It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.
A common assertion is that humans are a social animal, and that it is primarily through our identification with various social groups from which we define ourselves. Below, I argue that this proposition, while having its merits, is ultimately simplified and hence mistaken.
It seems ostensibly plausible that humans would find their deepest sense of meaning from belonging to groups. When politicians make speeches, they appeal to “the nation’s” interests, trying to instill the sense that the people being spoken to should come together in unity. This sense goes even deeper when considering an institution such as the family, which most people would agree form a crucial part of life. Public figures often present themseves as “mothers” or “fathers” before giving their title, showing that they belong to their group of the family, implying that it is the most important aspect of who they are.
However, the perspective that this is the primary force of identification overlooks that each individual within a group also has their own specific purpose. While a person might identify strongly as a member of her family, she might also have a highly specific role within that group, giving her a sense of individuality despite her group identification. For instance, she might be a mother, having her unique roles to fulfill that surely come from the fact that she is part of a group, not fulfilling the same roles in the households as her children do. In other words, while group identification in this instance provides part of the explanation, it is not sufficient to account for the full depth of the problem.
Furthermore, each individual is inevitably part of many different groups at the same time, and there is an arbitrary amount of categorizations that can be made for any given individual. For instance, an African American woman, should she primarily define herself in terms of sex and race, would then categorically think about people primarily in terms of whether they are women or whether they are African American. These are however only two variables of an infinite amount. She also identify herself in terms of her profession, sexual orientation, or nationality. To claim that the primary drive for making those categorizations is all of these arbitrary delineations is a vast simplification of human psychology.
Ultimately, is a simplified and unpersuasive to claim that people primarily identify themselves with various social grous. Whie this undoubtedly forms a part of the human experience, it is not enogh to account for most of it, and hence we cannot refer to it as the primary factor. Responsibilities within groups have their own meanings that are more quotidian and closer to the everyday human experience, and it is from this source that we derive most of our identity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 52, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
..., each individual is inevitably part of many different groups at the same time, and there is a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 485, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'She' must be used with a third-person verb: 'identifies'.
Suggestion: identifies
...riables of an infinite amount. She also identify herself in terms of her profession, sex...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, so, still, then, while, for instance, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 66.0 28.8173652695 229% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2387.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20043572985 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12325002857 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494553376906 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0963645848 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.611111111 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88888888889 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237189666579 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0772710922568 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.151377777556 0.0701772020484 216% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167871756215 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.169447089279 0.0628817314937 269% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.