In one hour, I will present my in-progress works for my BFA thus far. Kind of interesting to think about considering I didn’t actually get started until about a week and a half ago!
This is what I am up to in a nutshell: Landscapes are related to identity (and people) in that they have many similarities from continent to continent, but they each have subtle to grand differences. Identity is not solely based on our differences, it is also to be marked by our similarities as well. It is difficult to surmise that someone is purely unique in every way, which is partly why I find this topic particularly interesting. We each have our own special code for who we are as individuals. We all have similarities among our friends which is why we make friends with similar interests and we butt heads with those that don’t or refuse to see things the way we see them.
Erikson is considered to be the foremost in identity studies in psychology because of his stages of development. The one that relates directly to identity is the fifth stage: Identity Vs. Confusion. This stage happens during adolescence and it is during this time that they start to form who they are, who they are going to be, and how they will eventually contribute to society. The stages are set up that unless you fulfill each stage you can’t continue on to the next stage (very similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). What is pivitol during this point is having a group of people around you that have common goals, ideals, or morals. That’s what he says anyway 😛
Neo-Erikson James Marcia was another person of interest for me. He focused on two concepts: exploration and commitment. He felt that we need explore our possibilities in life and then commit. It is important that he felt that Identity Achievement came from dealing with a crisis in life, overcoming obstacles, learning from them, and then ultimately becoming a better person who has a better idea of who one is.
As far as new inspirations, Dan P. McAdams is the psychologist I have mentioned on and off over the last month or so with the topic of Personal Myths. Relating to what I talked about in the first paragraph, although we are all different, we each have commonalities among each of us. For McAdams, he believed that it was through our own story-telling was our similarity. We each have our own ways of telling stories, however, the themes are generally the same. He divided them into four groups: Irony, Tragedy, Comedy, and Romance. When telling stories, we will used this as a basis for most any story we do tell. It goes deeper than this, but I’m still in the process of reading the book.
Other people that I have drawn from are Joseph Campbell and Erving Goffman. Both of these people are not in Psychology, but they do encompass some theories very close to psychological theories that I almost consider them to be part of the whole thing 🙂 Campbell felt that the meaning of life was more based on experiencing life, not just living or searching for the meaning. Goffman focused more on frame analysis. This refers to the attempt to control or guide people’s impression of him or herself. Essentially, we are actors. While Campbell is similar to McAdams, Goffman is more like Jung and the concept of persona and the mask we wear in society.
Anyway, I must head to my presentation! I hope it goes well…
Any tick of the clock, I'll be apples! 