One of the most common and consistent mistakes we make as human beings is assuming that our experience of the world is the same as everybody else’s. Humans, simply by virtue of being human, have a great deal in common. But there are always gaps in our experience that can only be bridged by talking to each other. In my article, Wait, Isn’t Everybody Non-Binary?, I wrote about the concept of gender identity. As the WHO describes it, the “deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender." I confessed that I’ve never had any sense of this experience. Nor has anybody I’ve ever spoken to.
I can't help but note all the in-the-head thinking it through, though. And sometimes it's such a relief to get out of one's head. When I went through intense grief some few years ago, I made a point each day to spend time 'be'-ing. So I learned to play the saxophone, daily--the concentration needed cut off the "thinking"--and I listened to a lot of music--usually instrumental jazz, so it was word-free, and the improvisation happening again gave me something to absorb without thinking through... I also did 4 hours /week of flamenco, a dance form that demands attention, too... (you see the pattern!)
It's ironic, to just inhabit the body, and get out of the head. To enjoy and be in the world. I discovered that the body is capable of its own healing and the healing spreads to the emotions and general contentment. I shied away from articulating everything, and walked and danced and moved. And as months passed my life started to fit back together.
Just thinking here... about one person's experience. Thank you for working and writing these pieces.
"When I went through intense grief some few years ago, I made a point each day to spend time 'be'-ing"
Yeah absolutely. As you say, I think the problem is people getting too into their own heads. Who am I? How do others see me? What is my label? Do I still fit that label if I like this or prefer that? On and on. if I asked anybody to pick a word that described themselves, they'd disappear into their head for a while, fail to find any word that sufficed, and, perhaps, choose one that came closest to their mood at that moment.
Why not just be? Why not stop worrying about what the way you're being should be called? I'm quite relieved that I don't understand it. It sounds exhausting.😅
I seems to me when people speak of identity in 2022, they really mean 'tribe'
Of course one never perfectly aligns in all ways with others in your tribe, but you align enough that you can band together, you have enough vested interests in common things that it makes sense to have loyalty to each other. I understand that you think we would all be better off not trying to form strong tribes, still I think we need to recognize that desire to form tribes is deeply hardwired into our genes and culture. Those w/o strong tribal associations are often at great risk from strong tribes (there is strength in numbers).
From an evolutionary point of view it does not matter as much what you select for tribal affiliation as it does that you DO select an affiliation, and you arrange for that tribe to defend you when needed.
Given how central sexuality is within human culture and human existence, it is not surprising to me that those who feel traditional sexual roles are a bad fit, also decide this particular aspect of themselves (as opposed to the many other aspects of themselves) is **THE** defining aspect of themselves. Whereas for me, I identify pretty well with standard male sexual role, so then the whole thing becomes much less salient for me. Yes I am a guy, but so are 40+% of all other humans thus it is not a very special thing for me.
Anyway, I am just explaining (to myself anyway), why a non-binary person would latch onto that label as being their defining label. you asked the difference between your feeling of mixture of male and female and the feeling a non-binary person feels. Well I cannot know, but certainly one massive difference is that while you and I do clearly feel both male and female in certain ways, we DONT feel that our feelings are very different from other males... we don't feel DIFFERENT because of this. The non-binary person DOES feel their feelings ARE different. It is a feeling that not just that maleness or femaleness does not fit. But that they whole experience they are having is qualitatively different from that of other males/females.
You and I don't feel that way. We both know our experience is unique... but it is unique just like all other males are unique... we see ourselves as still within the same distribution... if we think of it in statistical terms. For the non-binary, they feel they are not part of the same distribution.
Of course I am not non-binary, so maybe I am all wet.
"From an evolutionary point of view it does not matter as much what you select for tribal affiliation as it does that you DO select an affiliation, and you arrange for that tribe to defend you when needed."
Yeah, this is an interesting point. Dave Murray shared a fascinating video about tribalism recently (https://youtu.be/agNwB5xR9H4). And the speaker makes the same point about needing a tribe for defence. But I'd argue that our modern "tribes"don't do that. Group membership is earned by conforming to the ideology (which very often includes certain lies) of the group. If you fail to do that, or even fail to do it enthusiastically enough, the group turns on you.
Trumpism, gender ideology, even the various factions that formed during COVID, it's like we've taken on the worst aspects of tribalism whilst simultaneously losing the only benefits!
If I ask you "what is the sound of one hand?", I have given you a mind object, a thought of a thing with no physical reality. Perhaps the same can be said of asking what does it feel like to be a man or woman? Does it actually feel like anything or is it just a mind object from the question? If you assume a feeling for the mind object, it isn't a sensory feeling, but an emotional one. Emotions are real (and they are mind objects), we all have them. Here I suppose the Buddhist could ask, what do I do with this feeling? Does it have a basis? Is it beneficial to give it importance in our minds?
