The notion of identity involves evaluating the core essence
of who we perceive ourselves to be. We establish identities and maintain them
to construct different versions of individuals. These boundaries of identity
not only create lines in the sand but also spawn forms of hierarchy. Our
perceived identity represents the “subject.” The opposing identity challenges
the “subject” and embodies the “other.” Identity is meant to answer the
question “who am I?” The problem we face in the identity of politics lies in
the loss of direction. The overarching goal of any identity always leads to the
argument of equality. When we politicize our identity in the hope of reaching
equality we alienate the “other.” The “other” in this case represents anyone
outside of the “subject.” Trying to dismantle hierarchy only furthers the
divide between “subject” and “other.” I argue identity politics cannot
accomplish the goal of equality under a structure built on hierarchy.
The nature of identity remains complex and undefinable in
terms of contemporary political theory. William E. Connolly, the author of
Identity/Difference, struggles to form a working conception of identity. He
dismisses the notion of creating a pure identity that embodies what we perceive
to be. Connolly states “To possess a true identity is to be false to
difference, while to be true to difference is to sacrifice the promise of a true
identity.”1 Attempting to establish one true identity cannot be possible due to
the diversity of identities. The difference in this case represents the
“other.” The paradox he illustrates within his argument deals with the notion
that one cannot exist without the other. The “subject” must exist along with
the “other” in order to be considered an identity. We formulate identities and
ground them on the understanding of the difference. Taking this model into the
realm of politics proves to be problematic. Connolly articulates the process in
which Liberal Individualism enters into politics in order to normalize some
form of identity. He argues, “…a single model of the generic individual, the
minimalization of the contingent, constructed character of virtuous and
self-interested individuals, and the reduction of politics to the
juridical…deflate the politics of identity and difference.”1 Political identity
splits individuals. A political movement of establishing a general normative
identity only secludes the other. Here we can see the us versus them mentality.
By removing the difference or “other” we attempt to establish a true identity.
The issue with this movement sprouts the problematic nature of purity in an
identity. In a way one individual can become more pure than another. For
example, in terms of the concept of animal rights one can be tiered higher in
the hierarchy of the movement. A pure animal rights activist could be active
and consistently protesting and protecting the rights of animals. On the other
hand an individual can claim to be an activist just by becoming a vegetarian.
In a way the paradox of how one should act and think as an animal rights
activist become construed and difficult to understand. Thus the hierarchy forms
and destroys the movement due to conflicting views of what represents purity.
Connolly is correct in his arguments against the idea of a true identity and
that we cannot exclude the difference or “other” when we enter into the realm
of politics. After understanding a working concept of identity we can now turn
to a struggling and stagnant social movement.
The social movement deals with feminism and the gender
arguments. In the book Undoing Gender, written by Judith Butler, we will
examine the problematic nature of identifying in terms of gender. Gender and
sexual preference erupts in our political discourse and the struggle between
“subject” and “other” reaches new levels of ignorance. In order to ground
gender there must be legitimacy. In order to answer the question “What makes a
male/female?” we argue a set of legitimate physical features must be present in
order to be classified. If we are unable to identify a body then the body does
not constitute as a human being. Butler uses the controversial events that
focus on the life of a male boy living a female life to formulate her argument.
After birth, David Reimer underwent surgery to remove an abnormality called
phimosis. The doctors during the procedure accidentally began to incinerate
David’s penis under the new machine. Unclear on how to proceed, the parents
made the decision to raise David a female due to lacking the hetero-norm of
male genitalia. As David (now Brenda) grew up she began to experience
tendencies that represent the nature of male boys. She came under the
realization that she did not actually embody a female but instead a male. She
underwent surgery again to reverse back into his original sex. Butler outlines
these events in order to weave an argument in which she believes we must break
out of norms and practices involving the classification of gender. She states,
“Because Brenda was subjected to such scrutiny and, most importantly,
constantly and repeatedly subjected to a norm, a normalizing ideal that was
conveyed through a plurality of gazes, a norm applied to the body…”2 Butler
poses an important question on how we define a human. To insert the argument
into the political sphere I argue that holding an identified norm of gender
will eliminate the possibility of equality. Brenda recognizes the “subject” by
not embracing the “other” but through “self-reporting and self-understanding.”2
as Butler argues. We cannot allow the “subject” to assert political rule over
the “other.” Eliminating the norms allows for individuals to decide on how they
identify. Bodily attributes and normative practices do not define what a human
is. The issue with the concept lies in the inability for us to represent who we
want to be perceived as. Removing the body from the equation and relying on our
own interpretation will allow the hierarchy to dissipate. Again, how does one
recognize how we interpret ourselves and prevent the classification of a human
to bodily features? I argue we cannot answer these questions due to the
complexity of removing normative ideas and practices. Ability to declare an
identity remains our key focal point in the determination of who we are.
