Well, of course, we are multifaceted. The common conception of “identity politics” as based on one or two dominant characteristics, with all others who share those same characteristics “naturally” forming a powerful voting bloc, is for the most part wishful thinking on the part of political operatives and lazy political journalists. The various characteristics that underpin our “identities” include ones that are both more and less mutable, and it’s not always wise to assume that the less mutable ones are likely to be dominant. But it’s also not wise to ignore the fact that those many characteristics include some that are highly privileged by large numbers of people in our societies, even without any reasonable justification for doing so, and others that are widely, even if unfairly, disfavored or adopted as reasons for denigrating and abusing anyone bearing those characteristics. Ignoring the injustices that follow from those social biases is not, in the long term, a wise course to take.
It’s quite simple to observe an attribute. There’s nothing with which to agree or disagree. It’s another thing to create illusions and weaponize like what we might call identities. If someone tells a lie about another, like claiming the wearing of clothing that is not deemed currently culturally appropriate by the offensive person is harmful to children, the clothing part may be true but not the harm. I could make a list but none is needed. Still, that view may come from a place of shame and guilt, or just be an attempt to manipulate. But if I said the number 1 cause of death among children is guns, that’s a verifiably true statement. One plays on feelings and one does not. And as you said, these injustices are hard to ignore.
Thanks for a very wise and thoughtful post, John.
The whole idea of “identity” strikes me as a bit odd. Aren’t we more that just one thing? Multi faceted?
Well, of course, we are multifaceted. The common conception of “identity politics” as based on one or two dominant characteristics, with all others who share those same characteristics “naturally” forming a powerful voting bloc, is for the most part wishful thinking on the part of political operatives and lazy political journalists. The various characteristics that underpin our “identities” include ones that are both more and less mutable, and it’s not always wise to assume that the less mutable ones are likely to be dominant. But it’s also not wise to ignore the fact that those many characteristics include some that are highly privileged by large numbers of people in our societies, even without any reasonable justification for doing so, and others that are widely, even if unfairly, disfavored or adopted as reasons for denigrating and abusing anyone bearing those characteristics. Ignoring the injustices that follow from those social biases is not, in the long term, a wise course to take.
It’s quite simple to observe an attribute. There’s nothing with which to agree or disagree. It’s another thing to create illusions and weaponize like what we might call identities. If someone tells a lie about another, like claiming the wearing of clothing that is not deemed currently culturally appropriate by the offensive person is harmful to children, the clothing part may be true but not the harm. I could make a list but none is needed. Still, that view may come from a place of shame and guilt, or just be an attempt to manipulate. But if I said the number 1 cause of death among children is guns, that’s a verifiably true statement. One plays on feelings and one does not. And as you said, these injustices are hard to ignore.