On Identity, and the Lack Thereof

One problem with what is called “identity politics” is that it erodes our view of other human beings as individuals. If the main thing, or the only important thing, about other people is the group or groups they “identify” with, or that we identify them with (with or without their consent), then we have, in effect, declared that what distinguishes them as individuals is not important – not only not important, but even dangerous to talk about because doing so might call into question the importance, or even the validity, of their group identity – not to mention the worth – and real agenda -- of the entire identity movement.

A related issue is that with our obsession with identity politics we find the idea of people taking themselves seriously as individuals almost quaint, if not actually un-”woke”. The thing is that throughout human history (and pre-history as well) people took themselves seriously. They were individuals, and they had distinct and complete lives – and they knew it. Yes, they were inevitably part of a racial/cultural/religious/language/ethnic group; nearly everyone is – there are very few true “lone wolves” among humanity. And they learned ways of thinking, and ways of being, from being brought up in that milieu – again inevitably. But self-esteem kicked in as well, based on instinct and survival needs as well as the need to establish and maintain status within the community. It wasn't “all about me”, but it wasn't all about the group either, even in very close-knit and – some would say – “provincial” or isolated cultures.

There's nothing heroic about lack of self-esteem. Raw egotism, pushing your weight around, being obsessed with power – yes, these are universally (or nearly so) regarded as negative traits. But so is the opposite, which is not having your own will, and constantly bowing to the world view and demands of the culture – what Ayn Rand referred to as “social metaphysics” – the idea that society is always right and “I” am always wrong, which is the same as saying that there is no “I”, and one should apologize and do penance for even imagining such a thing. (But then if there is no “I”, who is it that is doing the apology and the penance? I guess that's one of those impolite questions.)

And yet this is what the “woke” crowd – liberals, progressives, and projects like Critical Race Theory – attempt to do – elevate some people based (only) on their (real or alleged) “identity” while devaluing, minimizing, and shaming other people – again based on the identity attributed to them (whether they agree or not) – to the extent of declaring them non-persons. And when a totalitarian or slave state decides you're a non-person, your life expectancy as an actual physical being is at risk, as we've seen many times, especially during the 20^th Century but also in the present day.

What are some of the instruments and techniques used in this process? One, of course, is stereotyping – all people in Group A think, believe, and act in a certain way, and they're unlikely to ever change, short of being incarcerated in re-education camps. Another is robbing them of their identity as persons by insisting that the only important thing about them is the group they were born into, and because that group is bad, it means they are bad. Another identity-robbing technique is to assign people numbers, by which they will be known from that point on, and which (again) will be the only important and useful thing about them, because names notoriously reflect culture – race, ethnicity, language, religion, and so on – not to mention gender! (Notice that the first thing parents provide to their children is a name – and the first thing government applies to people is a number.)

A subset of stereotyping is what was termed, during the Vietnam conflict, “cartoonization”, by which people are reduced to two-dimensional stick figures who, really, aren't people at all, so they have no standing and we can treat them any way we like. This has vicious results in wartime, but it has also come into play throughout history, as during the Age of Exploration, the period of colonization, and more recently – albeit benignly, although many will argue otherwise – in entertainment (film, TV, radio, live shows, etc.).

Are stereotypes always “damaging”? I would say not intentionally, but to the extent they cause us not to take people seriously as individuals – as seriously as they take themselves – it causes some erosion in our ability and willingness to show empathy, charity, compassion, and even common courtesy. We can mouth all the words we like about “The Golden Rule”, but it's almost amusing at times when we see how shocked people can be when it's actually applied. “What if that person were me?” It's a radical point of view, when you get right down to it. And yet we see that current trends are in the exact opposite direction – never mind who or what that person is as an individual, or who or what they are in their own minds; all that counts is their skin color, language, accent, religion, etc. (It's small wonder that people react to this by inventing more and more radical modes of dress, hair styles, piercings, tattoos, genders, non-genders, and so on – the need to assert oneself, even if it's highly imitative, will always be expressed in some way.  And, I daresay, the level of nonconformity will tend to correlate with the level of oppression. The outliers in any culture are the distorted mirror image of that culture.)

And this depersonalization with an agenda is bad enough when it happens on the person-to-person level. When it infects a political movement – or becomes a political movement – things get even worse, up to the point where it becomes official, overt, and explicit government policy, as is happening now. And along with this depersonalization comes the idea of collective and multi-generational guilt – a curse, if you will, on all the living and on all future generations for the past sins (real and alleged) committed by that group. No apologies are sufficient... no form of reparations is enough... it's a permanent blot on the name and reputation of the group in question, and, what's worse, they are expected to accept this as fact, and slink around like lepers, eyes downward, mumbling “unclean, unclean” from that day forward.

People in past times were as real as you and me. They weren't cartoon characters or “It's a Small World” puppets at Disney World in colorful ethnic costumes. Many of them were deep thinkers. And they had a much better intuitive, experiential sense of the natural world and natural processes than most of us do. (They spent most of their time outdoors! How many of us can make that claim, with our addiction to central heating and air conditioning?) And when you see what they were able to accomplish given the resources and technology at their disposal, they seem pretty darned impressive. And yes, these accomplishments were achieved by individuals, but also by individuals acting in groups. Individual genius, to be successful, had to interface and develop a symbiosis with the needs and desires of the group – which is what we mean when we describe an idea that came before its time (note the revival of interest in Nikola Tesla as an example). The advances of civilization were not achieved by people browbeaten, intimidated, and shamed into denying every trace of their individual identity and submitting to the will of a totalitarian, impersonal state and its operatives. (And what, for that matter, has the impersonal state and its operatives ever contributed to human advancement? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Its main function is to suppress, hinder, censor, and cancel. And its goal is a gray, undifferentiated mass of humanity whose only function is to serve the ruling elite.)

We are moving, much more rapidly than anyone imagined up until recently, toward slave state status – but the slavery may turn out not to be the traditional kind, with literal chains, leg irons, and slave collars, but the psychological kind as in “1984” and other dystopian novels. Stereotyping – depersonalization – shunning – “canceling” – shame... these are all tools with which the ruling elite seeks to achieve its ends, while all the time mouthing words about “fairness”, “justice”, and “equity”. And the worst part of it may well turn out to be that while we are slaves, we will still imagine we are free – and that will be the ultimate victory of the totalitarian state.