It is the quality of filiation that each individual has, this is linked to certain circles that as rational humans identify us from one group of human beings to another, since the family according to each certain characteristic is also a form of root identity, society, which at the same time form a set of personal history with social history.
Introduction
Identity is the feature that identifies you from one family or society group to another because within this term it allows us to differentiate through the customary moral principles learned and genetically inherited, from the family background specifically from grandparents, induced through of parents, this means that when we become part of a family we are soon also part of a community which accentuates certain uses and customs. That determine a society, such as the identity of Mexicans, a custom that eat chili, a culture that we like Mariachi music, another that we are very warm when receiving people, this is part of an identity that differentiates us from other countries or companies.
Identity is the recognition of the self towards society
Professor Felipe López Rosado tells us that the principle of identity predominates in the ancient family since together with Coulanges they both write. What united the members of the ancient family formed a body of association in this life and in the next, the family was a religious association, better even than a cultural association, a family was a group of people that religion allowed to invoke the same home and offer the funeral meal to the same ancestors, we start from this point that When we recognize someone by their way of speaking, writing, walking, doing over other people it is because something of their identity was put into play there. This does not imply that identity and creativity always go together.This has been for the sole purpose of highlighting that when the identity is well constructed, the person manages to distinguish himself from the other. The opposite would be what is commonly called mass man in sociology.
Identity types
So then there is an identity as a whole, as a universe, which includes several parts or subsystems: sexual or gender identity, physical identity, psychological identity, social identity, moral identity and ideological identity.
This evolution has reached individual and collective identity and has caused specific psychological, social and political effects. Western society has moved from one communal form to another in which the individual is the center. Individualism is one of the most important changes of our time.
Every open system receives, transforms and gives energy; consequently, every person is in permanent movement and in constant change. Thus, it is concluded that every person is not a finished being, but in permanent development, a dynamic being that "is being" at every moment, in the encounter with the other, in a culture and a society.
People relate to their experiences of being linked, necessarily their experience of the body, clothing, language or relationships with others; that is, identity is dynamic. It is not something whose construction is finished; on the contrary, she builds herself in relation to herself, to others and to culture.
Identity, reality and knowledge
Reality and knowledge are conceived as a system of relationships. The different realities.
They are built to the extent that observing systems distinguish characteristics and elements in the external environment, that is, as they differentiate one thing from another and create contrasts and oppositions in reality. In this perspective, the reality that is perceived and signified, is a construction that is made from the own schemes of distinction that the human being handles as an observer and not an objective and absolute entity that can be apprehended through the senses (empiricism) or reason (rationalism).
In the human, to live is to know. As living beings we have a congruent relationship with the environment, and its purpose is to maintain life. In order to live, it is necessary to take energy from the environment, that is, to know it. Knowing, in this case, refers to the person's ability to perceive their environment and act according to their perception. Thus, knowledge becomes valid when it serves to resolve the medium-survival relationship.
The person who is part of a mass, does not always perceive when the stimuli, which are produced by the environment, potentiate some structural change in him, much less realize that such changes are taking place.
The human being perceives only that for which he is able to make distinctions.
It does so with its senses, just like other living beings, but it distinguishes using its theoretical, experiential and emotional systems of perception. Acting in congruence with the environment, with oneself and with society, is done not only through rational processes, but also from logics built according to emotional stories.
With Peirce we can affirm that man thinks that all his beliefs are true, while "belief" is a mental habit that drives and generates actions. This would mean that before the truth there is the habit and that before the action there is also the habit.
As an engine of actions, habit is a substantial part that makes up both Identity and Culture.
Furthermore, the habit is of two kinds, according to Peirce. One of them is the individual's own and another is the one granted by the institutions. The two find a point of confluence in the direct relationship between the representative and the object, that is, in the dynamism produced in se miosis. The habit will also have two more meanings in relation to another Peirce concept, that of the final interpreter.
In the first case, it is a habit of attributing an object to a representative, a habit in the sense of a rule of habit rather than a mechanical habit (my emphasis), since this habit 'includes, in addition to associations, what can to be called 'transsociations' or changes of associations, it also includes dissociation ”. In the second case, the final interpretant is the interpretant destined to attract the unanimity of the scholars: 'the opinion on which all researchers will inevitably agree is what we consider to be true, and the object represented in that opinion is the real. This is how I would explain reality. '
Thus expressed by Peirce and later by Déledalle, habit is a rule, on the one hand, and on the other it is action insofar as unanimity or consensus. In both ways, we can connect it with the concepts that we have been addressing: as a rule of habit, the capacities of the subjects of the classification are included, that is, the processes of “association changes”; since action is considered valid (and true) insofar as a group supports that same idea, a group that forms its own rule of habit and its actions within the framework of an Identity and a Culture.
Thus, habit is a form, as has been said, it is a rule of habit, that is, it is a structure, a conformation, a norm. It is in this sense that we will apply the concept of rituality here. The rite is made up of a situation, which is like the unity in which it becomes visible. This situation has a time and a space, a norm and defined actions. However, the rite, despite being attributed a sense of immobility due to the fact that it involves the conjunction of certain conditions, is dynamic: one rite is never the same as another, even if it tries to be the same. It is not about the copying of the copy, about the repetition of a certain situation without changes, but about the recreation of the ritual itself through its internal time, in conjunction with its specific spatio-temporal and symbolic conditions.
As a rule, Peirce's habit can be a ritual. While immersed in a specific situation, it is also determined by the dynamism imprinted in the process of se miosis. Each ritual will be a legisign insofar as it is composed of a specific identity, but it has a multiplicity of appearances: again, a ritual will never be the same, it will be the recreation of it, it will be a new sign from the process of being miosis because it is It produces a change in the slightest trait that will make that ritual have a different identity from that of the ancestors because, as shown, the human being is constantly changing, so it will unconsciously change it.
conclusion
Identity is the most important part of the human being since it determines the personality in all aspects, legally it allows us to appreciate how legal scholars can perceive that the individual will carry out an unlawful action depending on their environment, their way of life, their need, customs and culture, for this reason when investigating the roots and in accordance with the stipulations of the specialists. The individual will carry out an antisocial action as long as it is normal for him according to his identity included in a whole way of living, for this reason common law comes to life, this at the same time is the part that forms our legal norm and gives passage to constitutional law through identity, habit, custom and culture,they are valuable parts and that leads us to the study of the individual who, through specialists, exhaustively investigates the actions of man and thus we will know if he is guilty or not.
Bibliography
Felipe López Rosado. Introduction to Sociology, Editorial Porrua, México, DF 1967
Delledale, Gérard. Gedisa, Spain, 1996.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Lessons on pragmatism. Aguilar, Argentina, 1967.
