Philosophy of Identity: Lady Thor or Just Thor?

The long anticipated first trailer for Thor: Love and Thunder dropped yesterday, thereby reigniting the 2014 fury over the appearance of a female Thor in Marvel Comics. Reactions at the time – as they are now – range from “A woman can’t be Thor” to “Feminism is ruing everything” without ever having read the storyline. Basically, the great controversy revolves around whether a woman possessing the powers of the original, well-known Thor can be called Thor. In effect, what’s being asked is whether ‘Thor’ is a name of a particular person or a title. One critic wrote in 2014, “Get your own identity. Thor’s a dude. One of the last manly dudes left.” Many comic book fans were as upset by a female being Thor as they were a black man becoming Captain America.

 

First, why does this even matter? Why are people so upset over some fictional characters? For one thing, once people are beset by tradition it’s difficult for them to see through any other lens. For the Marvel comic book hero traditionally known as Thor, he has particular characteristics and a particular personality. The traditional Thor possesses the traditional attributes of what is considered masculine, so to buck that trend is bound to make misogynists upset. The other reasons for disliking the idea of a female Thor are non-existent. When Eric Masterson of Earth-616 became Thor no one had a problem with this, though supposedly because Masterson was faking it best he could and himself knew he wasn’t the ‘other’ Thor. But when Dargo of Earth-8710 was called Thor despite not being the ‘real’ Thor, still no one cared. A controversy over Thor’s name only came about when a female became involved.

 

So, Thor is indeed a name. However, the well-known fictional comic character’s full name is Thor Odinson. Last time I checked there are many people in the real world whose name is Thor and bear absolutely nothing in common with the fictional hero. But, you don’t see anyone complaining about this. It’s not like Jane Foster upon becoming Thor called herself Thor Odinson. She never did that. Keep in mind that during the original storyline in which Jane becomes Thor and worthy of wielding Mjolnir, Thor himself was unworthy of holding Mjolnir. If we take into account that the inscription on Mjolnir says, “Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the powers of Thor.” Being that many people have wielded Mjolnir, Squirrel Girl among them, the pronoun ‘he’ doesn’t seem to be of particular importance. What’s important is that they be worthy. Considering Thor Odinson becomes unworthy, regardless of the reason, he fails to be the super-powered Thor, meaning ‘Thor’ must be a title and not referring to a particular person. For the time Thor Odinson was not worthy of Mjolnir, he was not really ‘Thor.’ It appears someone can be called Thor without being Thor Odinson, just like it makes sense that someone can be called Iron Man without being Tony Stark, which is exactly what happened in the comics when Stark’s bodyguard Rhodey stood in as Iron Man when Stark wasn’t capable. And as Jane did not, no one else in the comics ever referred to themselves as Thor Odinson when possessing the powers of Thor. For Pete’s sake, even Thor Odinson calls Jane ‘Thor’ during the original storyline knowing he’s unworthy of the title.

 

It might be worth noting that, yes, traditionally Thor is a man’s name, but that’s simply tradition and a lot of traditions don’t exactly have objective origins. There’s no reason Thor can’t be either a male or female’s name, as is the case with names like Pat or Sam. In the comics, when Jane tells other characters to call her Thor (not Lady Thor) it shouldn’t be a big deal. She’s referring to the title, not to being Thor Odinson. Of course that would be ridiculous. Or would it? In another Marvel comic universe, if Jane Foster had been more of Donald Blake type figure who didn’t know she was Thor Odinson until becoming worthy of Mjolnir again, would all the fan-boys still be upset? I would like to think not, but it’d be foolish to underestimate misogynists.

 

And misogyny is the problem here. As comic books have long been the domain of little boys struggling mightily to be ‘men’ (until the last decade when women started reading them) said ‘men’ will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to what vestiges of culture they think belong to them. So, logic or reason is not going to easily be found among such fanboys. None of them are going to stop and think, “Hmm, can Thor be a title like Captain America, Iron Man, or Batman?” Honestly, so many damn people have been Batman in the comics and some never bothered to correct other characters when called ‘Bruce’ while they were wearing the cowl. But a woman going by the name of Thor, suddenly there’s a problem. GTFOH. 

(Some critics even went so far as to simply state turning Thor into a woman was crappy retconning but those same people didn't have shit to say about the reveal that Mjolnir was sentient during the same storyline.)

Who Are You? Who, Who? Who, Who?

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.]

The Problem With The Problem of Cultural Appropriation

The Rachel Dolezal problem just won’t go away, mostly because Millennials won’t let it go away. Dolezal, the former NAACP leader discovered to be biologically white while she groomed herself to appear black – both figuratively and literally – said in an interview two days ago “I was biologically born white,” saying in effect that despite this fact she still doesn’t identify herself as a white person. This has Millennials – those kids always looking for something to be offended by – up in arms (again).

