by Ali-Asad
What’s the first question you ask someone you’ve just met?
Where are you from?
Yeah, that’s a pretty popular question. Does the answer matter though?
I could say that I’m from Pakistan (got the passport), or that I’m from Oman (lived there for 11 years) or Kenya (lived there for the next 7 years) or why not England (after all, I was born there).
So, where am I from?
You choose.
But does it really matter?
I don’t think so. I mean, come on, why did you ask that question in the first place? I don’t really think anyone really cares where you’re from. What we all really want to know, and ask, is: who are you?
It’s as simple as that. Yet how many times have you asked a person you just met who they were? How about a best friend you’ve known your whole life; have you ever asked them who they were? Isn’t that what matters? Apparently identity doesn’t matter. Instead, categories matter.
Where are you from?
New York. Ah ok (so that’s why you talk so fast)
China. Ah ok (so that’s why you can’t speak English)
India. Ah ok (that’s why you’re studying all the time)
What do you do?
I’m an environmental activist. Ahh ok (so you’re a liberal nutjob)
I’m a banker. Ahhh ok (so you’re a capitalist pig)
I’m a writer. Ahhh ok (so you live in a box)
Identity matters. However, identity has been reduced to a collection of stereotypical subcategories within aspects of life. It’s as if all I need to do is obtain your location, your profession and your religion…and there – I’ve identified who you are. Recall the early days of online chatting where the stranger’s greeting was a/s/l? (Age/Sex/Location) I.e. who are you?
It makes absolutely no sense to ascertain a person’s identity based on factors out of their control.
I didn’t choose where I lived most of my life.
I didn’t choose the religion of my parents.
I didn’t choose the year I was born in.
I didn’t choose my gender.
Can the above be part of my identity? Yes, they can influence your identity. But they are not who you are. Your identity can really only consist of those characteristics that were within you power to determine. So, one of my examples above was incorrect. A person chooses their profession, so yes, that does become
part of identity.
But why does identity matter? It’s dangerous. Very dangerous.
According to Amin Malouf, a Lebanese writer, people align themselves with whichever affiliation of theirs is under attack. It’s a natural reaction. If someone is killed because they have a particular affiliation, and I have that same affiliation, what will stop me from also being killed? Immediately this person gets attached to the affiliation under attack. This idea summarizes one of the key points in Maalouf’s In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong
Because anything that threatens or conflicts with this primary allegiance will automatically be branded as evil, wrong and necessary to fight against. These people quickly define those who they are in conflict with as ‘the other’. This separation into ‘us’ and ‘the other’ automatically creates a false dichotomy. ‘We’ are necessarily right, moral and fair while ‘the other’ is evil, less human and always, always wrong.
“You’re either with us or against us”
This mentality reduces ‘the other’ to a fundamentally non-human status. The concerns, desires and history of ‘the other’ don’t matter because they’ve been defined as inherently wrong. The fallacy in this reasoning is apparent: no group can be totally right or totally wrong. A claim to total righteousness is akin to saying that “God is on our side”. Rather, we need to strive to be on ‘God’s side’ – and let that search for truth define our identity; to be human is to be a seeker of truth.
Any thoughts?
Comment below.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Uncovering Identity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
word this was a bad post.
you essentially spent a bulk of your space stating that identity, as understood in the contemporary framework, is a mere shallow and superficial category system.
Its rhetoric that serves as a polite way for people to understand your context, relying on stereotypes obviously. Being from NJ, it is stereotypically noted as you being a terrible driver. Whether this is true or not, the context from which I understand you is created in my mental atmosphere.
What suprises people about others is that their expectations of you based on stereotypes are broken or surpassed. "You are from NJ, but you are such a great driver. I like you." Its a question of expectations.
Now to answer the other half of your post, I am not too sure I understand your point. You state: "people align themselves with whichever affiliation of theirs is under attack. It’s a natural reaction." I find the inverse true, people associate themselves with the side that is in power or leading to prevent any societal repercussions. If I fnd out that people who think the color green is rad are being killed, then I will claim my favorite color is blue. Human tendency is to conceal their inner beliefs in the face of threat. It is similar to the Shi'i concept of Taqiyya. But, you should know that.
