I propose that we propose...

Abstract

Every individual clings to the notion of a personal identity. Likewise all groups cling to the idea of a collective identity. And yet, identity has many faces. Look at the notion of citizenship. There is legal citizenship, cultural citizenship, and now biological citizenship. If there are so many things with which an individual can identify, how can one deconstruct the complex process of identity formation? Our group has concluded that the best method of approach is one that rivals the complexity of the subject matter. Hence, our group shall embark on three strings of analysis relating to the issue of identity formation.

While we may not understand the intricacies of identity formation, it is not debatable that the formation is influenced by context. In this way, we may expect cornerstones and major events in history to be distinctly present and influential in the identities of the people of that time. And thus we look to Berlin. To be sure, the Berlin wall has been a historical watershed of debate and analysis, marking it as a distinctly relevant symbol in German history. We wish to look at the specific influence the wall had as a border and as n influential figure in identity formation for the German public. John shall look at the concrete role in the lives of Germans before and after 1989. Specifically, he shall analyze the lives of the guards. Robert will look at the unconscious formation of identity in film. And Catherine shall analyze the way identity formation and its role in the development of intersubjectivity.

Background

How does the individual come to form an identity? And if every individual is to have a unique identity, how then is a collective to have a singular identity unto itself? We all define ourselves based upon the context of our lives. I compose an identity as a college student; and likewise we form a collective identity as a student body. The Berlin Wall was a driving force and symbol in the lives of Germans. Without the wall, there would be no east. There would be no west. And yet, to this day, these terms are used to define places and people. As a group we wish to look at the way in which the wall has entered the process of identity formation, both at a collective and individual level.

In order to maximize understanding, our group shall approach analysis of identity formation from three different angles. Intensity formation influences not only the individual, but the way in which the individual represents him or herself and the way in which he or she in turn interacts with society. Each step of formation and interaction is complex and multilateral, thus meriting its own analysis. It is for this reason that our group has chosen to approach the topic from three unique angles. John will look at the formation of a collective identity with relation to the wall; specifically looking at the guards, who’s daily routine was absorbed in the presence of the wall. The lengths to which the guards identify their existence in terms of the wall speak to the role of the wall in the creation of identity. Robert’s analysis will consider the subconscious representations of formation film. Just as no artist can create an objective self-portrait, so too does film unintentionally embody societal and cultural conceptions of the times. These conceptions speak to the way in which a public identity is formed—the way in which society views itself, both macroscopically and subconsciously. Finally, Catherine will analyze the influence of identity formation on intersubjectivity. The way in which we define ourselves and the way in which we define others deeply influences the way we lead our lives.

Robert’s focus is on the subconscious portrayal of the Wall’s impact on the collective German psyche in film. More precisely, he will examine movies created during the Communist occupation from 1961 to 1989 – in short, the effect of the Wall on filmmakers while the Wall was in place. Robert will closely examine the discrepancies and similarities in subtle auteurship between West German and East German cinema. He will use 1950s American B-movies and post-war Japanese cinema as points of additional reference and will follow up by researching similar examples from alternate international cinema as needed. Robert will base his findings on the link between the construction of the Berlin Wall and the rise of certain cinematic depictions of related anxieties and conceits that appear to personify the subconscious societal, political, and cultural reactions to the presence of the new border. Subconscious formations of identity are uniquely telling of the extent to which the wall influenced Germans at the most basic of levels.

John’s analysis will focus on how the wall influenced the lives of the German public, specifically in the case of the guards. The guards lived, breathed, and were inextricably tied to the wall. Even the term guard begs the question: what did they guard? We refer to them by their occupation, which is predicated on, and defined by, the existence of the wall. What did this mean for the guards themselves? It has entirely distorted the way we and the German public view them; that much is clear by the objectified way in which we reference them. But did the guards themselves come to define their identities based upon the wall? And perhaps more importantly, what did they do when the wall was taken down? If the guards define themselves by the wall, then it stands to reason that they would necessarily be forced to redefine themselves once the wall was torn down. Perhaps such a redefinition was conscious, manifest in a feeling of emptiness when the wall was removed from their daily routine. But perhaps it was subtle. John will aim to answer these questions and study these concepts during his time in Berlin. Predominantly, this shall be done through interviewing the guards, and researching the way in which guards lived.

