Identity Politics

[KLewchuk]

What is "identity"?

Do we need "identity"?

How important is "identity"?

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

[mickthinks]

I mistrust those who misuse the term “identity” when talking about the categories—natural* and socially constructed—of which we human beings recognise ourselves to be members.

My identity is just my “me-ness” as opposed to your “you-ness” and everyone else’s “their-ness”. Thus I am the one person who never has needed and never will need to identify me. Sometimes, I am asked by others to identify myself to them, by which they mean to enable them to identify me. Usually my name is enough for the purpose. Sometimes I will need to add my address and even my date and place of birth, and sometimes I am asked to provide some formal document which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that I am who I say I am.

*By “natural” I mean to distinguish between categories based on natural facts, such as colour of hair or sexual characteristics, as opposed to to those based on race or social class. I acknowledge that this distinction is not clear-cut and problem-free. If you don’t think it’s viable or valuable, please pretend I haven’t mentioned it.

[commonsense]

What is "identity"?

Do we need "identity"?

How important is "identity"?

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

Since the thread references identity politics, for my own purposes, I chose to rewrite the OP in a way that focuses on what was intended (I presume) as below. I did this because I believe this thread is not about the concept of identity per se, but rather about identity from a political perspective.

What is "identity" politically?

Do we need "identity" politically?

How important is "identity" politically?

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves politically? What are the least important politically?

“Identity politics” is a term that is used to reference the particular characteristics that constitute membership in a particular group.

The need for “identity politics” depends on intention: if the intention is to interact differently with different groups, the term is necessary to describe those interactions.

Identity politics are unnecessary in a hypothetical egalitarian society, however for a segregated society there needs to be a way to recognize membership in a given group.

The importance of identity politics depends on intent in the same way that the need does. If the intent is for the group in power to enjoy benefits not available to others, there must be a way to differentiate among individuals.

Taking the subject of identity politics a step further, a discussion should entail how identifying characteristics are being used in, say, a partially segregated society.

[commonsense]

I mistrust those who misuse the term “identity” when talking about the categories—natural* and socially constructed—of which we human beings recognise ourselves to be members.

My identity is just my “me-ness” as opposed to your “you-ness” and everyone else’s “their-ness”. Thus I am the one person who never has needed and never will need to identify me. Sometimes, I am asked by others to identify myself to them, by which they mean to enable them to identify me. Usually my name is enough for the purpose. Sometimes I will need to add my address and even my date and place of birth, and sometimes I am asked to provide some formal document which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that I am who I say I am.

*By “natural” I mean to distinguish between categories based on natural facts, such as colour of hair or sexual characteristics, as opposed to to those based on race or social class. I acknowledge that this distinction is not clear-cut and problem-free. If you don’t think it’s viable or valuable, please pretend I haven’t mentioned it.

I will pretend that you didn’t include the distinctions you made.

However, your first 2 paragraphs are an excellent discourse on the concept of identity itself.

[Immanuel Can]

What is "identity"?

Do we need "identity"?

How important is "identity"?

I identify as a salmon. I'm being turned into a sandwich this afternoon.

[commonsense]

What is "identity"?

Do we need "identity"?

How important is "identity"?

I identify as a salmon. I'm being turned into a sandwich this afternoon.

Be a salmon. All I want to know is if you can.

[Immanuel Can]

I identify as a salmon. I'm being turned into a sandwich this afternoon.

Be a salmon. All I want to know is if you can.

You're oppressing me. And by the way, my pronoun is "smelt."

[bahman]

What is "identity"?

What makes you different from others, your body.

Do we need "identity"?

Sure, yeah.

How important is "identity"?

It is very important.

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

Value is partly genetic and partly are learned. They define your behaviors. So they partly define you.

[KLewchuk]

I mistrust those who misuse the term “identity” when talking about the categories—natural* and socially constructed—of which we human beings recognise ourselves to be members.

My identity is just my “me-ness” as opposed to your “you-ness” and everyone else’s “their-ness”. Thus I am the one person who never has needed and never will need to identify me. Sometimes, I am asked by others to identify myself to them, by which they mean to enable them to identify me. Usually my name is enough for the purpose. Sometimes I will need to add my address and even my date and place of birth, and sometimes I am asked to provide some formal document which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that I am who I say I am.

*By “natural” I mean to distinguish between categories based on natural facts, such as colour of hair or sexual characteristics, as opposed to to those based on race or social class. I acknowledge that this distinction is not clear-cut and problem-free. If you don’t think it’s viable or valuable, please pretend I haven’t mentioned it.

I would argue that race is a natural fact, if you attribute it to skin color.

We can approach it this way. Let's say you are a philosopher. I can see how you might have a certain attachment to your identity as a philosophy. Now, let's say that you are a blond philosopher. Does it make sense to cling to the color of your hair, as you would something like the ability and love of philosophy?

If we say "no", it is wrong to cling to hair color, then we may legitimately correct those who attempt to do so.

