So how does a story relate to identity? Ricoeur states that in the stories about our lives that we tell to ourselves and to others we articulate ourselves and it is even our identification with these stories that establish our identity.
Ricoeur defines three ways in which the story mediates: mimesis 1-2-3. The first one, mimesis 1, refers to our implicit knowledge of intentions, motives, consequences and circumstances that are inherent to what we experience. It defines the ability to act in new situation without having any foreknowledge; meeting a stranger and being able to communicate.
The second mimesis is the synthesis of the heterogeneous: the construction of the dissimilar elements -suffering, unintentional circumstances, coincidence- into a unifying and complete whole. (the story’s plot). The story is not the summary of events, but is the connection between these elements. Think of the connections between cause and effect, intention and result, desire and fulfillment, offense and penalty. The story remembers the past and anticipates the future. It also has a beginning, a middle and (anticipates) a meaningful closure. However, the construction of the unifying whole is constantly disturbed and or broken by events which threaten a meaningful closure and the identity of the story, like twists of fait or turning points.
The third mimesis Ricoeur describes in his narrative identity theory is the reflective admission of the second mimesis on self. The second mimesis was the representation of a unifying and motivated progression which constantly under attack by (external) events. The third mimesis is melting of the horizons of the reader of the story and the story itself. Through the use of stories we try to unify the heterogeneous. The unity in the story is closely connected to that of the characters which perform in it. The character is constructed in cohesion with the plot. The progression of the story expresses the development of the acting characters. You could even put that the character itself is a plot. Just like in mimesis 2 the stability of the character is confronted with the heterogeneous, and is threatening the unifying like the love of your life, enmity, social disturbances, sickness, death.
The narrative identity can be oscillates somewhere between complete unity and the utter heterogeneous. It moves between the flat characters of a fairy tail and some turbulent life stories in which the character looses almost any form of personality. Most of the time our personal identity is situated somewhere between these extremes.
You might say (like Mink) “Stories are not lived but told”. One could argue that based on the events in ones lives, several plots can be constructed so several stories can be told. On top of that: although we are an important character in our own life, we are not the only author in its story. The point of the narrative identity is exactly in the detour of the story. We need stories to restrain the heterogeneous. In that sense, identity is not a substance underneath one life story, but we literally are the story. And although the story can be seen as a product of our imagination, it causes real effects.
Image
is Ricoeur’s reading an all encompassing theory? is it a complete model of identiy? what is the context (time and place) where he has constructed his model of identity?
i miss some vital parts in this identity of self. i miss unconsciousness of physical interactions, for example. identity can partly be constructed from little gestures of acceptance of rejection. without ever constructing it into a story. perhaps a bit freudian, but how does Ricoeur handle this in his model?
i also miss emotion. how does he handle emotion? stories appear to be an act rationalization. is emotion rationalized in his model? or does he allow for emotion to be part of the narrative?
i also miss ‘the self within the self’. how does Ricoeur handle introspection and self reflection. is the self a rationalized abstraction or is it an internalized, implicit part of the narrative.
The narrative identity is constructed of both external (social) as internal (e.g. unconsciousness, emotion). It is the reflection of all these elements that create the complete story, the narrative identity. It is about the role of the story in the experience and construction of identity.
The theory itself is not that old and well adopted. The discussion in the field of philosophy and social sciences focuses on the dialog between unity and the heterogeneous. It is said that Ricoeur focuses too much in preference of unity. With the rise of modern communication technologies, people tend to have more of personal webpage identities. The discussion is about the dialog between these extremes,. The metaphor itself is still a powerful one. I think the discussion moves more to ludic (ludische?) indentity. But that a topic for another post.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in these three mimesis, the perspective of the social surrounding is not present. Meaning: don’t you tell a different story depending on the people you tell your personal story to? In every social situation that story might differ and thus my identity might differ then as well. Is our identity constructed out of all the stories I tell, and is the combination of them all my identity in Ricoeur’s meaning? Or, am I a different identity in different situations, because I tell a different story?
Jorgen:
I think you are really onto somthing with what you say (multiple stories, not just one). aAa is me (a) telling the story of Me (A) to me (a). aAb is me telling the story of me to another (b). bAc is another telling the story of me to yet another (c), and so on, with the story always differing to some extent and for different contexts (student, wife, boss, rebelious freethinker, and so on). Cultural/social/familial values/mores and desires/aspirations play important roles in what story is told and to whom it is told. Anna Sfard and Anna Prusak (2005) scrupulously address this issue in their article “Telling Identities: In Search of an Analytic Tool for Investigating Learning as a Culturally Shaped Activity” in the journal titled “Educational Researcher,” v34, n4, pp. 14-22.