define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in
struggle against, the things our significant others want to see
in us. Even after we outgrow some of these others—our parents,
for instance—and they disappear from our lives, the
conversation with them continues within us as long as we
live.9
Thus, the contribution of significant others, even when it
is provided at the beginning of our lives, continues indefinitely.
Some people may still want to hold on to some form
of the monological ideal. It is true that we can never liberate
ourselves completely from those whose love and care
shaped us early in life, but we should strive to define ourselves
on our own to the fullest extent possible, coming as
best we can to understand and thus get some control over
the influence of our parents, and avoiding falling into any
more such dependent relationships. We need relationships
to fulfill, but not to define, ourselves.
The monological ideal seriously underestimates the place
of the dialogical in human life. It wants to confine it as much
as possible to the genesis. It forgets how our understanding
of the good things in life can be transformed by our enjoying
them in common with people we love; how some goods become
accessible to us only through such common enjoyment.
Because of this, it would take a great deal of effort,
and probably many wrenching break-ups, to prevent our
identity’s being formed by the people we love. Consider
what we mean by identity. It is who we are, “where we’re
coming from.” As such it is the background against which
our tastes and desires and opinions and aspirations make
define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in
struggle against, the things our significant others want to see
in us. Even after we outgrow some of these others—our parents,
for instance—and they disappear from our lives, the
conversation with them continues within us as long as we
live.9
Thus, the contribution of significant others, even when it
is provided at the beginning of our lives, continues indefinitely.
Some people may still want to hold on to some form
of the monological ideal. It is true that we can never liberate
ourselves completely from those whose love and care
shaped us early in life, but we should strive to define ourselves
on our own to the fullest extent possible, coming as
best we can to understand and thus get some control over
the influence of our parents, and avoiding falling into any
more such dependent relationships. We need relationships
to fulfill, but not to define, ourselves.
The monological ideal seriously underestimates the place
of the dialogical in human life. It wants to confine it as much
as possible to the genesis. It forgets how our understanding
of the good things in life can be transformed by our enjoying
them in common with people we love; how some goods become
accessible to us only through such common enjoyment.
Because of this, it would take a great deal of effort,
and probably many wrenching break-ups, to prevent our
identity’s being formed by the people we love. Consider
what we mean by identity. It is who we are, “where we’re
coming from.” As such it is the background against which
our tastes and desires and opinions and aspirations make
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
