Unintelligibility
in
Identity
Humanity
is
a
word
that
is
easily
defined,
at
least
when
you
type
it
into
dictionary.com.
It
can
be
termed
as
“all
human
beings
collectively;
the
human
race;
or
humankind
(dictionary.com),”
but
in
spite
of
such
a
clear‐cut
definition,
our
understanding
if
humanity
is
blurred
at
best.
We
base
our
view
of
humanity
on
ourselves
and
our
experiences,
but
ironically,
our
identities
are
firmly
rooted
in
humanity
and
our
relation
to
it.
Judith
Butler
discusses
this
idea
in
her
essay
“Beside
Oneself:
On
the
Limits
of
Sexual
Autonomy.”
She
describes
the
interdependence
experienced
by
all
humans,
and
highlights
the
importance
of
this
dependence
in
the
development
of
identity.
She
observes,
There
is
a
more
general
conception
of
the
human
at
work
here,
one
in
which
we
are,
from
the
start,
given
over
to
the
other,
one
in
which
we
are,
from
the
start,
even
prior
to
individuation
itself,
and
by
virtue
of
our
embodiment,
given
over
to
another:
this
makes
us
vulnerable
to
violence,
but
also
to
another
type
of
touch,
a
range
that
includes
the
eradication
of
our
being
at
the
one
end,
and
the
physical
support
for
our
lives,
at
the
other.”
(245)
According
to
Butler,
humans
are
all
interdependent.
We
depend
on
the
recognition
of
humanity
in
order
to
thrive,
but
part
of
that
dependence
is
contingent
on
mutual
acceptance.
We
must
be
accepted
as
human
by
the
rest
of
humanity
in
order
to
truly
be
a
part
of
it.
Butler
describes
this
acceptance
in
terms
of
intelligibility.
This
“intelligibility”
could
be
defined
within
the
parameters
of
human
norms
generally
accepted
and
recognized
by
the
rest
of
humanity.
In
order
to
be
intelligible
one
must
fit
into
those
parameters.
Thus,
those
who
do
not
fit
the
norms
of
society
are
simply
seen
as
inhuman
through
the
looking‐glass
of
humanity.
She
goes
so
far
as
to
say,
“On
the
level
of
discourse,
certain
lives
are
not
considered
lives
at
all,
they
cannot
be
humanized;
they
fit
no
dominant
frame
for
the
human,
and
their
dehumanization
occurs
first,
at
this
level
(246).”
By
this
2
she
means
to
say
that
those
who
are
unintelligible
are
so
far
from
the
recognizable
“human”
that
the
rest
of
society
is
unable
to
connect
with,
or
even
recognize,
them.
She
draws
an
example
of
this
unintelligibility
from
the
AIDS
epidemic
in
Africa.
We
see
the
number
of
deaths
splashed
across
news
articles
and
television
stations,
but
to
us
these
numbers
simply
stand
for
what
they
are,
numbers.
There
is
no
deeper
meaning,
no
emotional
tie.
Sure,
we
may
feel
a
slight
pang
of
guilt
for
not
donating
money,
or
momentarily
reflect
on
the
global
significance
of
such
a
large
numeral,
but
there
is
no
significant
impact
on
us.
We
do
not
grieve
these
human
loses
like
we
might
if
someone
close
to
us
were
to
die.
We
do
not
have
a
humanitarian
tie
to
the
African
AIDS
victims
because
they
are
faceless,
lifeless,
and
unintelligible.
We
do
not
see
them
as
human.
This
idea
of
intelligibility,
and
the
impact
of
social
expectations
on
identity,
is
easily
paralleled
by
numerous
social
and
developmental
psychological
theories.
Leon
Festinger
(the
man
accredited
as
the
father
of
the
Social
Comparison
theory)
described
the
process
through
which
people
come
to
know
themselves
by
evaluating
their
own
attitudes,
abilities
and
beliefs
in
comparison
with
others.
He
states
that
humans
are
constantly
evaluating
their
own
motivations
and
choices
based
on
the
actions
of
those
around
them.
One
could
easily
expand
this
idea
to
include
the
actions/choices
one
makes
(consciously
or
subconsciously)
while
defining
themself.
As
humans,
we
are
chemically
programmed
to
compare
ourselves
to
others
and
fit
into
the
perceived
expectations.
We
build
our
identities
around
humanity.