-Alhumdullilah
p.s. consider this 1 of the 2 good comments I owe you.
Yo! interesting article! so it seems you're making a distinction between what "influences" one's identity and what identity actually is. That might be fair. But I still think these are very important in determining my identity simply because it's very easy to make a connection between these and identity (a big DUH considering the term "influence"). My age, sex, and (perhaps) location--with regards to where I've lived most of my life are all part of what I am. My maturity (or lack thereof at times) is due to my age; my overwhelming strength and athleticism are due to my sex--ok maybe not (lol), but at least my psychology is. And my living in Nigeria and America has GREATLY influenced my identity. In fact, I hardly see a distinction between influence and identity in this matter when I say I am Nigerian-American. So this being the greatest influence on identity for many, perhaps it's not so fruitless to ask that question--"where are you from", backed up with age. It's the easiest way to learn something about someone VERY quickly. Being proud of the answer isn't so bad either. Also, there's a certain amount of righteousness allowed and I think most of us know where to draw the line (call it fitrah, natural human kindness, reason, what have you). I HATE hummus, and I think it's one of the nastiest foods I've ever eaten and I don't have to like it. I'll always think Nigerian food is far superior to other food. naturally, that means everything else is of a lower caliber--only because of where everything else comes from, which is in a nutshell, not Nigeria. It's pure smug bias, and no one should feel threatened or othered by it. Most don't take this to the extreme of "God's on on our side". Nevertheless, I suppose that type of righteousness will always be something to be weary of, and keeping it in mind wouldn't be so bad.
Sim, you make a great point – we would be surprised by a good driver from new jersey because that challenges an underlying “expectation”. But do we need those “expectations” in the first place? Also, you bring up the interesting point of concealing identity when it’s under attack. But consider the example of the Rwanda genocide where people were killed for being of a certain ethnicity. You can’t conceal your ethnicity…so what then?
Crazyboi, you talk about how your influences and your identity are the same thing. But who determined your influences? Just because you were born in Nigeria doesn’t mean you have to like Nigerian food. If you say yes being born in Nigeria has to make me like Nigerian food, that’s not your identity because in this case you had no freedom in the matter. Your view of identity appears very deterministic, as if we have no free will in the matter. I would reason that only those aspects over which you have free will can count towards your identity. The rest are choices made by either God or nature or your parents – their choices are not your choices. I will give you that you can choose to accept the influences and choices of others. But again, it was your own choosing that made them part of your identity, nothing else.
I see what you're saying...I failed to address the "choice" thing the first time. But still it seems we have we have different views of what "identity" is. For me identity doesn't stop at what you have chosen. My definition is not at all deterministic, and i do believe one CAN make a conscious decision of how much certain things influence him (and certainly not always). Yet, as I said, my being Nigerian is part of part of my identity. And that is not because I chose it. It was simply part of what/who I am. So pretty much, I count identity to mean who you are (and as we know, that's a big question), including what you have chosen and what you haven't chosen. I mean with the alternative, it's like we already acknowledge something to be part of your identity. Then we go backwards and determine that it is not a "genuine" part of your identity because you had no influence over it. That's just crazy.
Relweezy
Who determined your being Nigerian? I will concede that being Nigerian may be part of your identity. But since it wasn't determined by you, I don't think it's a part of your identity that matters. More importantly, if it does matter, you're more likely to get into the whole 'us versus them' mentality whenever your Nigerianess is threatened - that's the danger I'm pointing out.
I wouldn't say that it's a part that doesn't matter, but yea, I would agree that it matters much less than others. And if my Nigerianess were to be threatened, it would most likely be by Old Nigerians saying how "American" I've become. In that case I would take it to all be in jest. if not, screw them...and that would definitely not put me in the mood to defend my Nigerianess. I'd just be angry. And it'd just be me against annoying Nigerians. But I do see where you are coming from.
Post a Comment