Catherine will research the more abstract application of identity formation through her study of intersubjectivity. Not only do we form an identity for ourselves, but so do does everyone create a perceived identity of others. This perception is often one of objectification. Why is this the case? And can we ever overcome it? Catherine will look at the way in which a mode of intersubjectivity is formed and the way in which personal and collective identities influence interaction. To do this she will observe interactions between individuals from different parts of Berlin and interview individuals to gain an understanding of the way in which individuals in Berlin view relationships. Further, she will look to academic views on the subject to increase the depth of her understanding.

Through our combined efforts our group will provide a multifaceted understanding of the importance of identity formation. Robert speaks to the unconscious influences of our surroundings by looking to representations in film. John will then provide a more concrete analysis through his interviews with the guards. Finally, Catherine will provide an understanding of the abstract implications of identity formation in the development of intersubjective relationships. In this way, our group will create a complex understanding of identity formation that can in turn be used to increase personal and cultural understanding.

Catherine’s Question
Who am I? Who are you? These are questions that have perplexed and pervaded consciousness as long as human memory would care to reach. I wish to look at the idea of intersujectivity in Berlin, and in general. I want to look specifically at the contextual factors that influence the creation of an individual’s perception and mode of intersubjective communication. I believe that the way we view and interact with others is incredibly relevant and worthy of extensive analysis. By analyzing a one on one relationship, you can gain an understanding of the way in which those individuals will interact with others, and thus how they will function and form groups, and how those groups will in turn interact. From this line of analysis we may come to understand large and complex dynamics of human interaction.
Many argue that all human relationships will fall to objectification. To be sure, objectifying the other is a natural and unavoidable tendency. But this tendency has its own extremes. One need not look far to see the horrors of radical objectification. Military soldiers are told to use the term “enemy” when referencing opposing combatants. The Nazis relied upon radical objectification to dehumanize and subjugate the Jews. But if objectification has the potential to create such a malevolent intersubjective relationship, could there be an opposite form of relationship, one which benefits all members involved. It would seem to follow that such a relationship would rely upon a lack of objectification. But is this possible? It is strenuous simply to avoid objectifying oneself, much less the other. How can we understand the other without relying upon some form of objective definition? Or perhaps, humans simply have an unreasonable need to define all that surrounds them. The individual, after all, is a subject within a sea of objects that are readily reducible. Is it reasonable that we then objectify those few opposing subjects that come into our scope?
Different individuals and cultures seem to have drastically views of intersubjectivitiy and the importance of maintaining a relationship devoid of objectification. I have talked about the radical differences between Sartre’s and Buber’s views on the matter as one example of this. How do different people come to have such different views if all human relationships are fundamentally the same? Are all human relationships the same? I want to look at what contexts cause the formation and changes in how the individual handles intersubjectivity. I am fascinated by the differences in intersubjective relationships in individuals in the East versus the West. And perhaps most interesting of all are the relationships between the East and West. I will investigate this through both academic and field sources, as I feel this will give me the richest understanding. Humans are fundamentally social creatures. And, as cliché as it may be, I really would love to see a world of peace, wherein everyone gets along. Yet relationships seem always to fall to objectivity and reductionism. The world remains one divided. Not only do we feel the need to have a subdivided world of “nations”, but war, genocide, and brutality continue to persist despite the lessons of history. Perhaps by studying the ability of individuals to know each other on a truly subjective level, I will be able to elucidate methods by which such a form of intersubjecivity can be promoted and perpetuated.

Catherine’s Cultural Sensitivity
The idea of culture plays directly into my research. My ability to relate to someone in Berlin is distinctly tinted by my role as the “foreigner”. I am uniquely aware of this because of its relevance to my pursuit of understanding interpersonal relationships and objectification. While it is interesting and relevant to my studies, it is unfortunate that I am to be cast as a foreigner, as this limits my ability to discuss and experience a “German relationship” in its pure form. Secondarily, I must be incredibly sensitive of existing prejudices. Unfortunately there remains a lot of stigma between the east and west. I do not yet completely understand the extent to which the social divide between the two groups exists, but I must be cautious of this. It is possible that there is simply a separation, but I have been told that in some instances there exists a resentment that borders hatred. I do not want to flare up any unkind feelings or memories; this would in fact be distinctly counterproductive to my ultimate goal of promoting amiable interactions.