In Bahktinian thought, “identity” is looked upon as being tripartite composed of the "centre", the "not-centre", and the relationship that would naturally occur in the overlap between that "centre" and "not-centre". Mikhail Bakhtin’s ”architectonic” approach grouped specific structural elements into an “identity” argument and explained how the process responsible for designing and constructing spaces which delineate what one might call “identity” emerged from the elemental interactive process that took place. In order for the idea to be fully explained, Bakhtin noted that what demarcated "centre" and "not-centre" must first have to exist together in tandem. If we begin at this rationalisation, we can further understand the mechanisms that define who we are as individuals and what each one of us means in relation to the larger whole. We will be able to understand what societal forces are acting upon us and how we project ourselves to others.
The "centre" and "not-centre" endlessly support and feed each other in both a centripetal direction (moving in towards the centre) and a centrifugal one (moving out from the centre). The "centre" is described as any living source’s complexity of centrifugal energies that, for its own gratification, emanates inexorably outwards towards its outer world. The "not-centre", then, is composed of all the things outside that living source’s Existence. It would include people, places and things that aren‘t necessarily connected physically, but still intimately motivate the living source due to their relative proximity to that living source’s "centre". The "not-centre" influences the "centre" with its constant stream of external influence. Likewise, the "centre" contains its own thoughts and gestures of expression. Thoughts enter the individual imagination from outside that person and register according to how that person processes information. Ideas might set off a stream of consciousness or, perhaps, it might complement already-existing ideas in that person’s imagination to later be projected back at the “not-centre” so that it might experience a better understanding of itself. Like a two-way reflection, the individual reflects at society what society reflects at the individual.
Even though the “centre” is constantly emoting its own ideas, it is ultimately dominated by the “not-centre”. In the case of an entire country, the citizen would be the individual “centre” and the “not-centre“ might be the much larger government. In the case of a corporation, the worker becomes the “centre“ to the corporation. Being much larger than the individual, this corporation then becomes the “not-centre“ of this worker‘s life. The interaction between two opposing perspectives becomes the essential crux of that "identity" concept which Bakhtin sought to define. It is a relationship carved by the constant flow of social flux. Individuals are defined by the impositions placed upon their "centre" by a socially-circumventing "non-centre". One major way this is done is via the media and the Internet. Once images, impressions, and all accompanying intonations cross the boundary between one individual’s consciousness and another’s, “identity” becomes registered in that interaction of opposing forces. As to which force dominates depends, naturally, on the nature of those involved. Bakhtin’s architectonic model of the human psyche could further be read as a collection of three inter-related concepts: "I-for-myself", "I-for-the-other" and "Other-for-me".
The “I-for-myself” aspect represents an assemblage of chaotic thinking processes that we, as humans, undergo every moment of our lives in the privacy of our own thoughts, awake or asleep. Heteroglossia, which translates as "many diverse voices speaking", is the term used to describe this collection of processes. It is one's constant interior monologue. Things included in this definition can be: slang, a coded vocabulary, some technical skill, specific words related to some particular hobby, “flying thoughts” which can be attributed to the fragmented speech we use to talk to ourselves when alone, body language and even expressive facial gestures. If one theorises that people might be born into the world in a simple state of tabula rasa ("blank slate") and believes that individual minds are created with only the basics programmed into them (such as eating, sleeping, etc.), it then becomes easy to understand how outside influences recorded by the individual psyche can become the groundwork for that individual's own personal heteroglossia. The individual’s mind “picks up” or “learns” all types of educational ideas across its lifespan that will serve to instruct that individual on what to do, or not do, in order to live harmoniously with the world at large. Whether the laws are natural or man-made is besides the point. All ideas not rooted in one’s essential nature are pretty much learned from external experiences, more specifically from the area of interaction between an individual and the collective to which it belongs. This collection, again, can be any type of ruling body on any level. It could be any association larger than one’s self which bears down on that individual and demands some form of allegiance and respect from that person for a sense of inclusion.
