An autobiography is the story of one's own life, is it not? If this is the case, then shouldn't every autobiography begin with the person's birth, the start of the person's life? Is that not where the story begins? The answer to these latter questions appears to be no, at least according Franklin's autobiography. Rather than start off with his birth, Franklin takes time to describe to readers the type of family he was born into, his ancestry, the occupation of his relatives, and even the history of the name "Franklin." His birth itself is hardly emphasized, and we only get an idea of the beginning of his life because he gives us its relation to his uncle, who "died in 1702 Jan. 6 old Stile, just 4 years to a day before I was born" (p. 6).
I find this interesting not because this degree of background is unusual, but because it bring us back to the notions of identity. Is identity something that is inherent in us, or is it something we are born into? The elaborate description of Franklin's ancestry makes one consider that perhaps Franklin's (and our own) identity was shaped before birth. Why else share the stories of the person's who came before? Thus, is an autobiography a description of self, or a description of history and how you fit into it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Virginia's post brought up some interesting questions, especially her ideas about self, fitting into history, and identity. I believe the psychological ideas of nature versus nurture can be readily applied. Was Franklin's personality, self, and decisions that ultimately shaped his life inherent at birth? Or, did his family's history and individual personalities influence Franklin into the person he became? Franklin emphasizes the positive virtues of his family, and how they have passed those on to him through teaching (i.e. when his father punished him for stealing stones for his own wharf pg. 10). However, he also points out several areas, such as piousness and attending church, that he differs with his family, as well as the rocky relationship he has with his brother at the printing press. Furthermore, when he leaves for Philadelphia, he is no longer under their direct influence, but this is the time that Ben comes into his own. While his family influences (both positive and negative) undoubtedly influenced his character, Franklin makes a point to show his love for literature and books that appears to be innate. Most likely, the interplay between the two molding factors-Franklin's innate personality and the influences of his family and others - shapes his self.
I'd have to say that when a person begins to think, his or her identity has begun. Franklin's father, like him, was a bit of a "jack-of-all-trades," and this was naturally passed down to Ben among other traits just by genetics and upbringing. But, contrary to his father, etc., he was a revolutionary whose work was to fight against his homeland! The fact that pre-existing conditions can both unify and polarize signifies that identity goes much deeper into the person's mind, rather than into their tradition.
(Note: this is not to say that tradition isn't important in a person's identity, only that a persons identity determines what they consider a tradition and what they do not).
I really like Virginia's comment about identity, and "if an autobiography is a description of self or a description of history and how you fit into it." This connects to the discussion we had in class about how all authors are, to an extent, products of their environment. The society one is raised in inevitably influences their culture and thoughts in all facets of life. So it is a logical assumption that this could extend to the very identity of a person, their very essence. Were Franklin born during a different era, would he have risen to such greatness?
Post a Comment