The Demystification Of Identity

Identity

What is it? What is it not? Why is it important?

Identity provides us with a sense of how we fit into the social world. It is different from our sense of self which we use to categorize how we are unique individuals in comparison. 

When one is to consider identity, one is to look at creed, present geographic location, past geographic decent, skin color, social class, gender, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, career/job, and individual and collective sense of culture. These are all categories that provide a multitude of labels that we apply to ourselves and others. The list I provided are just some examples of how we formulate identity; one can also develop identity through narrative arcs such as rebel, villain, hero, victim, outcast, etc.

These categories exist because one desires the ability to classify what they experience, both externally and internally, in the world as a way of developing a sense of meaning. Through deepening meaningfulness, we provide substance to our reasons to survive. After all, identity gives us reasons to do something, to serve a useful purpose, and conversely, it gives others reasons to do something to us. 

All of us, to varying degrees, have overlapping identities, exhibiting how we can belong to multiple groups. This observation is studied further through a sociological term known as intersectionality. One can be a cisgender male (meaning that the categories of gender and sex are in alignment) who is an upper-middle-class American of Lebanese descent. Each intersecting identity provides its own unique meaning. 

Culture

We can further shake up identity by adding in culture. Culture can often be misunderstood due to its frequent attachment to identity. By definition, culture is composed of the beliefs and behaviors of a group of people. 

All identities have culture. This means that through self-identification with a group, you likely think and behave similarly through your group's shared sense of culture. For example, identifying as Mexican may evoke certain expectations or ideas of popular everyday cuisine options within the culture. 

Culture becomes convoluted when we expect ourselves or others to behave in a specific way, providing a false consensus amongst both cultural insiders and outsiders. Culture, at this point, becomes indistinguishable from identity because culture comes to be viewed as concrete as opposed to fluid. Most people have other identities and a sense of self. Using the previous example of Mexicans having shared cuisine, we can observe that the belief that Mexicans only eat Mexican food would be an example of false consensus whether it is held by insiders or outsiders of the identity.

According to Donald Brown in his book Human Universals, culture is formulated through the denial of human nature within the context of a specific environment. This takes an evolutionary psychological perspective, meaning that by denying our primitive urges, we may evolve to become more sophisticated beings. 

In addition, Brown also points out that culture is largely arbitrary. It evolves, devolves, and changes as cultural groups see fit through the subjective interpretation of the world around them. 

Perhaps one of the most prominent examples of how identity and culture are different and yet thought of as being the same is the example of not all homosexuals being gay men. Allow me to explain: homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and being gay is a cultural identity. 

In my experience, most people struggle to comprehend how these two identifiers could begin to be differentiated. Gayness, generally speaking, cannot exist without proclivity toward homosexual attraction; however, homosexual attraction does not make someone gay, as the only way to be gay is through self-identification. In addition, gayness describes how someone behaves, their mannerisms, beliefs, interests, etc. All in all, gayness falls into the camp of culture. Homosexuality is simply the description of same-sex attraction. 

Regardless, applying gayness to homosexuality likely came about through an evolutionary psychological process for the purpose of increasing social cohesion, thereby decreasing isolation amongst those with similar sexual proclivities. The culture has changed in many ways within the past few decades; one can see this by narrowing scope and looking through the lens of the pop culture interests of gay men as fascinations with Judy Garland morphed to Cher morphed to Madonna morphed to Dua Lipa. 

Unification through icons is just one of the ways this group has found increased social cohesion (other examples include belief in supernatural/religion (gravitation toward astrology), childhood fears (rejection/abandonment surrounding coming out), and aggression ("throwing shade"). While many cultural standards are not practiced by all, one can at least identify commonalities. 

Often a topic of high sensitivity is the subject of blackness and what it means to be culturally black. Race and culture do not always align either, yet they are frequently thought to be synonymous. Those who identify as black will have different perceptions of what it means to be black based on geographic region, socioeconomic status, and other environmental circumstances (for example, how one was raised by their primary caregiver(s)). 

Yes, even within black circles, there is conjecture and false consensus based on how "black" one should or should not be. This is done generally when applying ancestry, more particularly the collective (often intergenerational) trauma or suffering of a people. For example, some who identify as black may desire to keep the historical atrocities of slavery cognizant and can often be more critical toward those who also identify as black but do not believe that most or all institutions are set against their success. Those who identify as black and have assimilated more toward the culture of the masses (i.e., white Americans, at 76.3% of the U.S. population) may be labeled as an "Uncle Tom," meant to convey they've betrayed their community. 

Pushing further, identities are almost always socially constructed labels (with the exception of the biological distinctions of sex, sexual orientation, and genealogical traits (hair color, skin color, predisposition toward certain diseases/ailments)). For example, race technically does not exist other than for the simple reason that we have willed it to exist, likely to have in-group cohesion to protect ourselves and others in the pursuit of survival. 

