According toPacific Ampersand (2013), complex personhood is an expression or a term used todescribe the concept that people have more than one identities, experiences,pedagogies, values and mind-which can even appear contradictory or hostile.
Subconsciously, complex personhood happens in our everyday life; sometimes itstarts inside our house. For example, me and my dad even though we’re bloodrelated and have the same religion, we have different opinions on politicalnews that sometimes involves theological understanding. This just shows thatone person is not entitled to have only one opinion or value or judgment.
Moreover, complex personhood is also evident today by how society demands andthirsts for stereotypes and gender deviance. Why do most people address LGBTQas “it”? Why do we need to evaluate when making friends if that person is a girlor a boy? Why can’t we just deal with ambiguity? Why can’t we just beopen-minded and accepting? Furthermore, Daughtry(2015) uses terminologies as his example of complex personhood. He questionswhat and how to name US military service members, members of the navy andparamilitary forces who battled towards the United States-led coalition,civilian and different noncombatants who have participated in or in any othercase that have been exposed to the war? Daughtry (2015) states that thesepeople have been referred to as “soldiers” or “combatants” or, more critically,”perpetrators.
” However, he suggests that we should reevaluate and contemplatehow the act of vicious impacts them as well as their opponent. Daughtry (2015)then indicates that we should also address them as “participants” since thisterm is more objective and assumes an active role taken in vicious acts.Moreover, the term “bystander” assumes no involvement happened. “The term”survivor”-seemingly apt for my interlocutors, all of whom have lived throughcombat and are still alive as of this writing-reduces personhood to bareexistence” Daughtry states.
Nonetheless, Daughtry (2015) believes that wordsare important despite when they are useless. He explains that all of thesestandard terms falls flat since none of these terms considers thoseinconsistent shifts in perspective that often people make as they move from onecategory to another. Out of all these terms used, nothing emphasizes theessential nature of violence.
Daughtry (2015) uses professional designations(such as service members & civil servants) and generic categories (such ascivilians) to emphasize and know the differences that makes these group uniquefrom another. We cannot fullydecipher or judge anyone with the categories that identify them or opinionsthat they have said, what is more important to look at is how we interact withthem in order to fully understand them.