What are we talking about when we say «I»? At what age do we become individuals? And why do we always want to be different from others? Starting with these elementary questions, the philosopher Vincent Decombes debunks false ideas about individuality.
He chose the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein as his teacher. His craft, as he understands it, is to take apart ready-made ideas, both through sequential language analysis and by considering common cases. There is no pathos in his reasoning, no intellectual speculation. And he does not need preambles at all: the whole strength of his method lies in taking on the problem at once.
Psychologies: “I”, “myself”, “subject”, “individual”… All these concepts are often confused in everyday speech. Do they match?
Vincent Decombe: No, there are fundamental differences. One of the important questions is this: who thinks my thoughts? «I», that is, is it a human being, an individual with a physical shell, or a «pure I»? Alas, we have no criteria to identify the «Pure Self». What happens to him when I stop thinking, for example, when I sleep? And when a new thought comes into my head, where does it come from — from the new me? That’s why I prefer to talk about the subject. The subject always refers to the familiar question: «Who?» Who is the author of this work? Who made such a mess in the kitchen? The subject is the producer of the action. Questions are asked about the third person: I do not ask about the subject if I myself am the author of the work or the one who made a mess in the kitchen (unless we are talking about pathology!). Finally, the individual is primarily a logical category that answers the question: how many individuals of the same species? Now let’s try to think about human individuality. The whole problem here is that we refuse to be interchangeable. This preoccupation with being different defines large layers of our existence: the realm of law, feelings, even the question of the meaning of our lives.
- «Man is a project of himself»
You give up the idea of a psychological «I». Then each of us, in essence, comes down to speech? Are we all nothing more than our speech?
V. D .: No, of course, if my leg hurts, it has nothing to do with it. But everything is “bathed” in language, because our feelings and plans do not exist if we do not have the opportunity to express them. Love, for example, is unthinkable without the ability to name a loved one, mention him, talk to him … Worry about the future, fear of death, all these human traits exist only insofar as we are able to imagine the realm of the possible: what can happen or what might have happened in the past if… Too often we forget that language is more than just a means of communication. What we cannot express, we cannot even think about. All our thoughts, passions, desires and needs bear the imprint of language.
Some people who suffer from aphasia lack certain abilities in the field of grammar. If they are unable to say «I», does this mean that they are unable to perceive themselves as individuals?
V. D .: It all depends on whether they have difficulty only pronouncing the word «I» or the ability to formulate thoughts is also affected. If the violations are significant, it may be impossible for them to formulate thoughts in the first person. We observe the loss of this ability in many cases when it comes to aging and fading. However, it should be recalled that the first person is not limited to the pronoun «I». It can manifest itself in speech or in intonation. If someone shouts «Help!» or just silently gesturing desperately, «I» does not appear in his speech, but is implied: someone asks others to come to his aid. Finally, if someone has lost the ability to speak in the first person, he thereby became weaker as a person, as if he had survived an amputation, but remained still a person.
Numerous sociologists and psychologists are interested in how each of us becomes an individual. What do you think of it?
V. D .: Sociologists and psychologists, speaking of individuation, fall into a kind of spiritualism. They forget that the individual is created primarily by his body. From birth, we are all unique individuals because each of us has our own body. In an extreme case, one could use the concept of individuation to talk about the formation of a fetus, but certainly not to describe a person’s biographical trajectory or the formation of his personality. Individuation plays out between the possible and the actual, between the moment when I am satisfied with the phrase «I would like to have a child» and the moment when I can say: «I have a child.»
For everything else, it is better to speak in terms of individualization: it refers to how each of us develops his special features in an atmosphere of struggle for prestige and recognition. We want to be taken seriously, to have our own place where no one can replace us: these desires are very real, and sociologists, naturally, should study them. But they should not forget: in order for individualization to become possible, one must first exist as an individual!
- Can we change?
The trend towards individualization (and thus towards individualism) — how typical is it for our time?
V. D .: In any era and in any society there are individuals who are different from each other. Parents always know how many children they have, give them names, encourage them … But the whole point is that it is by no means the desire to be different from others as an individual that determines individualism. It is determined by the desire of society to elevate individual freedom, that is, the highest responsibility to oneself, to the rank of the highest value. It is in this sense that our individualism is new. But we need to think further. Individualism is often presented as a condition for equality. Sometimes it takes on the character of a competition in which it is decided what is truly original. But everyone can’t be truly original. Then there is the elite of individuality. So it would be a mistake to think that the struggle for recognition necessarily leads us to greater equality.
The idea that there is nothing permanent, set once and for all, is becoming more and more widespread: you can always change your job, profession, partner, change yourself. The highest stage of individualization would be to live several lives in succession, like the heroes of computer games?
V. D .: Of course, our life today can accommodate a lot of diversity: we change our place of residence, move from one social circle to another, from one partner to another … The most common metaphors that describe this diversity are indeed rebirth, reincarnation, a second life. But what does this literally mean? In fact, we all know very well that we have only one life, because we have only one body. In my opinion, one should also see the other side of the coin, even if I seem to be a moralist. You can live in different countries, but it’s tiring. You can change your profession, but after going through unemployment. You can create several marriages in your life, but having lost what is precious in marital happiness. Our plasticity and our ingenuity are colossal, but even they cannot increase the number of our lives. To believe this would be to fall into a trap.
Read the full interview at Journal of Sciences Humanities.