The “I-for-myself” aspect represents an assemblage of chaotic thinking processes that we, as humans, undergo every moment of our lives in the privacy of our own thoughts, awake or asleep. Heteroglossia, which translates as "many diverse voices speaking", is the term used to describe this collection of processes. It is one's constant interior monologue. Things included in this definition can be: slang, a coded vocabulary, some technical skill, specific words related to some particular hobby, “flying thoughts” which can be attributed to the fragmented speech we use to talk to ourselves when alone, body language and even expressive facial gestures. If one theorises that people might be born into the world in a simple state of tabula rasa ("blank slate") and believes that individual minds are created with only the basics programmed into them (such as eating, sleeping, etc.), it then becomes easy to understand how outside influences recorded by the individual psyche can become the groundwork for that individual's own personal heteroglossia. The individual’s mind “picks up” or “learns” all types of educational ideas across its lifespan that will serve to instruct that individual on what to do, or not do, in order to live harmoniously with the world at large. Whether the laws are natural or man-made is besides the point. All ideas not rooted in one’s essential nature are pretty much learned from external experiences, more specifically from the area of interaction between an individual and the collective to which it belongs. This collection, again, can be any type of ruling body on any level. It could be any association larger than one’s self which bears down on that individual and demands some form of allegiance and respect from that person for a sense of inclusion.
“I-for-the-other”, or “To-the-other-FROM-me”, is a projection of heteroglossia onto the outside world. It is the “centre” pushing out towards the “not-centre”. This aspect could be thought of, perhaps, as the individual’s unique reflection of the world outside of him/her self processed through their own personal mindset. Whatever qualities were instilled are now filtered through the individual and projected out into the world.
“Other-for-me”, or “To-me-FROM-the-other”, denotes the way in which others incorporate an individual’s perceptions about them into their own identities. It is the “not-centre” pushing inwards toward an individual’s “centre”. It is that particular aspect of one’s identity that is defined by as “other” which can take on many forms ie. an institution, whether government or civilian, a religious body, even a corporation. “I-for-the-other” and “Other-for-me”. As a collection of perceptions comes inwards from an outside spectator, the individual then envisions a perception and feeds it back to the “other” who would either accept or reject this motion in the process of controlling the individual’s “identity” formation. This back and forth “bargaining” sets the rules of engagement for any situation. When you apply for a job you conform to the responsibilities expected of you by that company in order to help that particular hierarchical organisation fulfill its mission. This act is, itself, an agreement to accept what will define the “identity” of that worker within the corporation. Anything that sets the relationship standard between two persons falls within this realm.
"I am conscious of myself and become myself only while revealing myself for another, through another, and with the help of another. The most important acts constituting self-consciousness are determined by a relationship toward another consciousness (toward a thou)… The very being of man (both external and internal) is the deepest communion. To be means to communicate… To be means to be for another, and through the other, for oneself. A person has no internal sovereign territory, he is wholly and always on the boundary: looking inside himself, he looks into the eyes of another or with the eyes of another… I cannot manage without another, I cannot become myself without another; I must find myself in another by finding another in myself (in mutual reflection and mutual acceptance)."
~ Mikhail Bakhtin
Riding tandem along with heteroglossia is the idea of "intertextuality". If heteroglossia is the voices in one‘s own head, “intertextuality” is the "voice of the other" within you; the interiorised text of the "other." ie: author quotes another author in his book. In its negative aspect, feelings of guilt and shame could, intertextually, be generated by the “not-centre” to make the “centre” feel bad about itself, for whatever reason.
Bakhtin believed we were all essentially inter-connected beings; all of us, directly or indirectly, affect others by the things we say or do. In essence, Bakhtinian thought focuses on what energies are at work around us and how they affect, or are affected, by those things which surround it. If you can delineate it, you can become more efficient at dealing with it. Perhaps, in being more conscious of ourselves, we will be able to find ways to relate that do not involve having to fight all the time.
“Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonwealth, our governance will emerge.”
John Perry Barlow
copyright 2011
