Identity, Please?

I’m spending far too much time on YouTube presently, so much so that it’s impacting on my reading. This is generally not a good thing. But it’s not that I’m watching silly cat videos or even random people doing stupid things. Most of what I’ve been watching is about Identity Politics. Most of this is taking place in the US but we’re starting to have elements over here too including where I work so I’ve taken more of an interest. To be honest I’m rather confused by the whole thing.

You see I’m fully aware that I can be grouped into a whole host of different categories. For example, I’m a white (pasty pink), straight, male in his late 50’s. I’m an Atheist, a Materialist, a Sceptic, and a Rationalist. I’m a Republican (in the anti-Monarchy sense), a Northerner (in fact a Scouser) and a Gamer. I’m Single, I wear glasses, and my favourite colour is Blue. I could go on but you get the idea. I could easily be dropped into an almost infinite number of groups but how much would you know about me if you knew which groups I belonged to or self-identified with? If you had my top 10, 20, 50 or 100 group associations would you know ME? I don’t think you would although you might think you do. This is for a very simple but apparently difficult to understand reason – I am an Individual. You can categorise me however you wish but these categories do not define who I am. I think this is where the latest ideas of Identity politics falls down. It seems to privilege group identity over individual identity as if individuals do not or cannot exist. Now as a Socialist (yet another label you can attach to me) I’m all for group solidarity but what I really don’t like it being primarily identified by (one of?) my many group tags and having my individuality ignored or dismissed. Yes, I’m a white guy but that doesn’t define WHO I am. That’s just an accident of birth. Yes, I’m straight but even that doesn’t define who I am. It’s just the way I’m wired. If I was gay that wouldn’t define me either. It would be, yet again, just the way I’m wired. It would be what I am but not who I am. There is a very important and vital difference. My (many) categories inform who I am but they do not determine or define who I am. I am, at least I hope and expect that I am, more than the mere sum of my parts. That I believe is what makes human beings so interesting in so many ways.

So, you can imagine that it confuses (and interests) me to come across people who seemingly define themselves by a single or small subset of categories they belong to. Their primary identification is with the group and not with themselves as members of that group. I find that rather odd. I can kind of conceptualise why this is the case. When you’re a group member you know that other members of that group will/should have your back. Individuality can be lonely and feel far riskier than being a group member. After all isn’t this why people join gangs – for the protection they provide? So I get that aspect of things. Being in a group is comfortable and safe(r). It’s also empowering knowing that if you’re attacked (literally or figuratively) you’ll always have back-up. But there’s always the danger that if you identify with the group too strongly you’re going to lose at least some of your individuality. That’s the trade-off. Some people, for a whole host of reasons, are willing to make that trade. Personally I like being my own person. I’m more than happy self-identifying as being associated with various groups or to have been accidentally born into various categories but they are not now nor have they ever been who I am. When we all make that mistake of identifying individuals as primarily a representative of a group we are heading for a whole world of hurt. But it looks like we need to learn that lesson again and again before we begin to treat people like the individual human beings they are with their own stories, their own problems and their own life trajectories.