Race began as a way to categorize observances in the physical trait differences amongst groups. Gradually, behaviors became attached toward those with physical trait differences, with a special emphasis on skin color, eventually leading to culture being lumped into the mix. 

The belief in racial differences then became a machine to describe experience, not just the person of the identified racial group but those of different racial groups.

What we refer to as racism today is often when someone of a different racial group expects a person of a particular race to behave in a very specific way. This might be done through profiling, stereotyping, utilizing dominating derogatory language, exclusion, and real or threatened violence or antagonism. 

Most people agree with the statement that "racism (sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, etc.) is wrong." What seems to be inconclusive amongst scientists and society at large is if attaching culture to physical trait differences (race) is wrong. 

While it can feel validating to sense that "this person is like me and I am like them," it can also feel hurtful to sense "this other person thinks I am like this when I am not like that," or "they think I am like this, what if they are right"? In the first script, I am describing a sense of social cohesion from the experience of sharing likeness with another, the second script is a misattributed likeness based on another's preconception (also known as stereotyping), and the final script is a discomfort in someone recognizing something about oneself before you are able to recognize it yourself. 

The scrips mentioned prior don't simply apply to race. They apply to all behaviors. There is a universality to sharing labels, being mislabeled, and being uncomfortably yet accurately labeled. 

Cultural Criticism

When someone uncomfortably but accurately labels or shuns a particular behavior, they are criticizing either an individual or collective aspect of one's culture. Israeli historian Noah Yuval Harari argues in his book 21 Rules For The 21st Century that not all cultures are equal. While this is undoubtedly a provocative argument and does not meet the present demands of political correctness (which is a culture in itself as what is determined to be politically correct or incorrect changes over the course of time and is arbitrarily determined), given the current state of identity politics and protectionism surrounding different groups of people, if one considers this proposition further it begins to exhibit some merit. 

Think, for example, about the cultural practice of female genital mutilation. While those within the cultures (some, but not all, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries) who engage in this practice may argue its merit, cultural outsiders see this as inhumane. Cultural pluralists will say those who are for or against this practice are neither right nor wrong; however, when looking at the psychological and medical research, it becomes clear just how harmful the procedure (if one can even call it such) is. 

Diving even further into the idea that not all cultures are equal, we can examine the beliefs of both sides of the political aisle. Liberalism and conservatism are identities with their own unique cultures. 

For example, some liberals may subscribe to the ideology of modern anti-racism movements, which utilize definitions of racism to include power in their conceptualization of how racism behaves in society. Many have interpreted this to mean that those who hold power cannot accuse other groups of discrimination, regardless of whether they are a minority or majority (i.e., you cannot be racist against white people despite some who identify as white potentially having more adverse experiences collectively compared to another individual of a different racial background). 

In an attempt to curb specific ideas behind the current iteration of anti-racism, some conservatives are striving to get critical race theory banned from schools. Critical race theory aims to view history not just through the lens of white men but through minority groups, who may have been adversely impacted by their decision-making. 

Both sides of the political aisle are attempting to silence each other. Conservatives need to recognize that to avoid the tragedies of the past, we must look further into the experiences of the disaffected, and liberals need to understand that all people can be discriminatory regardless of their skin color. Unfortunately, these types of contentions would likely be an example of the myside bias and exert group narcissistic tendencies. 

In an Atlantic article, psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman identifies group narcissism as being less focused on having a healthy social identity and more so on out-group prejudice. Having prejudice toward an entire group of people, regardless of identity, could be technically categorized as discriminatory.  

Cultural Stagnation

Linguistic professor and author of Woke Racism, John McWhorter, points out how 3rd-wave anti-racism movements, while believing themselves to be benevolent in their propositions, have become dogmatic in their education of others and perpetuate self-victimization amongst communities of color. 

Some of these dogmatic contradictions include:

• "Silence about racism is violence" vs. "Elevate the voice of the oppressed over your own."

• "Show interest in multiculturalism" vs. "Do not culturally appropriate. What is not your culture is not for you and you may not try it or do it."

• "You must strive eternally to understand the experiences of" (race/ethnicity)"people" vs. "You can never understand what it is to be"(race/ethnicity), "and if you think you do you're racist."

With such rigid and simultaneously paradoxical definitions of what it means to be someone who is an anti-racist, these viewpoints essentially dictate that a culture can only behave and value very specific things. Thus, not allowing them to explore their identities or evolve in thought or demeanor. 

