PART THREE: AUTONOMY THAT REFLECTS ART
Are there boundaries to identity? This was one of they very first questions I had contemplated after reading A.O Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism” and Stephen Greenblatt’s “Renaissance Self- Fashioning”. After months of diving into the text sentence by sentence, looking at rhetorical strategies and attempting to understand the author’s intention, this question still remains to be a challenge to answer.
Scott focuses more on art, how it can be viewed, personal and external perception, and then calls upon the reader to take action in their own life. On the other hand, Greenblatt focuses on the governing structures of identity, what forces are in play that drive you to like certain things. I believe that my beginning question, even though poses a challenge, is a generality that overlaps the two texts. One question that is an extension to my original question is, do we even have the ability to determine who we are in our own lives? One of the reasons why this question comes to mind is because we live in a society where “no two snowflakes are alike” and individuality is celebrated, as Scott states “Do you like what you like because of who you are? Or is it the sum of your likes and dislikes that makes you who you are?” (Scott 45). But what if who we are and what we like is determined not by the individual but by being put in situations that mold us. One of the main points Greenblatt addresses is “Autonomy is an issue but not the sole or even the central issue: the power to impose a shape upon oneself is an aspect of the more general power to control identity- that of others.” So, I am bringing it back to my original question, are there boundaries to identity? And if there are boundaries, to what extent do we have the power to determine who we are and who we will be in the future?
Greenblatt uses the term self-fashioning to describe a way in which an individual submits to an authority that then shapes that sed individual to inevitably be the person they become. He writes, “Self-fashioning for such involves submission to an absolute power or authority situated at least partially outside the self…” (Greenblatt 9) For example, as a child, I naturally submit to my parents as the authority. I grew up with loving parents who taught me that cheating and lying gets you nowhere in life, since I grew up with those morals, it has shaped who I am today. Greenblatt continues to argue that because we have the ability to choose to submit to certain authorities gives us autonomy, or the ability to govern one’s self , but not complete autonomous agency. You have the choice of who or what you submit to therefore you do have some, but very little, say in the formation of your own identity. Having realized that, I believe that one of the possible correlations between the two texts, in terms of the bigger picture concepts, is the fact that the governing structures behind identity that Greenblatt so meticulously explains, is the driving force of how we perceive and interpret art as what Scott addresses in his text. Because of the things we submit too, the same things that shape or fashion us, is the same driving force that allows us to perceive and interpret art. Going back to my previous example, if I came across an art exhibit or music performance about someone who cheated and lied, due to my background of submitting to my parents morals, I would endure an aesthetic experience.
So, are there boundaries to identity? After reading A.O Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism” and Stephen Greenblatt’s “Renaissance Self- Fashioning” I believe that there are boundaries to what extent you can physically control who you are and who you will be in the future.
Scott focuses more on art, how it can be viewed, personal and external perception, and then calls upon the reader to take action in their own life. On the other hand, Greenblatt focuses on the governing structures of identity, what forces are in play that drive you to like certain things. I believe that my beginning question, even though poses a challenge, is a generality that overlaps the two texts. One question that is an extension to my original question is, do we even have the ability to determine who we are in our own lives? One of the reasons why this question comes to mind is because we live in a society where “no two snowflakes are alike” and individuality is celebrated, as Scott states “Do you like what you like because of who you are? Or is it the sum of your likes and dislikes that makes you who you are?” (Scott 45). But what if who we are and what we like is determined not by the individual but by being put in situations that mold us. One of the main points Greenblatt addresses is “Autonomy is an issue but not the sole or even the central issue: the power to impose a shape upon oneself is an aspect of the more general power to control identity- that of others.” So, I am bringing it back to my original question, are there boundaries to identity? And if there are boundaries, to what extent do we have the power to determine who we are and who we will be in the future?
Greenblatt uses the term self-fashioning to describe a way in which an individual submits to an authority that then shapes that sed individual to inevitably be the person they become. He writes, “Self-fashioning for such involves submission to an absolute power or authority situated at least partially outside the self…” (Greenblatt 9) For example, as a child, I naturally submit to my parents as the authority. I grew up with loving parents who taught me that cheating and lying gets you nowhere in life, since I grew up with those morals, it has shaped who I am today. Greenblatt continues to argue that because we have the ability to choose to submit to certain authorities gives us autonomy, or the ability to govern one’s self , but not complete autonomous agency. You have the choice of who or what you submit to therefore you do have some, but very little, say in the formation of your own identity. Having realized that, I believe that one of the possible correlations between the two texts, in terms of the bigger picture concepts, is the fact that the governing structures behind identity that Greenblatt so meticulously explains, is the driving force of how we perceive and interpret art as what Scott addresses in his text. Because of the things we submit too, the same things that shape or fashion us, is the same driving force that allows us to perceive and interpret art. Going back to my previous example, if I came across an art exhibit or music performance about someone who cheated and lied, due to my background of submitting to my parents morals, I would endure an aesthetic experience.