[KLewchuk]

What is "identity"?

Do we need "identity"?

How important is "identity"?

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

Since the thread references identity politics, for my own purposes, I chose to rewrite the OP in a way that focuses on what was intended (I presume) as below. I did this because I believe this thread is not about the concept of identity per se, but rather about identity from a political perspective.

What is "identity" politically?

Do we need "identity" politically?

How important is "identity" politically?

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves politically? What are the least important politically?

“Identity politics” is a term that is used to reference the particular characteristics that constitute membership in a particular group.

The need for “identity politics” depends on intention: if the intention is to interact differently with different groups, the term is necessary to describe those interactions.

Identity politics are unnecessary in a hypothetical egalitarian society, however for a segregated society there needs to be a way to recognize membership in a given group.

The importance of identity politics depends on intent in the same way that the need does. If the intent is for the group in power to enjoy benefits not available to others, there must be a way to differentiate among individuals.

Taking the subject of identity politics a step further, a discussion should entail how identifying characteristics are being used in, say, a partially segregated society.

Actually, I used it as a catch phrase. I was referring to identity more generally. Of course identity is related to identity politics.

[KLewchuk]

What is "identity"?

What makes you different from others, your body.

Do we need "identity"?

Sure, yeah.

How important is "identity"?

It is very important.

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

Value is partly genetic and partly are learned. They define your behaviors. So they partly define you.

Identity is really important? Really, some would disagree. However, does it matter how you find your identity? Or is it irrelevant.

[bahman]

What is "identity"?

What makes you different from others, your body.

Do we need "identity"?

Sure, yeah.

How important is "identity"?

It is very important.

If we can ascribe value, what should be the most important things we use to identify ourselves? What are the least important?

Value is partly genetic and partly are learned. They define your behaviors. So they partly define you.

Identity is really important? Really, some would disagree. However, does it matter how you find your identity? Or is it irrelevant.

You cannot be functional without an identity.

[commonsense]

What would a mind be without identity?

Identity is what makes us all unique. It is what distinguishes us from everyone else.

[Scott Mayers]

"Identity" in politics, to me, refers to the interpretation that one's physical appearances (their genetics) is linked to some 'culture' (an environmental factor).

The reason we have an issue most predominantly today is due to how the vast majority tend to believe it alright to INHERIT the beneficial factors that are often based upon one's favoritism passed down through their genes, while passing off the negative factors as though they are merely cultural lies passed on through their environment. This means that we think it fair to pass on our benefits to particular people of our chosing when they are good but pass on the debt to all others in society if is it bad.

The identity classification scheme is incorrect. It is being defined by leaders who interpret culture as the valid MINIMAL person. This is likely because given individuals everywhere, should those who GROUP together by some 'culturally' defined class, EACH member accounted for on the whole acts AS a vote FOR groups versus those individuals who have no such association. As such, you'll get those individuals of a shared religion or 'culture' dominate HOW governments get in power. That is, the groups, NOT the individuals, define who gets to govern. And those groups who are strongest will tend to be those with the most EMOTIONAL connection rather than non-emotional logical classifications favored by non-associated individuals.

In the past, legal INHERITANCE used to pass on BOTH the positive and negative factors by default. So if your father owed a debt, this would be inherited to the children also. We obviously do not favor this. Yet how do we justify then the power to pass on beneficial ones today without realizing that the child you FAVORED to inherit implies you pass on the debt to those children you DO NOT FAVOR? Thus the reason to pass the debts on to the masses becomes assumed normal appropriate behavior where we accept inheritance at all.

Since 'culture' is meant to describe those who have conserved history of association of mostly genetic-defined heritage, AND that those who succeed more are due to simultaneous inheritance of the worldly beneficial factors,...as in one's wealth, for a general term of measure of benefits most universally understood to represent power...the identity politics is about defining the individual by their association to some mixture of genetic and environmental factors on a statistical level. Thus, if Blacks are the predominating genetic class in the majority of those most impoverished, the 'identity' of the class "impoverished", gets assigned to be about some discrimination against those who are Black by the opposite extremes of the class "wealthy", who then get assigned (at present) to the White's and some presumed stereotypical 'cultures' inherited by virtue of their genetics.

If you want to stop the problems associated with "identity politics", you have to be able to recognize your own potential hypocrisy in how you interpret other people based upon genetic-cultural definitions and look at the problems regarding inheritance rights.

[mickthinks]

Let's say you are a philosopher. I can see how you might have a certain attachment to your identity as a philosophy.

You have missed my point, entirely I think. I consider myself to be a philosopher, certainly. I place myself in the category of philosophers.

That has nothing to do with my identity. It is rather the opposite of my identity, since it describes one of the ways in which I am part of a collective. "Philosopher" isn't just me; there are millions in the category.

If you want to know which philsopher is me, you need to find the one called "mickthinks"*.


*In case there is any doubt, "mickthinks" is my real name in real life.