By now, we are already familiar with the glaring inconsistencies of the Millennial thought process as it is perfectly okay for Bruce Jenner to feel like he is actually a she and grooming himself to appear this way despite being biologically born a man. Now, perhaps this was okay for Jenner because he/she was a celebrity (celebrities get away with anything as long as an apology is issued when outrage is of a sufficient degree) or that the guardians of social justice feel like Dolezal disguised the fact she was ever white, but what you never find these supposed guardians doing is asking tough questions about their beliefs. For instance, what exactly constitutes a black person? According to African-America writer/director Justin Simien, “Being black in America involves a process of moving through and adopting from many different cultures. To define what's authentically black is virtually impossible, as there are as many ways to be black as there are black people.” Presumably, this would go for nearly every other ethnicity as well. But if one could define a black person within the confines of one singular culture, is a black person then restricted to only behaving as a black person?

If being a black person comes with a built in identity aside from their appearance, then so must every other ethnicity. So, if it is wrong to borrow from the black culture because that culture doesn’t belong to any other ethnicity, it is wrong for any ethnicity to borrow culture from any other ethnicity and the power dynamic that is often used as an accusatory device against, say, white people, has nothing to do with it. Accusers of cultural appropriation have long argued that minorities such as black people have adapted white culture as a matter of survival, but this is no longer a necessity in modern day America. So, this particular argument of theirs is no longer valid as to why black currently engage in any appropriation of any other culture.

Another question that comes to mind about whether it is appropriate to borrow from another culture is whether the culture being borrowed from is the originator of a given practice. In many instances this is simply impossible to know. Even if we were concede that black people invented rap music, they did it by borrowing English and recording technology from white people. As Simien noted earlier, black culture is not “authentic” but rather an amalgamation. (This goes for every culture, as well. There is no completely unique culture since human beings all generally behave the same; this manifests itself in our social practices. This is, for example, why some kind of spiritualism exists in all cultures.)

As a logical extension to the previous question, we might ask if a given practice was indeed invented by one ethnicity, does that ethnicity claim an exclusive right to use such that practice? Let’s take hair-braiding, for instance. According to various sources, this practice originated in Africa anywhere from 5,000-30,000 years ago, spread far and wide, and has undergone many changes depending on the culture that adapted it. One version of hair-braiding, known in black culture as ‘corn-rows’ traces its history back thousands of years and appears to have been a sign of social significance and wealth at some point. So, African Americans cannot claim a ‘right’ to the exclusive use of corn-rows (much to Kylie Jenner’s relief, I’m sure). Or maybe they can claim a right because one is allowed to borrow practices from the people in power, though in this instance I fail to see what adapting corn-rows would have to do with survival.

Furthermore, can one claim a right to the achievements of one’s ancestor? Doing so amounts to thinking ‘we’ won the Superbowl when in fact you, the spectator, had nothing to do with it. It’s basically riding the coattails of someone else. (Naturally, people who view themselves as victims often employ this kind of historical thinking to accuse those who are not a part of their group so that their own underachievements look benign in their own eyes. To be clear, I am NOT accusing any group in particular of this.) At any rate, at this point in evolution, no one is a pure-breed anymore, not that such a thing ever existed for human beings. So, we cannot accept historical usage of a practice as meaning that practice solely belonging to any single group.

Bizarrely, Millennials don’t seem to mind most of the things white people have culturally appropriated from black people as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with appearance.* If Dolezal had only acted black instead of trying to look black, sure, she may not have gotten a leadership job for the NAACP but she would simply have been mocked by black and white alike and forgotten. The fact that she tried to look black without acknowledging her ‘whiteness’ appeared as a mockery of black people. I get that. But the same people vilifying her are the same people on one hand want to think of everyone as special regardless of looks or even achievement, but on the other hand want to demonize whites for simply being white, something no white person ever born had a choice in being. Dolezal took her identity in her own hands – something usually applauded – but because she is really white, this is villainous. And thus, the racism of Millennials is exposed.

[*Nor do Millenials care if the Chinese, currently the most powerful group of people in the world, all things considered, borrow cultural practices from the U.S. As a matter of social justice, shouldn’t the guardians of social justice berate the Chinese for wearing blue jeans? Americans invented blue jeans so it belongs to us! Right?]

As I often tell conspiracy theorists, if you don’t like it, leave. But they never do that because despite how horrible it is to live in the U.S. these days, no matter how horrible white people unintentionally contribute to white supremacy (? You hear this line often in these kinds of discussion), living in the U.S. it’s still remarkably better than most other places, places where people cannot even begin to have this kind of discussion.

It is certainly one thing to appropriate a look or practice to intentionally mock a culture. Dolezal didn’t do that; if anything she could be considered to be mocking white people, if white people cared about these things. Black people certainly should feel a little angry that they are under- or misrepresented in the workplace and the media and are generally made to feel they need to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. Of this there is no doubt. But the only person that can make you feel like your (natural) identity is being stolen from you is you. Even if white people all started growing afros tomorrow, an afro on a black person wouldn’t make that person any less black. I know minorities feel otherwise, which makes it hard to understand why they don’t invent some other new look or practice and patent it for use by their own group. Remember that it is okay to borrow cultural practices from the group in power, so why not try using the power group’s practices against them. Oh, wait, what? You can’t patent a look or cultural practice? Gee, I wonder why that is…