Individuals take pride in their identity and seek to
distinguish themselves from others with great divide. Eric Hobsbawm, author of
Identity Politics and the Left, goes into detail to why we argue the need to
create individualistic identities. The problem Hobsbawm discovers lies in the
way we declare our identities. He argues “…identities, like garments, are
interchangeable or wearable in combination rather than unique and, as it were,
stuck to the body.”3 Individualistic identities exist in a fluid manner that
harbors the ability to shift on a whim. People pick up identities constantly
just as a means of acceptance. In the realm of politics Hobsbawm claims
“…identity of politics assumes that one among the many identities we all have
is the one that determines, or at least dominates our politics: being a woman,
if you are feminist…”3 Identities then, embody social construction rather than
being a natural formation. Advocating Feminism represents the same principles
as advocating for equality. The general notion of equality spreads throughout
every social movement group. Instead of focusing on the overarching idea,
movements socially construct an identity that removes the “other.” Hobsbawm
asserts “the tendency of individuals to shift from one identity to another or
in fact take on many identities at once.”3 This notion creates a paradox
because individuals cannot claim many identities but instead they take on
different positions. Claiming more than one identity would equate to being more
than one person. In our political discourse of identity we tend to miss
represent ourselves under Hobsbawm’s idea. He argues, “They shift around and
can change, if need be more than once.”4 Throw out one paradigm of hierarchy
for another. A vicious cycle that continues to destroy what the movement seeks
to create. Changing and adapting identities to represent the constituents of
that identity to remove the “otherness” will never work under the structures of
hierarchy.
The ideology surrounding the “subject” and the “other” must
be stripped away in order for social equality to exist. Movement groups all
advocate the same rhetoric and in that goal of change they disregard other
social groups. Arguing against another social group is redundant. Why focus on
one social movement when others experience the same oppression under the same
system? Civil Rights did not bring about Women’s Rights, and Women’s Rights
will not bring about Gay Rights. Your movement shares equal rights as the
dominant identity…so what? You just move up the chain of hierarchy and oppress
the “other” from reaching the same luxury of equality as you. Unable to realize
they fight for the EXACT same freedoms as you did. Human rights covers every
race and gender. You cannot spin the ideology just to represent your needs
while you cast out the “other.” We are all equal in the rat race to enjoy the
luxuries of equality with the dominant identities. Dismantling a system from
within only corrupts the identity into thinking the system works in its best
interest. Just as Audre Lorde argues, “The Master’s tools will never dismantle
the Master’s house.” Only working outside of politics will we be able to quell
the ignorance of our perception of identity. Forget the idea of “true”
identity; establish your own identity through self-evaluation not through the
lens of difference. No one is homogenous and there will always be an “other.”
Cease the oppression of groups and accept the differences between each
individual in order to spread equality.
Endnotes
1Connolly, William. Identity/Difference. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1991. Print.
1. Connolly, 67
2. Connolly, 74
2 Butler , Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.
1-272. Print.
1. Butler, 67
2. Butler, 66
3 Hobsbawm, Eric. "Identity Politics and The Left."
Amiel and Melburn Trust. Institute of Education, 2 May 1996. Web. 10 Apr 2013.
<http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/articles/1996 annual lecture.htm>.
No comments:
Post a Comment