In Intellectuals and Race, author Thomas Sowell offers further rationale for the dangers of being unable to criticize someone, regardless of their identities, for their behaviors, stating, "if the dogmas of multiculturalism declare different cultures equally valid, and hence sacrosanct against efforts to change them, then these dogmas simply complete the sealing off of a vision from facts––and sealing off many people in lagging groups from the advances available from other cultures around them––leaving nothing but an agenda of resentment-building and crusades on the side of the angels against the forces of evil––however futile or even counterproductive these may turn out to be for those who are the ostensible beneficiaries of such moral melodramas." Translation: if we are forbidden from encouraging the culture of a group to change, then it is likely they will be and feel left behind and angry towards other cultures as they advance in their well-being past them.

If it seems like I'm only picking on communities of color, as a white man writing this article, I realize this could be problematic; let us then discuss some of the criticisms of white culture. Many with Irish ancestry struggle with alcoholism, and many with German ancestry struggle with shame and control. Many whites, in general, can have proclivities toward grandiose narcissism (turn on C-SPAN or an MTV reality show, and I'll point them out to you) as exhibited through an inability to admit mistakes and entitlement (without applied effort) toward certain rewards or achievements.

Most noticeably, in the context of interacting with non-whites, many whites refuse to acknowledge the historical atrocities they've committed upon out-groups. This willful ignorance creates a reasonable fear of persecution amongst other identities. On the converse, there are also many whites who are fully aware of these historical atrocities and have internalized a sense of shame, impacting themselves as well as projecting their shame onto other identities and treating them as fragile and sacred. Both of these extremes, I find, are legitimate and substantiated criticisms. 

By demystifying identity as well as its attachment to culture, we can see that viewing identity with such rigid sensibilities cannot only harm ourselves but also harm others with whom we share or have different behaviors. This calls for various tools and heuristics for how to reconsider identity and its role in our lives and others. 

Solutions

While many of these solutions do not pretend to even begin to resolve the plethora of institutional or societal injustices experienced on a daily basis by many, from a psychotherapeutic standpoint, they can offer pathways forward with regard to cognitive and behavioral optimization. 

Speaking up

While we could all benefit from increased compassion for ourselves and others, we should consider the importance for one to identify and communicate a problem behavior in a gentle manner (or in the way that we would like to be approached for having a problem behavior ourselves). We must also be mindful that we cannot persistently police the behaviors of others as this is an immense responsibility and could lead to the identity/narrative arc of being a "martyr" or "meddler." In the end, the best we can do is learn to be more comfortable speaking up when we observe or experience injustice (subjectively defined) and know how to differentiate between things that we can and cannot change. 

The criticism of culture becomes necessary when certain cultural behaviors of an individual or group cause undue harm to others. However, even I must admit that this directive is vague. Many people have varying levels of sensitivity, meaning that if you are to point out a behavior to an individual, they may react adversely due to specific, unspoken, insecure childhood core beliefs (i.e., "I'm unworthy," "I'm unloveable," or "I'm helpless"). 

In addition, from an introductory psychological perspective, we know that denial is a problem that runs rampant amongst our species. If you point out a troublesome behavior to someone, they may neither admit it or accuse you of being a bigot. Needless to say, this is not an easy problem to solve.

What about accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.? 

• 1. Ask yourself if you're overgeneralizing. If yes, admit it. Not all people that belong to a particular group behave in the same way; however, that does not mean that sub-cultures cannot exist within cultures. It's essential to narrow down criticisms, as much as one is able, to an individual level in order to identify root behaviors. The behaviors themselves, in most cases, will be maladaptive, meaning that they were formed as a response to an adverse experience or shift in circumstance that likely does not benefit the person or those around them.

• 2. Refrain from utilizing derogatory language in a derogatory manner. "Nigger", "kike", "faggot", "tranny", "spic", "cunt", etc., are all words that have a negative historical context. Understanding their history is not enough, though. Context and intent are important, despite some people's claim that they are not (no, words are not violence, they do, however, have the ability to evoke discomforting emotion). Referencing them in recounting a story or referencing their historical usage does not mean that you cannot say these words. Banning them outright or banning usage by certain identities gives the words more power for which they can be further weaponized. However, (and not that it needs to be said to) using the words to hurt or harm someone should be forbidden. The reason this action should be forbidden is that the intent of using such derogatory language is to convey that you believe that someone is worthless. If you genuinely believe that someone is worthless, I recommend looking inward. When you use language with the intent to harm someone else, it is apparent that you are likely projecting. For those who are the recipients of such grotesque hurled insults, it is crucial for you not to internalize the projections of others. You are not worthless. Be mindful of your insecurities, as someone validating an insecurity in such a verbally accosting way can penetrate your psychological defenses. This can create a deep wound that can taint your perception of the world or different groups of people (otherwise known as projective identification).

