Ana Marta González is principal investigator of the group Emotional culture and identity' of the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) of the University of Navarra and professor at department of Philosophy. She has just presented a new book, in which she delves into the relationship between subjectivity, identity and sociality to reflect broadly on what it is to be human. She covers important issues such as the weight of language in subjectivity, the dynamism of identity staff, the importance of self-knowledge... 

In this interview he unveils some keys to the volume Descubrir el nombre. Subjectivity, identity, sociality (Comares), which he presents with the aim of clarifying these concepts, very present in the whole field of the research in human and social sciences.

Why is it relevant to reflect on subjectivity, identity and sociality in the context of today's culture?

We live in a cultural environment marked by the crisis of a vision of man forged in the modern era. Modern thought was characterized by a turn towards the subject. One of the main criticisms made of it throughout the 20th century is precisely that it considered the human being in a somewhat naïve way, stressing his condition as a rational, autonomous, independent, ahistorical, completely detached being. 

In contrast to this vision, one of the distinguishing marks of late-modern societies is the great weight that culture, society... have acquired as factors without which concrete existence cannot be understood. But sometimes, it seems that we have gone to the opposite extreme, as if we were pure creatures of the society in which we live.

In this sense, both dimensions must be well articulated, reflecting on what makes us unique within the society in which we live, while also considering the debts we owe to it. 

We live in very fragmented and highly individualized societies. What impact does this have on the training of identity and subjectivity?

Indeed, our societies are highly fragmented and individualized; individualization is also a feature of modern societies - traditional societies were more communitarian - associated with developments of a very different nature, which should not be confused with individualism, as the word is commonly used: with a reluctance to anything that means a stable bond, considering that it threatens our individual freedom.  

The curious thing is that this individualization coexists with an evident social interdependence, not only from a functional point of view -for example, your work depends on mine and vice versa-, but also in the psychological sense: the dependence we show on the opinions of others -the likes, the dislikes-, especially where there are weak social ties. It seems that there is an imbalance in the way subjectivity is forged.

Our life staff and social life is dynamic. Is identity also dynamic? 

In the degree scroll of this book I speak of "name" as a way of symbolizing identity staff, something that, deep down, remains an enigma. Unlike what happens with a concept, which designates a class, by means of the name we designate individuals. Referring to persons, the proper name designates an individual with a history staff; an individual who only partially knows himself, and whom others do not know completely either; an individual who cannot be reduced to the sum of what he and others know about himself. The name only acquires meaning in contexts of interpellation, in which a relational dimension is implicit.

In this sense, identity staff, which is what interests me in this book, is dynamic, open. I am not interested in identity descriptors. These are general concepts that we use in very specific practical contexts; however opportune they may be for specific purposes, none of them do justice to human richness, dynamism and subjectivity.

One of the features of our subjectivity is the temporal dimension: we change a lot throughout our lives, and we do so in the course of the relationships we establish, the words we utter, the actions we perform... That is why we are partially under construction.

Man has been called upon to know himself throughout history. We see it from the well-known Greek aphorism to today's self-help books and courses. How can we walk this path to achieve authentic self-knowledge?

The knowledge is a task that accompanies the human being throughout life, although it can be highlighted at certain times. Normally, times of crisis -social or personal- cause us to reflect and take stock, to rethink the certainties and issues that we previously took for granted.

This path can be traveled in many ways, but in all of them there is a moment of reflexivity. Margaret Archer sees the common thread of that self-knowledge as what she calls "the inner conversation," an idea she takes from George Herbert Mead. That inner conversation is often fed by emotional reactions, because these are an indication of what concerns us: emotional reactions of very different kinds subject: reactions that occur in the context of personal interactions, when observing our lack of skill in technical matters or the very limitations imposed by our physical condition....

In any case, this conversation shows to what extent our own knowledge goes hand in hand with the knowledge of the world and the knowledge of others. In fact, it is significant that in order to speak of "self-knowledge" we use the metaphor of the "inner conversation": here too we have an indication that the conversation with others is not a minor issue in getting to know oneself.

Can the particular sciences guide us in this self-knowledge?

The metaphor of the "inner conversation" makes it possible to emphasize that self-knowledge is not mere introspection; it is not comparable to the gaze that a scientist projects on his object of study, in order to categorize what he sees. The knowledge itself does not run like that. Scientific concepts, by means of which we categorize experience, help us to dominate nature and control processes, but they always arrive after our lived experience and, considered in themselves, do not constitute the determining elements of our subjectivity, nor do they give it its original meaning. 

Typical concepts, for example, those we see in personality tests, can help us to understand some aspects of everyday experience, but they lag behind it. Science is always refining its concepts, in order to adjust them as well as possible to an experience that precedes it; but the knowledge goal of science is obviously not the most suitable to grasp what constitutes us as subjects... 

Some situations put us on the ropes and we discover ourselves reacting in a surprising way. This subject of situations can be more revealing of our identity staff than any scientific concept, because concepts are always universal and we are singular. To the extent that ours is an open and dynamic subjectivity, we know ourselves in a singular way through the words and works we create. For this reason, the arts and Humanities work with the expressions of subjectivity.... Expression is a concept core topic, because there is never a complete adjustment between consciousness and subjectivity.

In that sense, can narratives help us to discover ourselves?

They constitute a very valuable tool because they favor self-reflexivity. When we see other subjectivities expressed, a whole universe of meaning is revealed to us. To the extent that we are social, the words and deeds of others serve to decipher ourselves as well. They have a revealing power. What happens to a character does not always coincide exactly with what happens to us, but it has a revealing power. The representation of human actions is precisely the power of poetics.   

In the book I dwell on the resource to writing as source of self-knowledge; I mention different cases, in which the possible pitfalls of art are also highlighted. In any case, it is important that we use words to clarify our experience. Words shed the light of understanding on ourselves; until we find the right ones, we do not know what has happened.

So, is our subjectivity linguistic?

Yes, our thinking is not fully formed until it is verbalized internally or externally. That is precisely why experiences that resist verbalization baffle us. That is also why there are silences, some of them traumatic. 

There are also ineffable dimensions, as happens to the mystics, who continually struggle with words. St. Teresa, for example, used metaphors to tell something that was beyond easy verbalization. We philosophers also fight with words... this interview is an example... 

Is language a mediator between self and society?

In addition to the cognitive and expressive dimensions, to which I have referred in some way, language presents another dimension that we can call institutional, conventional: it coins points of meeting and shared meanings, in which a civilizing power is implicit. David Hume says that the effort to find words that the other can understand leads us somehow to lower the emotional piston of certain experiences. If I want to live in society, I have to make them digestible for others. An interesting lesson can also be drawn from that: if we live in society we have to use a shared language.