Whereas the narrative of American liberals once tried to
convince us that one’s identity, particularly in regards to race, is not very
important, that narrative has since been abandoned as minority populations
increase in numbers and presence. Currently, the liberal narrative sees
Caucasians as agents of the Devil, as if white liberals should be going out of
their way to admit the faults of their ancestors in hopes that some admission
of institutionalized wrong-doing will allow them to avoid being lynched themselves
when Caucasians finally become a minority in the United States. Moreover, social
media in America is currently abuzz with sexual politics calling for freedom
for the female nipple and to repeal slut shaming. Social media among
Millennials is humming with the need to acknowledge cultural appropriation and
a demand that Columbus Day be repealed. And everyone, regardless of whether
their candidates are actually for changing the status quo, Democrats and
Republicans both blindly vote along party lines. In short, America is awash in
identity politics. But a sense of identity cuts across all cultures and in
part, an identity is in fact how anyone would know that they do belong to a
culture.
Why is identity so important? Why does anyone struggle to
“find themselves”? It has long been assumed that a personal identity is a close
to an inherent right as one can get, but is it possible that the need for an
identity isn’t as important as it is made out to be? Is group identity more
important? Is it possible we have been sold on a social construct that doesn’t
exist in reality, but instead serves as a wedge between individual people and
groups?
Let’s try to answer the first two questions: The answer as
to why identity is so important varies from source to source. As we grow from
infancy, we begin to form an identity, setting ourselves apart from the world
around us. The formulation of an identity is born out of the human tendency to
compartmentalize information in hopes of understanding the world. It allows us
to set ourselves apart from other objects in the world and allows us to compare
ourselves against those objects. An identity also helps us to know our likes
and dislikes and detects who is going to be like us, physically and culturally
speaking, so that we may form groups in the interest of self-preservation and
procreation – whereas the inclusion in a group potentially gives one access to
safety in numbers and resources. To have such an identity enables self-esteem
and feelings of superiority over another person or group; in this way we use
identity for social comparisons and may be used as a yardstick for success (which
is itself a social construct). Crucially, an identity will largely dictate how
we behave towards others and the world around us.
Being aware that having an identity will strongly influence how we
behave may make us aware to the shortcomings of possessing an identity (or at
least diminish its importance to ourselves). For instance, Governments rely on
identities to know who to keep accountable for crimes or who to oppress. Capitalism
relies on people having a sense of identity so that companies know who to
market their products and services to. Individuals often employ the No True
Scotsman logical fallacy in order to cast group members an individual doesn’t
like in an unfavorable light. (For example, a Republican Christian stating that
a true Christian would never register as or vote for a Democrat.) As mentioned
before and I will mention again because it’s important, identities serve as a
wedge between people which leaders are all too willing to capitalize on when
they want to declare war on another country or worse, attempt the genocide of
another group of people.
With the current liberal narrative in the U.S. contemplating identities as a way of knowing when we are wronged – assuming you are non-white
– other Western narratives are attempting to dispense with identity nearly altogether,
presumably to make up for the long, long history of crimes by white people,
even against themselves. One example is taking place in Sweden where a boy or
girl is now being referred to as a ‘hen,’ a gender neutral term meant to help
children grow up free from the impact of being identified with a particular
gender. While there is an obvious downside for one gender in patriarchal cultures
(which most Western nations practice), is there any downside to abandoning identities
such as the Swedes are attempting? It is inviting to contemplate a Slippery
Slope argument here as one wonders what will follow from the abandonment of
gender identities as it is clear there are differences between males and
females. Will one’s family identity fall next? Will their national identity and
their European identity follow suit until all they’re left with is to identify
themselves as human beings? Might even that succumb to the notion that human
beings are not a distinct entity from the animal kingdom or the universe
itself? At what point will the Swedes decide it is okay to have an identity or
will they decide identities are largely a bad thing? This seems to be the
direction many progressively Left countries are headed.*
[* There is currently an effort to rebrand progressive
liberals as ‘regressive leftists’ by moderate liberals who recognize that going
to extremes usually ends in the oppression of someone. Again, identities help
us identify threats or dangerous ideas.]
