« Qwho am I? “ is a question that everyone can encounter in their life, even if they have at their disposal a certain number of identities as ready-to-wear answers. Doesn’t the discourse on identities of gender, race, social, cultural, religious tend to erase what remains mysterious in each one concerning his identity? Are we really obliged to give ourselves an identity that leads us to join a community of “all alike”?
→ READ. “Identities, talk about it without getting angry”, the new series from La Croix
It is true that it is sometimes reassuring to be comforted in the belief that we know our identity. It is true that it is also distressing to face one’s strangeness. It is not easy to come to terms with your life in the first person. It is not easy to assume the “I”, when the common discourse invites us to be normal, that is to say to conform to the most common and expected way.
Between mass narcissism and objectifying scientism
Between the path of mass narcissism proposed by the virtual world, inviting us to exhibit the image of our body as an identity, and the path of scientist discourse inviting us to objectify our anxieties and our traumas, what place remains it for the riddle of “I”, the riddle of “what I am”? Forging a path to the “I” supposes not to be locked into comparison and rivalry with one’s peers, a path which very often leads to losing oneself in aggressiveness and forgetting one’s own desire. To clear a path for the “I” is also not to let oneself be entirely colonized by the empire of numbers and to continue to believe that there is in each one an enigmatic singularity which cannot be quantified, but which will have to be deciphered.
→ MAINTENANCE. Identities: “The recognition of particularities has no limits”
Assuming the “I” then supposes consenting to what takes us away from any norm: no longer seeking to be normal, but questioning what is unique in our way of existing, of believing, of believing. to dream, to speak, to vibrate. This implies inventing your own path, the one that will perhaps lead us to meet somewhere, from the hazards and necessities that make up our destiny. One day or another, what comes back to us from our history and our body surprises us and dislodges us from this certainty that we had of knowing who we are.
The enigma of his destiny
The question of “what I am” is ultimately that of the enigma that each person has their own destiny. This destiny, which is not made only of freedom, but also of the card that we have drawn without knowing it, and which seems to keep coming back into our existence like a forced card, this destiny can therefore be transformed. on condition of deciphering it.
Confront this “Who am I?” »From a certain relationship with the word and the body, it is to agree to mourn the transparency and the mastery of one’s identity to finally make room for our sufferings and our traumas. This is what the adventure of a psychoanalysis leads to, to feeling us concerned by what is most opaque in us and ultimately most untranslatable.
Freud made the unconscious one of the names of destiny, to show that there was at the origin of each existence like an oracle which would inevitably come true as long as the subject did not try to decipher it. Lacan made of the Superego this instance in ourselves which constantly forces us to conform to what we do not want.
It is up to everyone not to “de-subject” their destiny, made up of words and encounters, good or bad. Confronting anxiety then makes it possible to no longer give in to the norms of the Superego and to find the path of true revolt. This path allows us to embrace our destiny and make a spark spring from it, like a flint.
.
