gre writing issue sample writing 38
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Saying that it is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves, the speaker asserts that one’s identity largely incorporates certain social groups he is belonged to. In many ways, it is true that one’s profile to address himself consists mainly of several titles related to certain organizations of which he is a part. However, there are lots of situations where those titles are so insufficient to reveal the true self, a complex thing which is intractable to summarize with several symbolic groups, especially for either maturation of our social relationship or meaning self-reflection.
Of course, it is hard to deny that our self definition requires mentioning of certain groups we were, have been, and are affiliated with. Especially at the initial stage of social relations, group affiliation is one of the most general and facile means to address ourselves. Lacking any information about us, people need to know such basic information as our workplaces, native hometown, schools to assess us holistically.
Then, is who I am always a matter of what I am or which groups we are belonged to? My answer is no. During the deeper personal relationship where our acquaintances know much about us, it would be ridiculous to repeat such basic information. In this case, it is not the identification with certain social groups but the values, worldviews, actual feelings and attitudes we have about diverse issues that indicate who we truly are.
The relative insignificance of superficial information about certain social groups we are in can be found in another situation, at the time of personal reflections about one’s life. When we want to adjust our future, we are usually concerned more about the actual weaknesses or merits of us or which ideals we have in deeper inside than about the titles we have now. This also says that social group identification is not the sole important means for us to understand ourselves.
To sum, ~~~~
The speaker asserts that people mainly rely on certain group affiliations when they define themselves. In some sense, it is undeniable that the matters such as “which groups we were in,” “for which group we are now working for,” or “which communities we have been attached to” are frequently used for revealing “who we are.” Though important, in my opinion, they are not all that matter when we introduce ourselves to others. At some points of human relationship or for some purposes in our life, we rely more and more on other things such as our taste, preference, personal interest, philosophy, or life’s goal to make us known to others.
Of course, it is still tempting to say that identification with certain social groups is one of the major means for us to introduce our selves. Especially, at the initial stage of our social relationship at which strangers want to gather general information about us, we usually mention the schools and companies we were and are attending, the political parties we are affiliated with, or the social communities we are in. Providing tips about those groups, we not only give the new friends a general basis for judging us, but also can guide their impressions on us in the way we want.
Then, is this identification with certain social groups all we can do to make us known to others? At the time we are already in certain groups, simple mentioning of the groups to uncover us is somewhat nonsensical and ridiculous. At this stage of relationship, for deeper understandings about us, we are usually asked to reveal such purely personal things as our tastes and unique interests, personal assignments we are now taking care of, and so on. Instead of general tips about us, others want to know about us in more concrete and specific basis.
Further, at the time we want to adjust our path of life—a period for making a turning point for ourselves, we do not observe ourselves in terms of such superficial matters as our group-affiliations. In deeply reflecting our past and deliberating about our remaining lives, we describe ourselves by such unusual standards as “for what I have been struggling,” and/or “what will be the most important principles to design my future.” In short, for intrapersonal communication, the primary method of our self-definition is less social group affiliation than our person philosophies.
Stating that it is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves, the speaker claims that who we are is usually determined by what we are. In general, it is undeniable that our social affiliations are one of the important ways for us to introduce ourselves to others. However, our identity is ultimately appreciated by more detailed, subtle, and complicated dimensions as we need to portray us in deeper and more mature relationships.
Of course, it is true that we usually find it expedient to mention our family name, alma mata, workplaces, or club we were or are a part of when we are asked to describe us. Especially, at the initial stage of our social interaction, pieces of information on our social association effectively enable us to be understood by others. In fact, others also easily understand us in a holistic sense when we reveal which groups we have been in.
But, after the initial meetings, we can no longer rely on social affiliations when we define ourselves. Now, people who want to know us are not strangers who lack basic information about us. They want to know us in more detailed terms such as what roles we undertook at the groups, what special experiences we had, what kind of thoughts we favor more, and so on. At these mature stages of relationships, we are asked to address ourselves in terms of our ability, personal resource, and taste not for unfamiliar others but for our close friends who have already learned much about us.
In addition, the importance of group affiliation wanes gradually when we define ourselves for ourselves. Sometimes, we feel we need to reset our ways of living not in terms of job or superficial career but in terms of general attitude and philosophy which will guide us in the remaining life. At this moment, it is not our identification with certain social groups that serves as a starting point of deeper reflection of our life. Rather, in this case, such things as the ways we make our previous life, the topics on which our daily thought has been focused, or the missions that will guide our future can be more important in describing us. ----------------------
The statement above claims that the most frequent way to express ‘who we are’ is to mention “of which social groups we are a part.” In fact, it is undeniable that people usually introduce themselves through the schools they attended, the companies they work for now, the social, political organizations their everyday activities are composed of, and even the nationality with which they distinguish themselves from others. However, this does not necessarily mean that identification with social groups is the sole important pathway to define ourselves. ------------------
The speaker claims that primary means to define ourselves is our identification with social groups. In many ways, it is undeniable that interaction with social groups is one of the main sources of formation of our self-identities. Only by emphasizing the role of social groups in forming identities, however, this assertion ignores the role of the intrinsic and inherited traits and the possible role of philosophical or political ideas in the formation of identities.
Of course, it is undeniable that there are lots of situations where reliance on social groups can be a primary means to reveal our personal identities. With respect to the initial contacts with strange people in which the main goal of the contacts is usually to recognize not sophisticated but general characteristics of the partners, we usually define and introduce ourselves through the groups we belong to or some representative social entities. Therefore, we usually avoid mentioning our political orientations or internal beliefs when we meet strangers for the first time. Rather, we introduce ourselves through more specific social groups; for example, during the initial meetings, people would say “I am a Harvard graduate,” or “I am a member of XYZ corporation” instead of some sophisticated remarks such as “I am a liberal” or “I am a conservative, who are you?”
Nevertheless, it does not mean that identification with particular social groups is an exclusive means to define ourselves. When it comes to the development of social relationships after the initial stage of meeting, the identification with a certain social group which is already known to our communication partners can never be a meaningful source to define ourselves. At this level of relationship, we tend to sophisticate our identities through substantial matters such as our political orientations, aesthetic taste, or religious or cultural values. This shows that the development of social relationship usually forces us to rely more on substantial and internal values rather than particular social groups when we define ourselves.
In addition, identification with social groups becomes a meaningless method to define our identities in other situations. With regard to communication with members of the same social group, mentioning the group is unnecessary in our definition of personal identities. Korean students in foreign soils would not mention their nationality when they are communicating in a student body exclusively for Korean students even while they reveal themselves through their country when they meet other foreign students. ----------------------------
The speaker asserts that any significant self-definition requires our identification with social groups. In some sense, it is true that mentioning several social groups we are involved in can be helpful to explain who we are. Only by exaggerating the importance of social groups, however, the speaker is ignoring the roles of other means we use in forming and revealing our identities, including
However, it does not necessarily mean that identification with certain social group is the only means of our self-definition. When it comes to maturation of our social relationships, mentioning (reiterating/belabor) the superficial information such as the places or groups our daily activities take place is insufficient and inappropriate to explaining our true selves and values. After several months of personal relationships, the main subjects of our communication for mutual understanding are not the involved social groups we already know each other but the specific feelings, personal tastes, and unique beliefs one has. This suggests that the true self-definition is not just a matter of identification with social groups.