An international workshop on Social Bonds and Personal Identity focused on how personal identity and social relationships are connected. The activity was part of a project on Bonds, Emotion and Identity: The moral dimension of social bonds, which forms part of the Emotional Culture and Identity (CEMID) groupat the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS). It is co-directed by Ana Marta González -the principal investigator of CEMID- and José María Torralba, and receivesfinancial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy.

On the occasion of the workshop, Professor González agreed to an interview about fundamental questions concerning the connection between the self and relationships with others.

What is the relationship between personal identity and social bonds?
We are social beings and the bonds and relationships that we engage in undoubtedly have an impact on the formation of personal identity. What we want to explore is the impact our relationality has on the kind of people we become.

In your paper, you address the issue of solidarity and social bonds from a Kantian perspective. What does this have to do with identity?
We live in very fragmented and individualized societies, where, in part because of this very reason, a type of bonds flourishes that, from a certain point of view, could be characterized as postmodern and artificial. Identity movements largely follow that line. These kinds of identities generate social division and lack attention to the social bond as such. In the history of sociological thought, this is nothing other than the question of solidarity. Although it undoubtedly has classic roots, it is a modern subject as such. Reflection on it emerged in the context of the Third French Republic (1870-1940), which was marked by social division and fragmentation derived from industrialization and the French Revolution. The question of what kind of bond exists in such a society came out in full force.

What does Kant's vision bring to the table today?
The first scholars that approached this subject did so inspired by Kantian thought, although he does not speak of solidarity. Kant brings the ideals of Rule of Law with equal freedom for all citizens, but does not forget that social life must be woven with moral ties. In that sense, his message is still relevant. Beyond the group or collective to which individuals subscribe, there is a moral universalism that must be reflected in social life. Kant's message of solidarity is a morally articulated message. It is especially important to highlight today.

Are some bonds better and, therefore, more positive for the configuration of identity?
Thomas Scheff, a sociologist of emotions, distinguished between secure and insecure social bonds. In turn, he explained that the latter can occur in the micro-social field, that is within family or friendships, or in the macro-social field, including the relationships between nations or states. Scheff himself applied it to the evolution of Germany during the Third Reich. A typology of unsafe social bonds is one in which one of the parties is completely absorbed or alienated by the other, as in many cases of gender violence and beyond. At other times, the opposite phenomenon occurs: a person isolates himself. In both cases anomalies in the experience of the bond are found; for a healthy bond, personalities remain, but there is a relationship. Relationships in which the members go their own way and, therefore, the bond is not exercised in practice, are also unhealthy.

Individuals receive very different stimuli and messages from the different contexts in which we move about. Sometimes they are even negative. How do they affect affect the self, especially in the case of young people?
We have to assume an undeniable reality: modern societies are highly individualized. Among the sociologists who first addressed this issue is Georg Simmel at the beginning of the twentieth century. He noted that in traditional societies the social whole was homogeneous with little difference between the values ​​absorbed in the family and in society... In contrast, in modern societies— partly because of the very dynamics of the division of work and the differentiation of social spheres—there are different social groups and it is normal for a person to develop his life in different environments. It is just a matter of fact and not something tolament, but we must understand it. If not, the temptation to isolate creeps in. For example, parents may want to isolate their child from negative influences. But society can educate or miseducate just as much as parents can. Parents have the first right to the education of their children, of course, but sometimes there are cases of distortion. It is important to educate in the management of multiple influences, that is, to educate in freedom and responsibility.

Can we speak of an identity or are we the sum of many identities?
It is true that depending on the context, some aspects of personality come to the fore, but contexts change so quickly that it would be ridiculous to magnify those identities. I am in favor of limiting the concept of identity to the formation of personal identity because I think that there is something rigid in that concept, something that contradicts the very dynamics of personal and social life. We are always learning. Our subjectivity is— or should be— an open and moldable subjectivity because relationships have an impact. Excessive use of the concept of identity can be counterproductive, which we see, for example, when it becomes a political weapon.

How do we ensure that identities are not an obstacle for understanding?
I prefer to talk about subjects, about living people who are open to multiple influences, who think. Behind resorting to identities there is extraordinary mental laziness. People stop thinking and stand behind an identity. That is the biggest obstacle when talking to others who otherwise may have a lot of interesting things to say and with whom you can reach some common ground. Today, identities can be an obstacle to coexistence and personal growth because they impede thought, criticism and constructive dialogue. They are an expression of fear. And this can be applied in general, both on the right and on the left. This is one of the most serious problems in contemporary societies. In some way, we must allude to the irreducible aspects of the person, to what makes the person not just a process, although he or she is formed and grows in the midst of many processes.

What remains of our identity in the digital world?
Projecting our identity on the web is always a selection process through which we present ourselves. Ilaria Malagrino, visiting researcher within the Emotional Culture and Identity project, recently noted how the topic of modesty, an issue of extraordinary anthropological importance, has been transferred from the body to images. People do not exhibitany particular modesty when it comes to showing the former, but they do so with regard to the latter. This is indicative of a society of the image: one moves in this society the way one appears before others. What is clear is that our identity is not what appears. Is the self closer to what is on a screen or what one decides to show of oneself? Where is the self— in what I write or in the act of writing? Am I in the photos that I upload to networks or in the act of uploading them? My identity is not in any way what is found on a Twitter account. Rather, if I had to look for it somewhere, it would be in the decision to make something known, even though that something is a very limited fragment of my life. Here we see the selection process: How do I choose what to put about myself for the public to see?