I find “identity” a tricky concept. In my work as a doctor, I’d often encounter a patient who had identified with their illness so much that it had become the primary identity they presented to the world. They might introduce themselves by saying “I’m John, I’ve got MS”, or, “I’m a cancer survivor”, or “I’m a diabetic”…..in some ways, this is a phenomenon driven by the medical profession which, way too often, focuses on a patient’s illness or pathology, rather than on the individual patient.
I would start a consultation with an open question, like “Tell me about yourself”, or “Tell me your story”. A very common response would involve the patient telling me their diagnosis, perhaps some of the tests they’d had done, and procedures and treatments they’d had, or were still having. Then they’d stop. I’d stay silent, because at that point they hadn’t told me anything about themselves at all. I’ve no doubt this was because they were giving the response they expected doctors wanted. Sometimes I’d need to follow with something like “Tell me, then, what’s been your experience of [x]?” or “When were you last completely well?” followed by “Tell me what was happening in your life at that point?” The personal story, the individual experience, was always more complex and nuanced than the reduced, medicalised one.
Identity is used as a shorthand way of saying “This is me”, but there are several big problems with that.
It seems to me that behind the issue of identity, and, in particular, “identity politics”, lies a desire to be seen, to be acknowledged, accepted and treated fairly. All, perfectly reasonable, and important goals. But I still find it problematic because I’m not a fan of categorisation and labelling. I don’t want to be reduced to either one main label, or even a small set of them.
Too often, identity is reduced to gender, ethnicity, sexuality and/or age. Some wear these labels proudly, and if that suits you, then fine, but it comes with a huge risk – the risk of not being seen, not being acknowledged, accepted or treated fairly as the individual you are.
Adopting an identity can be a way of belonging. It can be like a membership of a club where all the members share the same identity. But such grouping also comes with the creation of “in” groups and “out” ones. Whilst it may give a sense of belonging to the members, it can create a sense of “the other”, both from the group towards those not in the group, and from those not in the group, towards the group.
Identities, in other words, tend to be simultaneously inclusive and exclusive, supporting the creation of relationships with others who recognise the same identity, whilst separating and dividing them from others who don’t.
However, my biggest objection to identity really is the fact that no human being can, nor should, be reduced to single feature, characteristic or category, not least because no human being remains the same throughout a lifetime.
Rick Rubin writes – .”…we are always changing, growing, evolving. We learn and forget things. We move through different moods, thoughts, and unconscious processes. The cells in our body die and regenerate. No one is the same person all day long. Even if the world outside were to remain static [which it can’t] the information we took in would still be ever-changing.”
The fact is, the universe had never created a life identical to yours before you came along, and it will never create another, identical to yours, after you die. Your uniqueness is a complex, ever changing blend of molecules, energies, and information, in constant co-creation with others and with the rest of the world. You can’t be truly understood, truly seen, acknowledged, accepted and treated fairly if your individuality is reduced.
Reduction opens the door to control, and the tech giants, the corporations and governments want control, not by seeing you and treating you fairly, but by categorising you and manipulating you. By limiting and monitoring you.
Heroes Not Zombies 