fudgefactorfive
New Member
When did "identity" start to get so complicated? and where? and if you can be arsed, why?
Is it actually just a phenomenon of the late 20th century educated classes in the West? Or has it been around as long as consciousness?
If you sit down and try to imagine what it must be like to think like a person from another time and place - probably a futile exercise, but still - you have to get the question right. "What's your identity?" isn't going to get you very far with a 10th century Chinese peasant or even, I think, with a 19th century Londoner, no matter what their class and education.
But it seems to me you could ask "What is your place in society and who else is like you, where are your allegiances?" to get responses that almost fit, from almost any time and place, provided there's a common language that's broad enough. I get this feeling that most people from most times and places are going to be likely to think in terms of what their role is, what their station in life is - head of the family, servant, citizen, ruler, high priest - or possibly in terms of their function within society and their relationships - hunter, shaman, craftsman, mother, brother, friend who understands. Different societies will place different emphasis on different kinds of position and relationship - compare Victorian Britain with ancient Sparta - but still, that's the bedrock. (Religions that revolve around a deity or other supernatural forces having a "master plan" feed the "station in life" tendency very effectively.)
Most people do still think in those terms. It's hard to imagine not thinking like that at least most of the time. (Why?)
But at some quite recent point - except it's never really a point, is it, more like a big smear - "civilised" societies started to layer more crap on top of all that. Relatively dense clusters of villages and towns might naturally produce identities based on geographical features or language or small cultural differences, like which end you break your egg. Perhaps more and more social displacement - mass economic emigrations, better transport, more "miscegenation" as it used to be called - alongside better record-keeping brought about a need (or a fashion) for keeping track of your familial history, your dynasty, your "racial" roots (although it's hard for me to imagine this happening in a world with less racism and classism). Expanding nations - and then groups of nations, empires - that opt for large scale warmongering would foster nationalist identities faster than any other. There would also be a trend for increased proselytisation and evangelism - every religion creating networks intertwined with every other, competing for a share of the flocks. Then political forces representing racist and other fascistic tendencies started to encourage development of concepts like "black identity", "gay identity" etc. for purposes of solidarity.
And then, most recently, capitalism piled it all on - how you dress, the styles you appreciate, those things you discern favourably: music, politics, heroes, enemies. Mods and rockers, goths. The ultimate incarnation of this in my opinion is the fad in Japan for communing in small groups in public places dressed as a cowboys or fairies or air hostesses because it's the "look" and the "self-expression" you "identify" with. (Hard not to look on it as a desperate cry for help.)
It's like identity gets more complicated the more leisure time you have to pursue such questions. Or - less harsh - is it just population density?
How did all this come about? What's identity's history? Am I wrong in pinning this on modern Western capitalist times? Have other big "civilisations" had a concept of social identity that we easily recognise? Are changes in the way societies treat identity moving in one particular direction over time, or is it just random ebb and flow in an abstract plane throughout world history?
And does it matter?
Is it actually just a phenomenon of the late 20th century educated classes in the West? Or has it been around as long as consciousness?
If you sit down and try to imagine what it must be like to think like a person from another time and place - probably a futile exercise, but still - you have to get the question right. "What's your identity?" isn't going to get you very far with a 10th century Chinese peasant or even, I think, with a 19th century Londoner, no matter what their class and education.
But it seems to me you could ask "What is your place in society and who else is like you, where are your allegiances?" to get responses that almost fit, from almost any time and place, provided there's a common language that's broad enough. I get this feeling that most people from most times and places are going to be likely to think in terms of what their role is, what their station in life is - head of the family, servant, citizen, ruler, high priest - or possibly in terms of their function within society and their relationships - hunter, shaman, craftsman, mother, brother, friend who understands. Different societies will place different emphasis on different kinds of position and relationship - compare Victorian Britain with ancient Sparta - but still, that's the bedrock. (Religions that revolve around a deity or other supernatural forces having a "master plan" feed the "station in life" tendency very effectively.)
Most people do still think in those terms. It's hard to imagine not thinking like that at least most of the time. (Why?)
But at some quite recent point - except it's never really a point, is it, more like a big smear - "civilised" societies started to layer more crap on top of all that. Relatively dense clusters of villages and towns might naturally produce identities based on geographical features or language or small cultural differences, like which end you break your egg. Perhaps more and more social displacement - mass economic emigrations, better transport, more "miscegenation" as it used to be called - alongside better record-keeping brought about a need (or a fashion) for keeping track of your familial history, your dynasty, your "racial" roots (although it's hard for me to imagine this happening in a world with less racism and classism). Expanding nations - and then groups of nations, empires - that opt for large scale warmongering would foster nationalist identities faster than any other. There would also be a trend for increased proselytisation and evangelism - every religion creating networks intertwined with every other, competing for a share of the flocks. Then political forces representing racist and other fascistic tendencies started to encourage development of concepts like "black identity", "gay identity" etc. for purposes of solidarity.
And then, most recently, capitalism piled it all on - how you dress, the styles you appreciate, those things you discern favourably: music, politics, heroes, enemies. Mods and rockers, goths. The ultimate incarnation of this in my opinion is the fad in Japan for communing in small groups in public places dressed as a cowboys or fairies or air hostesses because it's the "look" and the "self-expression" you "identify" with. (Hard not to look on it as a desperate cry for help.)
It's like identity gets more complicated the more leisure time you have to pursue such questions. Or - less harsh - is it just population density?
How did all this come about? What's identity's history? Am I wrong in pinning this on modern Western capitalist times? Have other big "civilisations" had a concept of social identity that we easily recognise? Are changes in the way societies treat identity moving in one particular direction over time, or is it just random ebb and flow in an abstract plane throughout world history?
And does it matter?
If you're "identity" is hard to fathm then perhaps you worrying about it too much...
thank you