"Here I suppose the Buddhist could ask, what do I do with this feeling? Does it have a basis? Is it beneficial to give it importance in our minds?"
Ironically, koans like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" are supposed to break the illusion of self rather than reinforcing it. We’re not supposed to figure out what one hand clapping sounds like, we’re supposed to use this mind object recognise that *all* mind objects are illusions.
These mind objects are approximations of things that aren’t real. As Bruce Lee put it (https://youtu.be/lM4n1Jntqw0), “it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”
We’ve become way too focused on the finger lately.
The current preoccupation with gender puzzles me. For some reason I am so deeply offended by the foppishness of "non-binary" that I can't shut up about it and I am starting to push people away. Not that I ever have to deal with it, except for the walking-into-a-telephone-pole experience of "they" used for one person/
I'm male, and gay. I identify as neither. I feel no noteworthy camaraderie with other men nor with other gays. Asked to describe myself in five words neither would be in the list. My gender congruence (I refuse to use "cis") wouldn't be in the top hundred.
And as I get older and my libido dries up, I identify even less.
"I'm male, and gay. I identify as neither. I feel no noteworthy camaraderie with other men nor with other gays. Asked to describe myself in five words neither would be in the list. My gender congruence (I refuse to use "cis") wouldn't be in the top hundred."
I feel exactly the same way. Sex, sexuality, the colour of one's skin, I can't imagine how empty a person's life must be if these are the most noteworthy aspects of who they are. Or rather, I can't imagine how limited their imagination must be. *Everybody* is more interesting than their genitalia or skin tone or who they like to sleep with.
I see this as an expression of emptiness. People who have little sense of authenticity try to make up for it vicariously, with membership, with belonging. My father called these people joiners with an unmistakable tone of derision.
And, this is a theme I keep returning to, our entertainment-driven lives are not fulfilling. Cinema, television, popular music are wastelands and do I need to say anything about social media?
I used to go to the annual Street of Dreams exhibitions in Seattle; gaudy overly ostentatious houses where every single one ended up in a room with a giant television showing sports. The emptiness was palpable.
Even a wealthy person could feel the emptiness; now imagine someone with no noteworthy achievements or satisfaction, what does he have to make him feel valid? His white skin, or his gun, or his allegiance to Donald Trump.
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love. And I'll no longer be a Capulet.”
I more-or-less agree with all six comments. Especially on this being a great one, Steve.
"I don't think identity needs untangling, it needs dismantling. You are who you are." Yeah.
"But maybe recognising increasing smaller subdivisions is part of this process? We need a working model of ourselves to function," This is where I agree with Ms. Alison. Sometimes I think the more we model something, the further away we get from it. Our whole world is overly preoccupied by thinking, right? Or no?
"Human beings are impossibly complex." Couldn't agree more, from that point in Your article to the end. TY again for writing, Steve. And to commenters as well.
I think the real pain and dysfunction occurs when social pressures enforce socially constructed boxes, complete with rewards and penalties. If people could be free to enjoy who they are and who other people are, without having to worry about being socially judged as being worthy or unworthy, good or bad, there would be no need to perseverate on "identity".
I just reread your last paragraph, which I had not fully digested. I think we largely agree. Identity isn't the problem; social pressure is. Yet we are social animals; survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups. Competition between groups. Wars. How do we freely express who we are while trying to function within judgmental groups?
What's the cross between an elephant and rhinocerous? "El-iph-i-no". Gods, we are a perverse species!
"survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups"
Yeah, this is true. But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity." When we lived in tribes, what mattered was our *behaviour*, no? We helped each other. We made ourselves useful to the group. We lived out our tribal affiliation through action.
I think one of the reasons these tribes have become so toxic is that today, they're based purely on performance and labels. There's no substance. People don't really look out for each other, in fact, they turn on each other as soon as they say the wrong thing. Or even the right thing with the wrong degree of enthusiasm.
I truly feel sorry for the people trapped in these bubbles.
"But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity.""
Yet "identity" may well be predicated on survival drives. Depending on the location, disapproval of one's behavior by the tribe could be met by ostracization, which would be tantamount to a death sentence. Though sometimes eccentric behavior was seen as special by the community, such as with "two spirit" people.
I wonder what determined the behavior of two tribes meeting for the first time, which could result in co-mingling, war, or mutual avoidance.
Regardless, survival instinct which could be seen as a form of pragmatism, would direct individuals to be congruent with others of their tribe. "Identity" could be the result of trying to the tension between individualist and communal mores. Social animals tend not to do well outside of socially cohesive groups. An exception to this might be humans making a hermit into a special category of human benefitting the tribe with magic or wisdom. They would be fed even though they might not hunt or gather.
Oh shoot, we are getting close to the territory of "nature vs. nurture" territory when we talk about instincts in humans; that is a rabbit hole I would like to avoid for now. The question of "identity" requires enough cogitation. ;-)
(I agree with Steve's assumption that current modern tribes, as differentiated from old-school tribes where cooperation was crucial to survival, have often become toxic in their superficiality.)
