Musical Reflection

At the beginning of the semester, I had never questioned identity. I was born and raised in Illinois and moved across the country to North Carolina to go to college and pursue my passion for physics and mathematics. Nevertheless, as this class progressed, my view of identity became murky and obstructed as heaps of new viewpoints on identity were presented to me. It was my job to sort through this information to form an idea of identity that is at once fluid and can be not only ever-changing but also solid in its foundation so that the caliginous view I once held can become clear even if I cannot decipher what I am beholding. Through the many readings and discussions inside and outside of class, I have discovered that identity lies in the eyes of the beholder, that one may tend to force one's own identity onto the overarching definition of identity, and had one moment that amalgamates each of the readings. 

The idea presented by Elferen that one creates many different virtual realities based on the music they are listening to holds true in many different senses. For me, these worlds can be separated on the macro-scale into two parts: High Point University and Champaign, Illinois. These areas are two very different physical areas and musical areas for me. When I am in High Point, I have no family within 700 miles. This distance has caused me to become a more independent person. Not only am I "adulting," but I am also growing to be my own person with my own beliefs and personality separate from that of my family. Discovering my own music is included with this idea of becoming my own person. While my friends can influence my music taste at school, most of the music I listen to are songs that I find and believe are interesting and fun. Some may think they are good or bad songs (although they are all objectively good songs, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong), but they are my songs, independent of what others may have chosen. However, at home, the soundscape is entirely different. External factors determine most, if not all, of the soundscapes in Champaign. Whether they come from family or car rides with friends, the songs that I hear are completely relational and external. These two soundscapes are entirely separate in that one, High Point University, will transport me to a world of independence, while the other, Champaign, is a world of dependence and reliance on my parents and friends. Since these worlds are so separate and songs can transport me from one world to another, I believe that one's identity changes depending on the people we are around. I live in a different world in Champaign than in High Point and take on different forms of identity while traveling between the two, physically or through soundscapes. Someone who might not have this stark separation between worlds may not have this belief, as they do not feel themselves being transported between worlds either physically or through song. 

Merton believes that identity is fixed and inherent in being part of God's creation. In contrast, Hood believes that identity is the opposite and is something that is continuously formed and changed depending on the surroundings in which a person lives. These ideas not only show a dichotomy in thinking about identity but also thinking as a whole. Merton takes a religious view of the world and believes that one should live in the light of God while believing that God has a hand in everything, including identity creation. On the other hand, Hood takes a more scientific view on the issue, citing many different studies and scientific research conducted around the idea of identity and how identity is formed. I find myself agreeing with Hood more than Merton on the idea of how identity forms because, as a researcher and scientist, I put considerable value in anything that can be measurable or tested and find Hood's points more substantial in their evidence and reasoning than Merton's. With Merton, it is impossible to test if God has an impact on the creation of our identity. That is not to say that what Merton is saying is untrue, but instead that the experimental evidence conducted by psychologists points towards identity forming over time through an individual's surroundings. I value evidence more than belief and, therefore, find Hood to be more influential in constructing what I believe identity is. However, many would value their beliefs over scientific evidence (or provide alternative evidence correlating with those beliefs to support Merton's idea further). Still, even though I come from a religious family, my background as a scientist is more influential in determining different things about life than my faith. 

Vignoles et al. is another excellent example of how I find scientific evidence to become more compelling than belief, as well as a good representation of all of the different forms that identity may take in a person. In their research, Vignoles et al. find that identity is at once personal and relational and collective, stable and fluid, formed and revised, and personally and socially constructed. This theory is very contradicting, but many things I believe in science are also contracting, such as light being a particle and a wave at once. However, these are still things that I find to be, although intangible, accurate and true. So, to me, this idea presented by Vignoles et al. is entirely plausible and relates to time in how it is relative and depends on the scenario in which identity is developed or "passed" like time. Therefore, because of my background, I was completely fine with this definition of identity as, over time, I developed these connections and became aware that there were other items that I believed in that were relative or seemingly contradicting. However, others were uncomfortable with this idea of identity being a conglomeration of contradicting ideas. 

The specific moment that this idea of the definition of identity being individual clicked when we discussed one of our group projects, and I disagreed with one of the group members. Lilianna Allen is probably the biggest proponent against me in and outside class. Many of our conversations end up in passionate debates about certain topics, including the complex idea of identity. I enjoy debating with Lili as the debates never become arguments, and they are always interesting and provide insight into a different way of thinking about certain topics that I had never considered. While discussing the different articles, Lili disagreed with most of what I claimed concerning Vignoles et al. and Hood and tended to side more with Merton. Then, someone asked Lili about her religious beliefs. *Click*. Suddenly, everything made sense. People's ideas of identity were different because everyone's identity was different. Lili is an actively practicing Hebraic Christian, while I am no longer a practicing Lutheran. I am a physics and mathematics major, while she is an interior design major with a minor in French. We differ in many different ways. Therefore, why would we have the same belief about identity? My unique experiences have shaped what I believe about identity because I am biased and will believe anything I think my identity is. I believe identity forms uniquely because this idea is backed by evidence, in which I put lots of value as a scientist. However, Lili believes that identity is formed in relation to God and through a relationship with God because she believes that her identity forms through her relationship with God. We were agreeing without even noticing it. 

The idea of "what" identity is is relative depending on the person who comes up with that idea of identity as they will force what they believe their identity is upon the overarching definition. This theory clicked after agreeing with different authors than my peers. While I believe this claim, it is also biased based on my beliefs. I am comfortable with no stable definition of identity because I have experience dealing with other relative items, and I come to the conclusion based on my analytical view of the world. Someone may again disagree with my claim because they believe their identity lies in a relationship with God. However, that further supports my point as their faith in God is unique and determines their identity. A person's idea of identity, no matter how crazy, is correct because that is their identity determining that definition. Identity is not something that can be agreed upon but is instead determined individually and is different for everyone depending on their own beliefs and view of the world. 

*Thank you to Lili for letting me use our discussions as evidence!