Here we may ask our third question; are identities actually as
important as they’ve been made out to be? While we have an idea as to why we
form identities, perhaps the Swedes have recognized that there seems to be a
lot of harm that comes from having them. Should we abandon our identities
within a family, a nation, or even as human beings? We might hypothesize that
if human beings stopped regarding themselves as entities distinct from the
world around themselves, the world wouldn’t be quite the ecological disaster it
is. If we recognized that our interactions with other people had far reaching
implications for better or worse, it is possible we might behave in a manner
that would have ‘better’ implications. Unfortunately, most identities do not
include such vision among their qualities or practices. Case in point, the
#blacklivesmatter movement which seeks to end ‘white privilege’ may allow for
the eventual equal treatment of blacks, but there is no indication that once
equality is achieved black people are going to abandon their collective
identity. So, there will always be a division, a division that will always
allow for potential negative effects (usually
negative effects).
It appears we may have been sold a bill of false goods as far as
identities are concerned. The desire or need for identities make little sense
from an evolutionary standpoint. This is to say that while identities may help
forge bonds which allow for safety in numbers and access to resources such as
food and shelter, identities actually work against human beings when it comes
to the most important resource of all, mates. We’ve known for some time that
restricting a gene pool to lesser and lesser variety results in mutation (this
is presumably why it is not safe to mate with a close family relative, even a
first cousin). In this way, having an identity works against the human race by
limiting the people we might otherwise mate with; gene variety is the key to
surviving a disease that might otherwise wipe out the entire species. It is
another presumption that this may be why some of us are tantalized by
foreigners as these ‘outsiders’ would provide offspring with a ‘superior’ set
of genes. (As Richard Dawkins said, our genes use us, not the other way
around.) It appears as though having an identity may have individual short term
advantages, but for the human race as a whole, identities seem to be
detrimental. Imagine the disconnect when one’s identity is threatened or
attacked and this causes people extreme stress or depression, for what if they
learn they are not who they thought they were? Is even this remote possibility
worth the price of investing in an identity?
Before writing this blog entry, I counted all the things that were
characteristic of my identity. Without even trying, I racked up more than 40
characteristics. What does this mean? I may be a teacher on one hand but I am a
musician on the other. Or, I am all these things at once? Again, identities
allow for the compartmentalization of information so that it is understandable,
or in this case, identifiable. But we all know – if we allow for a few moments
of reflection – that the truth is far more complicated than a person either
being black or white, so why do so many people reduce identities to such common
denominators? Because it is easy and most human minds do not like investing the
energy to think about it. (This is not a slight but simply the way the human
brain works; use as little energy as possible to understand what is going on.
Unfortunately, the result is little understanding of an entire situation.)
I would argue that the need to ‘find oneself’ or wrap oneself up
entirely within an unshakable identity is the hallmark of a weak mind and
follower. Few leaders are elected on the strength of their group inclusion
alone (if they are, it's simply because there are more people in a particular voting block). President Obama would not have been elected if he only appealed to
blacks or only appealed to Democrats. Great leaders have other qualities
besides their basic identity that allows them to lead and it is these qualities
that should be remarked upon as the make for the entirety of an identity,
something that is going to vary greatly from person to person. Lacking a
diversity of characteristics means one is a caricature. So we should either
give the totality of identities their due or give little weight to such concepts, for
now we know that superficial identities are not the whole picture. In the words of Dr. Seuss, “Today you
are you. That is truer than true. There is no one alive who is you-er than
you.” I judge people on their individual merits, not on the color of their
skin.*
[* To which some minorities will remark that such a comment is a
distinctly ‘white’ thing to say.]
