Identity

So I have been doing reading these past few days for my courses, trying to stay caught up. First of all it's awesome that I don't have to buy any books here. All of the readings are in reading packets; photocopies of journals, books, and the like are given to us that is all of our reading for the semester. On top of this wonderful little system I have ended up spending only around $80 on my books for the entire semester... man that's so much better than my first semester in engineering where i spent somewhere around $500. Definitely a step up.

Another interesting fact is that I am taking a course from an instructor who is 90 years old giver or take 3 years. I know this not from a biography but by the fact that the Turkish government has made it mandatory for state-hired academics to retire at the age of 67 from state universities. This knowledge combined with the fact that she informed the class that she loves teaching and writing so much that she decided to stay in the biz even after that and 20 years later she is still loving it. The prune-like skin, old lady glasses and the fact that we have to yell at her slowly for her to understand us also gives it away if one was to not have made that initial connection.

So I'm doing my readings about globalization and transnational identities and it really got me thinking. One scholar has pointed out that national politics, in light of globalization and international NGOs and the like, has been losing what used to be the core of its power - it's sovereignty. This is very true. Turkey for example has given up so much in order to become part of the EU. While it may be true that it is a government backed initiative in the first place, I have talked to many Turks who are incredibly open to the idea and even strongly in favor...yet this induction into this international body most certainly means the loss of certain aspects of Turkish sovereignty. For example... there is a food here (most delicious if I do say so myself) called çiğköfte.  This is raw meatballs. It's traditionally made with raw meat, a wheat rice, onion, tomato, and served to wrap up in lettuce with a squeeze of lemon on top. It's amazing... and it's not real raw meat. Not anymore at least, not that I have eaten From everything I've heard from the Turks around me about the history of the food, the Ministry of Health has banned the use of raw meat and now they use lintels and other meat substitutes. What I have been told, and this has not been verified yet (having trouble finding the English translations for sources), is that due to their desire to be in the EU this was one of the regulations they were required to adopt. So... while they are able to maintain their cultural identity through a slight alteration on a classic food, they are actively giving up a bit of sovereignty in order to become a part of the EU. So my question is, was it ever REALLY about sovereignty? I mean I understand that's what Westphalia was all about but was it just that "sovereignty" was the word we knew and used? What if it's always been about identity? That people are willing to give up certain freedoms/self-governance as long as they are able to retain enough of their cultural, ethnic, linguistic, spiritual etc. identity so as to feel a sense of purpose.

I believe to some extent it is... which raises another question. How do we chose our given identities? Why is it that some people I know, who love their families, friends and home so much, choose to go overseas and live in a community that initially didn't share any points of their identity (or so it seemed). In this same train of thought, others wish to stay rooted in the places they have begun to know so well. They identify with their surroundings and environment. Not that either of these is wrong or better than the other, but it does cause me to question how we develop those identities. The conclusion that I have been able to come to is that it's about the locale of the identity creation. I believe there are two types of people, those who are defined solely (or at least primarily) through internal operators. My example is that I am a Packers fan. I have never set foot in Wisconsin and have only physically been able to go to ONE game. Yet I have stuck with them and anyone who knows me well on a personal level could tell you they are the team I love. 2 things stick out to me here. This is something I have defined for myself... regardless of my geographical location or the fact that I only knew of two other people (Grant and Dani B... shout out) who supported them in my home town of Owasso, OK. The second part of this is that it is such a part of my life that people who get to know me will most inevitably find out about it. I will come back to this later.

The others are those who define themselves by what they are around, where they're from and who is around them. The example I would give here are the generations that are born, live and die in the same communities. Anyone who has seen The Town can understand this example. In fact, anyone from Owasso can understand this. The small town mentality is usually what this is seen to reflect. These are the people that seemingly, if removed from their homes would be utterly lost. 

Both of these people groups experience great joy and wonderful lives, don't get me wrong. I am simply trying to wrap my mind around what drives people. After all this is really what International Relations and life in general is all about. What drives states, people groups, NGOs to do what they do? How do they establish their identities and why does that cause them to do what they do. There is something else there that is not only striking to me but also seems along the lines of dangerous.

Recently talking with someone I was given the story that an individual they knew very well chose to outwardly identify themselves in the grouping with athletes. Now from this conversation I gathered that this person was marginally connected with sports in their lives. Yet, despite this marginal participation, they decided to identify athletes as a group and ascribe themselves to that camp. It is my observation that this happens quite often. In my own life I can see my identifiers, some of which I have what one could barely call marginal participation. For instance I could call myself a humanitarian yet, what portion of my life have I devoted to humanitarian efforts? I have a friend who has a heart for Africa. She is planning a trip this summer to return to a place she has been twice before. Those close to her would understand if she said "I love Africa, it's a place where my heart is." They would believe this and know it to be true because they have seen it in her life. How many times though, do people claim an identity to which they are only marginally participated in? One in which, even people who are close to them rarely see the active fruits of. This isn't to say I can't say I have a heart for Africa as well though I haven't been there physically but you better believe that my prayer life, donations, social activist groups, etc had better be involved in it for me to claim that. What I have seen though is people claiming, sports teams, religious affiliation, social issues as identities they adhere to, yet there is a vast disproportion to the level they claim the identity and the level at which they are active in it. 

This is not ultimately wrong. Those of you who are like me and hockey fans, or whatever, but you don't go out of your way to watch it can understand this. There is nothing inherently wrong with these identifiers... except for what I believe they allow. At what point does this begin to bleed into your spiritual life. At what point does being a marginal athlete (not to be confused with being mediocre), yet still claiming it as an identity allow you to do the same in your faith. I think that's what America has greatly become today. A group of people who prescribe to Christianity or whatever the case may be and yet their lives don't show it. I would love to have an outsider ask my friends, the people I knew well and even not so well and describe the things about me that they though I would identify with... We tell people EVERYTHING! About the latest great movie we watched, book we read, travel we took. Because they're important to us. We tell people about what's important. Then it makes me ask myself, how many of my friends, your friends would consider you a follower of God. Does your life show it? Are you different enough from everyone else for them to tell? I am just realizing that this wasn't the case in my life in all areas and it's something that Turkey is teaching me how to do. I don't ever have to say I'm different; if I'm living it, people will notice. The hard truth is, if they don't notice it... I'm not living it.

Sorry for the length of this one. Just a lot on my heart right now. I'm tired of excuses. In my own life first and foremost and in the rest of the world as well. I tire of people who claim marginal identities because they are afraid to back down and say that they may love being lazy or watching Dexter, House and Burn Notice to spend time in the word, or be diligent in their search for grad schools, or do well in school... In the end, we do what is important to us. All people have to do is look at our lives, document our days and they could tell whats important to us the most. Why aren't we honest with ourselves then?

Also I’d like to extend a hand of thanks to my friend and academic colleague Brad Youngblood who is currently doing a time of study abroad in France. He’s got some great insight to his time over there and you should check it out. The address is http://bradyoungblood.wordpress.com/