So, are there boundaries to identity? After reading A.O Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism” and Stephen Greenblatt’s “Renaissance Self- Fashioning” I believe that there are boundaries to what extent you can physically control who you are and who you will be in the future.
Part two: Revised
Cover Letter
Throughout summer I read A.O Scott's Better Living Through Criticism, Warren Berger’s A More Beautiful Question, and Stephen Greenblatt's Renaissance Self-Fashioning. While reading the various sections I jotted down the major themes in each section and wrote down intriguing quotes, thorough notes and thought provoking revelations that correlated with those themes. After looking back on all of the readings as a whole, I created a concept map that bridged all of the overlapping concepts together. This process was hard because all of the readings were different and addressed different subjects, but are still cohesively tied together by the themes outlined in my map. I had to actually sit down and ponder or reflect after each section to fully understand the purpose of reading it. As I was creating my concept map, I found myself having more and more "light bulb" moments. This led to my map ending up with more themes that connected to more concepts than I had originally planned. However, I found it very hard to actually verbalize all of those "light bulb moments" in writing with textual evidence from the readings in the persuasive piece. After creating my concept map, I landed on the theme of identity as the overarching theme within all of the readings. I found myself wondering more about the formation of one's identity. How much of your identity is influenced by society? Why do we associate identity with one aspect of your life? Is identity just a form of putting labels on a person? I didn't necessarily end at answer to any of these questions but I am hoping as the year progresses, we delve into these concepts more. I greatly appreciate this type of writing because I have never done anything like this before and I am hoping by the end of this class, I will have evolved my writing and my thinking.
Part two Revised
CRITICISM: THE ART OF IDENTITY. THE FORMATION OF CULTURE
When you look in the mirror what do you see? You probably see eyes, legs, clothes. But what you don't see is your likes and dislikes, your passions, or the way you think. Your identity is not defined as what you look like from the outside, it's what you feel, what you love and what you hate. This concept is highlighted in Better Living Through Criticism; A.O Scott writes "Do you like what you like because of who you are? Or is it the sum of your likes and dislikes that makes you who you are? The way you dress does not display your identity. Your identity is what picks the type of clothes you wear. Often times, identity can be shaped by the generation you live in or the culture of society. If all of your friends did not make Tik Toks, the likelihood chance that you would not only make them, but also like watching them, would be slim. Our likes and interests can be clouded by what society deems to be socially acceptable. This connects to the concept of self-fashioning from Stephen Greenblatt's Renaissance Self Fashioning, throughout the reading he implies that self fashioning is the process of which someone changes their identity to fit what is deemed socially acceptable at the time. Greenblatt states "We may position a direction enacted by the works of literature in relation to society: a shift from absorption by community, religious faith, or diplomacy." I perceived "absorption by community" as consumption. Consumption is a very broad topic; Scott states "Your pattern of consumption are understood to reflect your age, race, gender, sexuality, religion, political beliefs, education level and so on. More than that, those presumed identities tell you what you are supposed to like, more aggressively and persuasively than any bossy critic." The things that society deems acceptable are the things people are almost brainwashed into liking, thus they are more likely to be consumed or purchased. This all contributing to the formation of a person's identity. There is a certain amount of pressure, that creates an internal vs. external dilema, added to a person as they form their identity. The pressure from society and the pressure from what your initial gut is telling you. However, in Warren Berger's A More Beautiful question he states "Often when you give more kids more freedom to pursue what they're interested in, they become easier to control." This circles back to identity. Students feel way more relaxed when they are passionate about what they are learning. They are passionate because that is what interests them, inevitably it is their identity that is formed by their likes and dislikes which makes them passionate and more eager to learn. Overall, the formation of identity, whether it is shaped by your likes and dislikes, the way people perceive you, the generation you live in, or the culture of society as a whole, is concept that I don't think can ever be defined.