i think therefore, i'm sam

The pursuit of our lives especially in our 20s is a sort of plight against identity. Much of a strong self esteem (which strengthens who we are in the world) is dependent on identity, of understanding who we are. To move and grow is to make a series of direction-based decisions. Building a strong foundation means knowing the nature of the land.

Identity is the key to curated direction; knowing who we are helps when going after what we want. It’s not just for our own satisfaction, but also for the realities of the way the world works, that is, the inundation of identity unto you, the forceful language of society which decides who you are before you have a chance to make your say. We’ll get to all of that.

Like any first year humanities course, let’s begin this discussion with a random European white dude; except this time, it’s not random. Instead we’ll draw our attention to Renee Descartes, a French philosopher who coined the phrase “I think therefore I am”. I suppose it’s not really a phrase but is rather a philosophical principle, the idea of “Cogito, ergo sum”. I think therefore I am. We’ll need to pay attention to the emphasized words here.

When we discuss identity, we are often looking for proof of characteristics, of presentations of self. In the case of I think therefore I am, Descartes does not decide that what we are is what we think but instead suggests that because we think, we are. In short, it is because we are thinking about things that we exist. It is the belief that our conscious awareness is sufficient evidence for our being. Let’s start there: we exist.

So as suggested before we now know we are here but not what we are while we are here. This is because Descartes prioritizes the thinking subjects existence. l, the I In I am is a logical anchor not a characterological profile. It does not suppose who the thinking subject may be nor does it address the sort of rich inner question of identity.

It is not enough that one exists, but it is a strong foundation point. You see, identity is who you are, it is defined by your personal traits, beliefs, and social roles. It includes your name, your values, culture, and how you perceivably fit into groups. To be is first to think, to be is then to embody identity. So we have to ask ourselves about thinking, the very thing that proves us to our presence here.

Now just a brief side point that we are not our thoughts. We are not defined by or limited to thinking, the thinking mind or the thoughts themselves. A thought existing does not make it true, it just means we are alive to think it.

It is true however that our thoughts matter and they are primarily responsible for unwarranted suffering, or the worsening of otherwise difficult experiences. Our thoughts shape our behaviour, biology, and reality by driving chemical changes in our bodies and influencing how we act.

As we interpret the world, we engage in pattern recognition, detecting repetition in all things, including thoughts. We take these repeating beliefs and thought patterns as absolute facts. We view frequency as evidence that it must be true. This is called cognitive entanglement, it shifts the meanings of the thoughts themselves and grants authority.

If it matters so much what we think that we imagine that it matters even more what other people think. It is far easier to rely on external perceptions and assume them to be true. When a person is changed by the thoughts of others, verbalized through terms and labels, we call this labelling theory. It is when someone behaves in accordance with external classification. It was Howard Becker who claimed that negative societal reactions create what is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. He used this to understand how social deviance comes to be, and how minor rule-breaking can escalate to regular deviant behaviour. We become the stories we tell ourselves, we become the stories that are told.

Sometimes we needn’t hear from external parties at all and we simply view ourselves through our estimation of another’s perception. We guess what people are thinking and assume those too are true. The Looking Glass Self is the idea that our identity is formulated through these estimations, and our self-image is crystalized through routine assumptions made on other’s behalf.

If we take these assumptions and make them true through our established identities then we can and should admit some degree of social influence over identity, and also the weight of thought and self perception. We do ourselves a disservice if we view anything as entirely one thing, and we can and should note the role of both individual agency and social conditioning.

Largely, we recognize how heavy our thoughts may be in determining our self-image and thus our behaviours. When we view thoughts as malleable and distinct from socially applied truths, we can make statements about ourselves rooted entirely in wants, not guesses. This is not a push to invent a self rooted so far from reality that you lose the very things that matter most, but instead is a push to create a new identity reflective of the goals you have in mind. We have to at least in part recognize that the behaviours we engage with now are reflective of who we think we are, consciously or subconsciously. If you view yourself as lazy, you will struggle to adopt a new active lifestyle. But if you view yourself as someone eager to try new things, you might become drawn to new active experiences. In fact, when habits relate to identity, there is strengthened cognitive self-integration and more robust self-esteem.

This is all to say that the thoughts we have matter, and they influence the way we view ourselves and the way we view our lives, habits and goals. But what if we changed the way we think of things? What if we switch up the language?