We embark on the journey to personality: What is identity? How to get from analog to digital identity? On the way there, we shed light on historical concepts of identity until we arrive at the topic of Digital identity and the Blockchain – and can be: Who and how we are? Today: Identity 2.0.: The decentralization of identity.
We remember from part 1 of this series. At the time of the enlightenment, it was thought of in certain ways of thinking identity as the solid core of individuals. An invariable property, which gives people a clear center. This view would soon change. The “core” of the people was to be understood as flexible, as something is changing. And so in a certain sense: in a decentralized manner.
Identity is decentralized
First of all, there was, in this context, a separation of an Inner and an Outer identity. Just in sociology (G. H. Mead, C. H. Gooley), but also in the psychological (Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan) context put in the 19. and 20. Century, the view that there are basically two different types of how people get their identity “”. So there is, depending on the direction of thought – an “inner” and “outer” identity.
The outer identity is shaped in the sociological context in relationship to the environment. The contact to family, teachers, and cultural Institutions we learn the values, norms and conventions that shape our (external) identity. These “outer” identity is no longer here, so as the immutable core, but is shaped in the Interaction of humans and the environment. These form of have an impact on the internal identity, the character, the ways of thinking and internalized patterns of behavior.
The stories we tell
Towards the end of the 20th century. Century, the concept of Narrative was important to the story(s) that we tell (us) about us. Stuart Hall, for example, one of the leading cultural theorist of great Britain, assumed that we do not have a fixed core of identity, but the identity of the contexts in which we find ourselves and in which we are moving.
We all play theatre
Not only Shakespeare made theatre. Actually, we all play theatre every day.
In this context, used Erving Goffman, in accordance with theories from theatre theory to the concept of social roles. He assumed that taking in different social situations and contexts different roles. Depending on how you want to act, and what impression you want to awaken the people in his environment to behave differently. So you look at the work safely otherwise than in the familiar circle of the family, while carrying on with friends and probably other conversations with the grandmother. Whether this happens consciously or unconsciously, in this view, no role – it acts, lives and speaks differently depending on the context.
You can’t stand in this context of identity as something Fixed, Unchangeable, even as a core. Rather, it is a in change fact game from the Inside and the Outside, Self – perception and perception of, the look made up of many different eyes.
Recall here once again the quote of Mark Zuckerberg’s from the first part. His Statement about the lack of integrity in the case of multiple identities can be regarded hereby as extremely doubtful. However, as you will learn in the next Parts, is the idea of centralization of data. More on this in the next week.
Disclaimer: identity is a highly complex issue that has for centuries been a topic of research. The author is not trying this in the best way possible and digestible to present, which is why he comes to certain Shortages fail. The occupied angle of view is dominated by the study of literature, art and media studies, enriched with the philosophical, sociological and psychological knowledge snippets. Nevertheless, neither completeness guarantees can be claimed, yet absolute truth. Therefore, the present article is to set the terms for what it is: an opportunity to broaden the horizon. And in addition: a lot of fun to read.