Ivan Šarčević:
Indeed, there are different ways we can relate to tradition and inherited identity. Each generation or its members can identify with that heritage to the point of vanishing as a group or individual, immersed in tradition, in inherited identity (fundamentalists in particular are prone to it). On the other hand, an individual can – though never completely, it seems – reject his collective identity, deny his belonging, always pointing out only his personal choice of identity. It seems that it’s never completely feasible because we human beings are not only our own products but social beings whom other people “classify” and identify even when we don’t want to be classified or identified as such.
Though coherent, identity is a variegated reality, a sum of belongings, or in terms of memory, a collection of remembrances that we keep dearly, but also those we are ashamed of or want to suppress and forget. Some of those recollections we happily evoke while some of that heritage we dismiss. Due to the dark side of memory and negative parts of tradition (especially crimes), some people renounce their heritage, deny or change not so much their identity as some belonging or some elements of their identity. However, there are also those who change their heritage and identities through life.
If we would qualify it in terms of values, then perhaps the healthiest path to developing identity (continued identification) would be to keep regaining the inherited identity, to keep re-engaging in a critical dialogue with it while creatively reprocessing it in freedom. Like the parable of the talents, in gratitude for the inheritance, with things he received an individual regains not only the equal worth of the inheritance but the chance to engage in creative work with the gifts and have them “double” in value.