A question of Identity

A few days back a friend of mine who is also my colleague, asked me which would I choose – a job in another city to assert my identity or my identity remains linked to my daughter. This question came soon after a student of hers made a statement again linking identity only to my daughter. These questions came as if this is the only label they knew of me and as if the onus was on me for the way they perceived me.
I was puzzled and amused at the same time.
A person’s identity needs to be seen from a 360 degree view. There is not one single identity to a person. Most people see only one aspect of another persons identity, their perception limited by their own experience where experience is also acquired from a third front.
My identity is not in just doing a job but in finding a situation of opportunities to release my creative energy. Staying in one situation in one place can also stagnate and dull the mind. This though, may not be a whole fact, as immobility also enables sorting out the chaos of images and thoughts in one’s mind. Change is a stimulant but in a measure.
This question of identity and purpose of life keeps returning. I had been confronted by a similar question nearly 15 years back by a social worker woman who was starting a feminist ngo. At that time I was confronting on my personal front, the repercussions of the choices I had had to make under family pressure and was struggling to come to terms with its consequences.
My daughter is not my identity – she is my responsibility and my family. ‘Mother’ is not an identity – it is a responsibility. As my family, my daughter is a source of steadiness in my life and an emotional charge. The bonds I share with her are pleasurable. But as my responsibility I cannot make her my emotional crutch and must give her the space for her to become a responsible adult. Some relationships transform and this is one such relationship which will continue to evolve over time.
It is a gender stereotype that the ‘mother’ is associated only to the woman. A man can be a mother as well. My daughter’s father made very good ‘mother’ to my child. But then it will not be accurate to call him a ‘mother’ because the term is deeply rooted into the female – which he was not. My daughters’ father was very much a man who had gentle nurturing qualities towards my daughter.
The term ‘mother’ is rooted in the female, very much like the word ‘Maya’ is a female word. The word is female and not feminine – it is necessary to understand the difference. There is much one can read through this word and it’s connecting with the female, on the social construct of gender roles.
We are not defined by just a single identity. We have multiple identities. As my daughter grows older, I become less of a mother to her and more of a support system, perhaps a confidante and friend as well. What will remain undeniable is that her sense of root will lie in my presence as well as in her fathers’ the notion that this relationship exists will anchor her faith in life.
Our other identities are defined by our sexuality, our beliefs in life, friends the work we do, the place we care to belong.
I can say for myself, my biological is family is more distant. My real family is my few friends who have been with me in the ups and downs in my life. My daughters’ father is still a family as he was my friend first and has continued to be so. We continue to be good working partners.
Today when information has easy access and much floats around in the media as fact or fiction, the emerging nature of the way people are expressing their sexuality, it is necessary to state one’s sexuality.
I am a heterosexual, one man woman. At the same time I would like to state a few things about sexual relationships and marriage.
Marriage as I have known from my own experience and that of others, who have shared about their marriage, is about work and responsibility.
Many women have labeled me a feminist. Perhaps I am a feminist by default. Maybe, because, I have been a person driven by my own energy, making my own choices.

Interpretations and Perceptions

When the Faculty of Fine Arts at Baroda was attacked by fundamentalists and the then university head not only removed hastily the ‘offending’ works of art but even went ahead and suspended the esteemed professor and jailed the student, several issues raised their heads. The critical issues were ownership of the image and singular representation of the image. The actions of the university authority crushed the academic enquiry of image representation, down to perceiving an image with a single interpretation that can be thrust upon through aggression. It amounts to colonizing a particular image.
The act of subverting the academic process revealed the systems own lack of clarity in its beliefs and understanding of the imagery they were demanding to be removed. With their action, they rejected the existence of other languages and scripts as well. Their actions read that a particular image must be called only by one ‘name’ and written in just script and no other. So by their rationale, an apple must be called only by the name of an ‘apple’ written only in the roman script and by no other name in no other script. So an apple cannot be called ‘safarjan’ or ‘seb’ and cannot be written in gujarati or hindi or anyother language.
A layman will not interrogate these nuances of reading an image and understanding the interplay of words and images. As s/he only sees an image as s/he has been conditioned to interpret the image and any other interpretation is incomprehensible to her/him.
The academic process at the Faculty of Fine Arts is involved in viewing and interpreting a single image for it multiple interpretations. It is not necessary that every layman understand or appreciate the images created and is subject to their involvement and depth of their understanding in interpretations. The act of the university authorities has subjugated not only the image, but languages that represent those images and the enquiry that goes into creating new imagery.