We
are
vulnerable
to
the
views
and
expectations
of
humanity
from
the
time
we
are
born.
In
the
words
of
Butler:
We
cannot
recover
the
source
of
this
vulnerability,
for
it
precedes
the
formation
of
‘I.’
This
condition
of
being
laid
bare
from
the
start,
dependent
on
those
we
do
not
know,
is
one
with
which
we
cannot
precisely
argue.
We
come
into
the
world
unknowing
and
dependent,
and,
to
a
certain
degree,
we
remain
that
way.
(245)
3
How
then,
does
one
become
“unintelligible”?
If
our
identities
are
so
dependent
on
the
norms
of
humanity,
how
do
people
become
unrecognizable?
How
can
we
be
shaped
by
society
for
our
entire
lives,
and
not
fall
into
the
parameters
of
intelligibility?
What
is
the
defining
element
behind
an
unintelligible
person?
Perhaps
the
answer
lies
in
the
infamous
debate
of
nature
versus
nurture.
Nature,
of
course
being
a
person’s
natural
state
or
innate
personality,
and
nurture
being
the
environment
and
experiences
to
which
they
were
exposed.
The
way
a
child
is
raised
and
nurtured
throughout
the
early
stages
of
development
could
influence
the
person
they
become
as
an
adult.
It
is
conceivable
that
an
“untraditional”
upbringing
could
cause
someone
to
fall
into
the
identity
of
someone
unintelligible.
The
influences
of
early
childhood
experiences
are
well
documented.
It
is
not
completely
impossible
that
someone
who
was
raised
outside
the
generally
accepted
standard
(i.e.
a
mother,
father,
2.5
children,
and
a
house
with
a
white
picket
fence)
would
mature
into
someone
who
remained
on
the
outskirts
of
human
norms.
Conversely,
a
person’s
nature
is
undeniable.
Someone
could
easily
fall
into
the
category
of
unintelligible
naturally.
There
are
plenty
of
people
(whom
Butler
would
consider
unintelligible)
who
led
completely
normal
childhoods,
and
grew
up
in
socially
accepted
families.
Personally,
I
am
close
friends
with
someone
who
is
gay,
and
I
would
consider
his
upbringing
to
be
far
more
“normal”
than
mine.
Perhaps
the
underlying
reasoning
behind
unintelligible
identities
is
the
changing
societal
expectations.
We
are
continuously
reevaluating
ourselves
in
comparison
to
societal
norm,
and
what
is
unintelligible
one
day
may
be
intelligible
the
next,
and
vice
versa.
One
could
argue
that
our
dependence
on
humanity
only
increases
as
we
age.
Yes,
we
depend
on
the
norms
of
society
to
form
the
basic
structure
upon
which
we
build
the
quintessential
“I,”
but
it
is
the
continued
reliance
on
the
opinions
of
others
over
the
course
of
a
lifetime
that
truly
creates
the
societal
dependence.
Even
if
we
do
associate
4
ourselves
with
–and
play
into
the
concept
of
“normal”‐‐
we
are
constantly
reassessing,
redefining
ourselves.
Our
intelligibility
may
depend
on
our
association
with
the
social
views
of
normality,
but
it
is
contingent
upon
our
continuous
compliance.
Without
a
continued
association
with
society’s
norms,
one
may
become
unintelligible
and
segregated.
Perhaps
someone’s
unintelligibility
is
as
unique
as
his
or
her
identity.
Perhaps
there
are
too
many
factors
to
truly
understand
how
people
become
unintelligible
despite
the
pressures
from
society
to
conform.
Nevertheless,
society
has
created
a
void
in
humanity
that
then
feeds
off
of
the
human
tendency
to
reject
what
is
different.
In
a
way,
the
idea
of
intelligibility
is
just
as
reliant
on
humanity
as
those
who
wish
to
achieve
it.
Works
Cited
Butler,
Judith.
“Beside
Oneself:
On
the
Limits
of
Sexual
Autonomy.”
Ways
of
Reading:
An
Anthology
for
Writers.
Ed.
John
E.
Sullivan
III.
Boston,
MA:
Bedford/St.
Martin’s,
2011.
189‐237.
Print.
"humanity."
Def.
1.
dictionary.com.
Dictionary.com,
LLC,
n.d.
Web.
18
Oct.
2011.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanity>.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
Vol.
12
No.
3,
September
1986,
261‐278,
Society
for
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
Inc