On page 86 of Adoptive Territories, Kim says "the identity of adoptees is not reducible to an ideal type such as that of diaspora, but rather is an ongoing production of a shared social imagination that has taken on transnational dimensions." The significance of this statement lies in two place, one in the ways in which there is an 'ideal' type of identity that is projected on to others often by those from a privileged position, and two in the conceptualization of identity as a 'shared social imagination'.
People are all too often put into boxes by those around them. There is a regulation of identity by those of privilege that attempts to create a plane "with clear lines of connection among accepted categories of place, time, and identity" (Kim, 89). The obvious issue with this approach is the fact that identity is not linear. Identity isn't something to be pinpointed on a line. Beyond the complexity of identity, there is also the issues of how identity and mobility are regulated through positions of privilege. Ultimately borders and nation states are creations that have little reality beyond what we give them. However, as seen with the body politics that accompanies mobility, they have been given a lot of power or are overseen by those given a lot of power. In direct correlation with the Kim reading, these issues of mobility and identity are manifested not only in overt ways such as the severance of ties with birth mothers during adoption in order to cross international borders, but it is also seen in the nuances of daily interactions, such as a conversation held by an adult adoptee and a taxi driver in which the driver asserted that the adoptee was Korean.
In many ways identity can be seen as a 'shared social imagination' and the recognition of this aspect of identity allows for there to be a deeper and more insightful look into identity constructions. Identity has often been conflated with merely being a manifestation of genetic predisposition. This is intrinsically flawed in that it does not allow for identity to construct and reconstruct itself, not does this logic allow for any fluidity of identity. Our brains are constantly absorbing information and computing that information in order for us to perceive the world around us. Feelings of togetherness, belonging, and acceptance are major parts in our construction of identity. This is exemplified by the ways in which many of the adult Korean adoptees felt accepted by others who has similar and shared experiences as themselves.
The creation of identity is something that at once straddles both the private sphere as well as the public sphere. On page 86 of Adoptive Territories, Kim says "the identity of adoptees is not reducible to an ideal type such as that of diaspora, but rather is an ongoing production of a shared social imagination that has taken on transnational dimensions." The significance of this statement lies in two place, one in the ways in which there is an 'ideal' type of identity that is projected on to others often by those from a privileged position, and two in the conceptualization of identity as a 'shared social imagination'.
People are all too often put into boxes by those around them. There is a regulation of identity by those of privilege that attempts to create a plane "with clear lines of connection among accepted categories of place, time, and identity" (Kim, 89). The obvious issue with this approach is the fact that identity is not linear. Identity isn't something to be pinpointed on a line. Beyond the complexity of identity, there is also the issues of how identity and mobility are regulated through positions of privilege. Ultimately borders and nation states are creations that have little reality beyond what we give them. However, as seen with the body politics that accompanies mobility, they have been given a lot of power or are overseen by those given a lot of power. In direct correlation with the Kim reading, these issues of mobility and identity are manifested not only in overt ways such as the severance of ties with birth mothers during adoption in order to cross international borders, but it is also seen in the nuances of daily interactions, such as a conversation held by an adult adoptee and a taxi driver in which the driver asserted that the adoptee was Korean.
In many ways identity can be seen as a 'shared social imagination' and the recognition of this aspect of identity allows for there to be a deeper and more insightful look into identity constructions. Identity has often been conflated with merely being a manifestation of genetic predisposition. This is intrinsically flawed in that it does not allow for identity to construct and reconstruct itself, not does this logic allow for any fluidity of identity. Our brains are constantly absorbing information and computing that information in order for us to perceive the world around us. Feelings of togetherness, belonging, and acceptance are major parts in our construction of identity. This is exemplified by the ways in which many of the adult Korean adoptees felt accepted by others who has similar and shared experiences as themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment