Identity is Tragedy?

[premjan]

In today's world, being labelled as 'X' or 'Y' can lead you to suffer a lot of negative consequences. Usually you can't control the labels you are born with, though if you are lucky you may try to shed them at some point. Even shedding your labels involves opportunities - the chance to experience some broader or more inclusive culture for instance. However, some labels (e.g. racial) are impossible to throw off. Others (e.g. cultural ones) may be pretty hard to throw off as well as they may be linked directly with a language you speak. Others (e.g. being Jewish) may be linked with your identity in a way which you are proud of and do not wish to cast off.

For instance, according to an AFP news story from Khaleej Times (Oct 24) Tibetans (many of them children) are still getting shot trying to leave Tibet for India, partly because apparently they face educational discrimination in Tibet - Chinese pay much lower tuition fees than ethnic Tibetans who try to attend Chinese public schools).

If you're Cuban you may face problems both from your own government or any other country where you try to take shelter. If you're Palestinian then you don't presently have the opportunity of having a state even though you may be better off economically than a poor Muslim in Egypt or Libya. If you're Israeli you may be a target of terrorism. If you are a Hindu in Kashmir you have a very high likelihood of being ethnically cleansed. If you are a Bangladeshi immigrant to India you may be easily recruited to commit terrorism and then become a target of suspicion. If you are a Muslim in Gujarat you may face slaughter from Hindu mobs. If you are a Muslim in Southern Thailand you may become mujahideen. If a Tamil in Sri Lanka you may die in ethnic violence. If you are a woman or child or even aged or infirm, you may suffer mutiple forms of violence, no matter where you live on the globe or what your other labels are.

Identity is multifaceted - much of the problem seems to be clashes between different aspects of identity. It seems to me that we need to accept the multifaceted nature of identity and create systems, technologies and solutions that respect multiple facets of our identity while at the same time recognizing and efficiently resolving genuine clashes between our identity and those of other people. With modern technology - not so difficult. This is basically a political problem. If people have more and better means to aggregate politically it is even possible for them to fight oppression in more creative ways - for instance workers of the world unite, or creation of other political factions, e.g. disabled people the world over.

What are the ways in which we can productively address this churning of the world due to identity?

[Streamwinner]

One obvious way is to identify a threat external to the globe. Identity is based more on "what one is not" than "what one is" (e.g., a conservative is known in contrast to a liberal, a Catholics are known in contrast to Protestants, etc.). Thus, if we could wage war with martians we would be united as a global community. Of course, this won't necessarily solve our problems.

Another alternative is to question why we need to be defending our identities in the first place. In my opinion, this is left overs from the biological programming to survive (cf. abhinevesha, or "will to live"). This has been associated with our identities and, when our identities are perceived to be under threat, we react in ways that are prejudicial in attempts to maintain or defend them.

This begs the question: what is it that we are really defending? The Buddhists would say, "nothing at all, really." From a psychological standpoint, identity threat occasions existential angst or, in more concrete terms, anxiety. Thus defending against identity threat helps us excape anxiety that we don't want to feel. This often takes the form of defending or upholding culture at all costs (i.e., trying to "preserve" that which is being socially selected against, or resistance to change when change is the only constant in this universe).

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing about my own safety that you can take away from me by threatening my identity (note that targeting me for a terrorist attack is a threat to my physical safety, not my identity - even though my identity may be the impetus).

Let me ask you this: How would the world be different if people did not feel the need to defend against ideollogical threat (or threats to their identity)?

[premjan]

It is true that widespread adoption of a system such as Buddhism would eliminate most elements of micro-identity, other than the more global aspects such as 'enlightened' vs. 'lay'.

OTOH some aspects of identity are representative of material struggles between groups - e.g. poor vs. rich which could I suppose be ignored if you're a Buddhist but it would require sacrificing the hope of becoming rich for instance. Even in Buddhist societies there are rich and poor though you could argue that it is possible to stop caring about riches. Eliminating such striving may however eliminate some desirable human drives or impulses. Definitely it may be possible to stop thinking about identity as being so important if everybody agrees to do so.

Maybe that's a better solution - certainly human attempts such as minority rights or partition of nations seem to end up making things worse. But it would require a big change in culture for people to stop thinking about identity entirely. And also a lot of effort in terms of attempt to gain enlightenment etc.

Also I am not sure whether Buddhism on a large scale would solve the problems between human groups regarding sharing of material resources etc. I mean the idea is sound but I am not sure if it will practically work.

[Streamwinner]

I'm not so sure that Buddhism is the answer, either. However, there are some principles that may be applicable. I don't think it's practical to expect a world full of identity-less people. In fact, identity in and of itself is not a problem. It's the behaviors aimed at defending identity that cause violence and inequality.

The chasm between access to resources (rich vs. poor), however, is an interesting point. Socialism, in principle, attempted to address this issue. I'm not so sure that this is a problem of identity but perhaps rather a problem of greed.

[Tammuz]

It is true that widespread adoption of a system such as Buddhism would eliminate most elements of micro-identity, other than the more global aspects such as 'enlightened' vs. 'lay'.

Yeah, but Buddhism isn't true, and it isn't needed either. I agree with Ali Sina's article Human First (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/human_first.htm).

All religions are false but no other religion cultivates this much hate in its followers as Islam does. All religions promote disunity but none is as explicit in fomenting hate as Islam. Let us empty our minds of these spurious beliefs. Let us cleans our hearts of these hatemongering doctrines. Let us embrace each other as brothers and sisters in humanity. Let us be Human first

[Anat]

I think the conclusion of social psychologists is that if a sufficient number of people are interacting with each other they will find some criterion, however trivial, by which to split into rival groups. The boys who participated in Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html) were selected deliberately to be similar to each other, yet look at the extent of rivalry, and how hard it was to overcome.

[Streamwinner]

I think the conclusion of social psychologists is that if a sufficient number of people are interacting with each other they will find some criterion, however trivial, by which to split into rival groups. The boys who participated in Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html) were selected deliberately to be similar to each other, yet look at the extent of rivalry, and how hard it was to overcome.

I think that's good reason to declare war on the planet Mars.

Interestingly, looking at the etiology of "confront," you have "con", which means "with" and "front" as something in front of you, namely a problem or issue. The use of superordinate tasks for these kids seemed to function in getting them to work "with" each other on a common task in "front" of them.

I don't think the outcome is inevitable. In other words, just because getting groups to stop categorizing into "friend" and "foe" is difficult does not mean that it's hopeless. It may be hard wired, but it still seems to stem from a fear of exclusion or annihilation.

[Streamwinner]

All religions promote disunity ...

I hardly think this is true, unless you mean that by identifying with a religion necessarily means not identifying with other religions.

[J-D]

I think the conclusion of social psychologists is that if a sufficient number of people are interacting with each other they will find some criterion, however trivial, by which to split into rival groups. The boys who participated in Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html) were selected deliberately to be similar to each other, yet look at the extent of rivalry, and how hard it was to overcome.I don't know what may have been found in other social psychology experiments, but I don't see how you can draw those conclusions from the description given there. The boys in that experiment did not divide themselves into two groups: the experimenters divided them into two groups. The conflict between them reached its height when the experimenters created competitive tasks for them, but when the experimenters created tasks requiring cooperation there was reconciliation and harmony.

[J-D]

I think that's good reason to declare war on the planet Mars.A logic exploited in a number of science fiction stories.

[Anat]

J-D, there was also the (somewhat flawed) overestimater/underestimater experiment - where people were told (based on some bogus test) which kind they were, and then asked to alot small sums of money between 2 people, and being told if they were over- or under- estimaters: people preferred their own type despite everyone being total strangers. And then there is the experience of playgrounds, schools etc. Kids will split by whatever criterion if there are enough of them to form 2 or more groups: by sex, age, preference of sports team, favorite band. Some of this may be encouraged by the school (reading groups) but mostly it is spontaneous. In my school days rivalries based on sports fandom were pretty serious.

BTW the Robber's Cave experiment had a prequel where kids (selected by similar criteria) interacted as one group for some days and friendships were allowed to form in the group. They were then split into two different groups - friendships whose participants ended up in different teams did not survive.

[J-D]

Anat, the social psychology experiments you describe are again ones in which the experimenters split the subjects into groups.

The splits over which sports team you follow are, I suspect, at their most intense when they are about more than just sports teams. The rivalry in the 'Old Firm', for example, relates to sectarianism in Glasgow, and serious rivalries based on sports fandom in your school days may also have had connections with ideological issues (http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Eye+on+Israel/Sport+in+Israel/Politics+and+Sport+The+Development+of+the+Different+Sports+Organisations.htm) outside sport. Carlton and Manly-Warringah attract a partly class-based hostility because of their presumed representation of 'silvertails'. And so on.

[premjan]

Yeah, but Buddhism isn't true, and it isn't needed either. I agree with Ali Sina's article Human First (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/human_first.htm).
What in Buddhism 'isn't true'? Anyway, some religions may be based around hating the out-group (Islam is an example). Humanness may not be enough - there are aspects of humanity that are pretty despicable.

[Tammuz]

I hardly think this is true, unless you mean that by identifying with a religion necessarily means not identifying with other religions.

Well, religious people divides the world, usually into two factions. Christians divide humans into unsaved and saved, and Muslims divide the world into Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War), and the ultitmate goal is to bring the entire world into Dar al-Islam. What's more, in Islam it is an obligation to hate those who aren't Muslims. Isn't that dividing!?

What in Buddhism 'isn't true'? Anyway, some religions may be based around hating the out-group (Islam is an example). Humanness may not be enough - there are aspects of humanity that are pretty despicable.

There is no evidence for reincarnation, for instance. And non-religious people are usually quite certain that we have only this life. If Nirvana is to not exist, then it happens to everyone when they die. Thus, it is a quite bad idea to wasting life away, like Buddhist monks do.

Humanness is perhaps not enough, but when we start to see each other as Christians or Muslims more than we see each other as humans, then it becomes a problem.

Humans are capable of incredibly evil deeds, but also of incredibly good deeds. I don't like all humans very much, btw. But then I dislike them as persons, and not because of religion or ethnicity.

[Streamwinner]

Well, religious people divides the world, usually into two factions. Christians divide humans into unsaved and saved, and Muslims divide the world into Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War), and the ultitmate goal is to bring the entire world into Dar al-Islam. What's more, in Islam it is an obligation to hate those who aren't Muslims. Isn't that dividing!?


Okay... so you've mentioned two of the Abrahamic religions. The quote you referenced was making this assertion to "all religions." Anyways, I do not think that just because Christians divide people into saved and unsaved means that they are promoting disunity. In fact, I think it would be the opposite. It also seems apparent that one of the common denomenators among many religions is love and compassion, which is the opposite of promoting disunity.

[premjan]

I would say that Buddhism may be wrong on some (relatively unimportant) details like reincarnation, but on most other aspects, is not even wrong (like string theory) as it is merely hard to verify or represents a moving target. In this sense, it is a little like typical religions, which are more or less impossible rather than merely hard to verify.

[baron greenback]

A logic exploited in a number of science fiction stories.

I don't see any harm in just spelling it out. Enough of us have read Sirens of Titan.

Just in case,

Sirens of Titan was a book about an alien culture that used human civilization to build and transport a part for a spaceship to a stranded alien. One of the things required for this to happen was, apparently, world peace.

World peace was accomplished, in the book, by building up an incredibly weak army on Mars, having it declare war on earth, and having Earth unite, defeat the martian army, and then feel bad about it, thus both coming together as a whole people and ditching the idea of war.

Of course, some of us thought the whole thing a bit contrived.

[J-D]

I don't see any harm in just spelling it out. Enough of us have read Sirens of Titan.Possibly. As it happens, however, I am not one of the 'enough'. I was thinking of other stories.