• 3. Know that all groups of people can be discriminatory. While working as a psychotherapist in South LA, I heard an abundance of accounts of how black people viewed and overly generalized Latinos and vice versa. Any group that says that they cannot be discriminatory is acting from a place of in-group narcissism. Neo-nazis and ANTIFA would be considered the most commonly known modern right- and left-wing examples of severe in-group narcissism. Each employs their logic for why they are superior. Group narcissism can look less extreme, though; a group that overemphasizes their victimhood while abdicating individual responsibility is likely operating from a place of vulnerable narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism generally comes from a place of insecurity or uncertainty. Often, this looks like someone having to face a change that will better themselves and the relationships with others around them but is fearful surrounding the sacrifices they must make to increase their capacity for personal growth. They may contest and act in a supercilious manner to protect against feelings of shame.

Humility

The first part of this article was spent criticizing an overreliance and emphasis on identity and culture. This doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Identity and culture can provide us with many beautiful things. Variations in food, beliefs, garb, thought, art, and method can give anyone outside of a particular culture insight into the self. 

Our mere exposure to others' differences is part of what makes life so curious and beckons us to explore. What is life without the question: "what is life"? Being able to see the world through our eyes and imagine what it is like to see it through someone else's is an insight in itself. If we were all the same, I suspect experience itself would be severely dull. 

For these reasons, we must be willing to have a sense of humility, especially when someone views our behavior or the behavior of a particular identity or culture that we belong to as harmful to ourselves or others. All identities and cultures are guilty of behaving poorly, including your own. Obsessiveness over identity, in general, will prevent one from recognizing this truth. It is our nature to learn through our mistakes, whether we are learning individually or collectively. If you refuse to learn, particularly for the sake of protecting identity, you refuse to grow.

Prior to providing others with feedback concerning their behavior, you must be willing to receive feedback. In doing so, you are giving the other person and yourself a grand opportunity to better yourselves and increase trust. 

Self Transcendence

Beyond identity exists our sense of self. The concept of self is encompassed by all of what makes you unique. In pursuing a meaningful life, we must be willing to sacrifice and take on new things that make us better. 

By making ourselves better, we transcend the confines of what it means to be us and what it means to belong to a group. For many, this is incredibly terrifying as it involves, in a way, a self-induced spiritual grieving. 

In sacrificing anything in life, or put another way, in creating change for ourselves, there is a mourning that commences due to the loss of what we thought or believed our life was, only to welcome what our life could actually be. Transcending who you are is the gift that allows you to achieve and triumph. 

Self-transcending does not mean that identity is abandoned. It just means that subverting certain cultural norms of identity can allow the identity and culture to expand into something not just for the betterment of yourself but also for those who share your identity. In redefining identity, you can redefine culture and vice versa. 

The present version of one's culture is based on a past version, and by imagining what could be better and what might help yourself and others, you can pave the way for something exciting to emerge. Look to the strengths of your identity to decide what you would like to keep, and explore the strengths of identities that are not your own for inspiration of what could be. 

In conclusion, it is crucial to have hope. To have hope for one's future is to believe that the change you imagine is possible. Without hope, you are unable to make the change occur. Extended periods of lacking hope can lead to something known as learned helplessness, which exists in many cultures. 

This means that groups of people have been exposed to frequent adverse events to the degree that they tolerate the idea that nothing will change for them. Learned helplessness is a feature of depression that can play a part in identity, particularly if a mass group of people finds connection in this shared experience. 

If you believe that you or your culture may be experiencing depression as a result of learned helplessness, remember: self-transcendence involves pursuing something beyond what you know. Depression is a disorder of rigidity, an exercise in complacency, and an overemphasis on order.

Moving past a cultural torpidity and depression focuses on furthering the self over preserving identity and culture. Pursue what interests you and is simultaneously unexplored territory. You can reconnect when your hope is renewed, albeit be careful of reconnecting what stripped you of hope prior. Connection is meaningful, but what's more important is your sanity. 

References

Appiah, A. (2018). Classification. In The lies that bind: Rethinking identity (pp. 1–32). essay, Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Barry Kaufman, S. (2021, November 6). What collective narcissism does to society. The Atlantic. Retrieved March 22, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/11/group-narcissism/620632/

Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. McGraw Hill.

Frankl, V. E. (1969). What is meant by meaning? In The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy (pp. 33–57). essay, Plume.

Harari, Y. N. (2019). Immigration: Some cultures might be better than others. In 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (pp. 143–160). essay, Spiegel & Grau.

Laing, R. D. (1967). The politics of experience. Ballantine Books.

McWhorter, J. H. (2021). What kind of people? In Woke racism: How a new religion has betrayed Black America (pp. 1–22). essay, Portfolio/Penguin, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC.

Sowell, T. (2013). Race and cosmic justice. In Intellectuals and race (pp. 107–121). essay, Basic Books.

U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: United States. United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221