#alcoff

We were originally going to present our question yesterday, but we ran out of time in class.  We’ll post this here, so think about it and respond or save your responses for Monday when we present for real (or both). 

  Our question concerns how the Lord of the Rings interacts with Alcoff’s argument for what identity is.  Alcoff is arguing against a determinist concept of identity; on page two she defines what she is arguing against as identity conceived as “something common to a group” but “entirely outside the individual” which names a subject based on its social identity and puts it in a power hierarchy, assuming the individual will act in very specific ways because of its group identity.

  An example of a determined character in the Lord of the Rings would be Boromir.  As a man he is easily corruptible, weak to the Ring.  Because he is a part of the social category of “man,” he is almost predetermined to try and take the ring from Frodo eventually, and when he does it is not a huge surprise to anyone.  This is even clearer in the film, where he is enchanted by the Ring from the Rivendell council onwards, and constant allusions are made to the fact that he is most likely to betray the party. 

  Alcoff’s own version of identity is one in which individuals have more impact on their social identities.  She claims on page seven that identity needs to be un-demonized because it is “to understand one’s relationship to a historical community, to recognize one’s objective social location, and to assert one’s own power to negotiate the meaning and implications of one’s own identity.”  This definition of identity is not merely group values being inscribed on the individuals in the group, but one which allows for individual negotiation of identity as well. 

  A visible example of this kind of identity would be Aragorn.  He does not wish to be too near the Ring because he is afraid he will be unable to do what is needed to destroy it, just like his ancestor Isildur.  The film makes this plot line very obvious, as Aragorn discussed his worries with Arwen in Rivendell.  However, he later refuses the ring when offered it by Frodo, showing that his social identity of man is not the ultimate deciding factor. 

  The plotlines of these two men give each theory of identity an example, so neither seems completely perfect.  How does the Lord of the Rings confirm or challenge these two ways of thinking about identity?  Is there some sort of third position which includes both examples?