I'm trying to approach new people now with a sense of "Cool! Here's a new person!" rather than making identity judgements, and thinking about what to do if they dislike me, or brush me off, or are rude, or whatever. Yesterday I got a bit of a test as I passed a black busker on a street corner playing his guitar and singing. As he turned his head and caught my eye I smiled and I thought he looked at me fairly hostilely - not threatening, just that he didn't like me. I just smiled and looked away, then wondered if it was really about me, maybe he couldn't even see me, he was squinting a bit in the sun and it might have just been the expression on his face.
If I were a different sort of person I could have turned it into a PROOF OF BLACK RACISM narrative, and if the colours had been reversed I could have gone of on a YUUUUGELY social media rant about vile white supremacists, LOL. Instead, I just thought, even if he *did* dislike me on sight, so what? I can't do anything about it, and maybe it was just sun squint.
I'm trying to move beyond the labels, and here in Canada the race situation isn't as ugly as it is in the US, so the challenge is more the snowflakes of the genderbender movement. So far haven't many any assholes IRL, they've all been on, big surprise, social media :) But I'm thinking...I can't change other peoples' minds so if someone wants to hate on me because I'm female, or white, or blonde, or a writer, or just look like their evil ex-wife, that's *their* problem, and I don't have to let them define who *I* am.
As a Boomer/Gen X 'cusper' (I could be both - hey! I'm non-generation!) we eschewed a lot of labels. The hippies were particularly famous for this. The constant labeling the kids are doing drives me crazy, mostly because they expect everyone to keep up on the labels du jour and turn it into 'offense' if you get it wrong. Which shows you it has less to do with better understanding the many layers of identity and more an excuse to hurt other people.
Interesting, though, that they can endlessly label every permutation of gender, preference and identity, but only permit us ONE definition of woman: Whoever says s/he's allegedly one.
"As he turned his head and caught my eye I smiled and I thought he looked at me fairly hostilely - not threatening, just that he didn't like me"
Nobody dislikes anybody on sight. It's impossible. They dislike their own mental projection of this person they know nothing about. And in turn, in our own heads, we create a story about what they're thinking that somehow involves us. We all do it, myself very much included, but I find it helpful to remember that you simply can't dislike (or like for that matter) somebody you don't know.
If it makes you feel better, I still remember an occasion a few years ago where a woman smiled at me out of the blue. Just a really lovely, friendly smile. But it was so unexpected, and I was so busy thinking about something else, that I didn't respond for a few second, by which time she'd looked away. I still kick myself for it years later!😅
Not because I was hoping to get anything out of it. I don't think she was flirting. It was just such a lovely, human moment and I wish I'd participated. And I was especially sad that she probably thought I'd ignored her or that I'm not a friendly person.
Oh, it's not true you can't dislike someone on sight. Plenty of women have had that feeling, someone you see whom you've never seen before and immediately...you just don't like him. Something about him isn't right. Hard to explain. I don't know that I've ever had it happen with a woman, but our spidey-sense about potentially dangerous or just problematic men sometimes activates. It doesn't happen much, it's just...something about him you don't like. Do I *dislike* the person? Not the way I dislike Donald Trump or the person who stabbed me in the back (figuratively of course) a few years ago, but, it's something beyond wariness.
The dude could have disliked white people, or women, or white women, or, as I expect, maybe I just caught his face the wrong way, esp since it's in a busker's best interests to smile and be friendly with people even while performing since they might drop money into your guitar case. I bet incels dislike 'Stacys' on sight when they meet the tall blonde beauty of their wank dreams. Quite certain *you'd* meet instant dislike if you walked into a Klan meeting with a big smile on your face, lol!
It's why we say "You can't judge a book by its cover," which is 99% true although...sometimes you meet someone from whom you get an instant bad vibe. Or there's something in their eyes...or their eyes rest on you a certain way.
Others, I think they can instantly dislike someone over a particular prejudice, however misplaced that dislike might be. That's the nature of prejudice...disliking people on sight for not looking a certain way.
"Oh, it's not true you can't dislike someone on sight. Plenty of women have had that feeling, someone you see whom you've never seen before and immediately...you just don't like him."
Oh sure, everybody's had that feeling. The point I'm making is, that feeling isn't real.
I guess we should differentiate between a fear reaction, where somebody strikes you as dangerous, and a "dislike" reaction where you just dislike somebody for no apparent reason.
The fear reaction is often not real either, but it's based on long-honed instincts that have kept us safe for thousands of years. We can get it about a doorway, or a path or a strange sound. It can be wrong,I'd argue that it often *is* wrong, but even if it keeps us safe even 20% of the time, it's useful.
But the "dislike" reaction is different. It's no longer about safety but, as you say, prejudice. One could argue that it's the exact same reaction that makes people think, "I don't trust/like you because you're black."
As much as we might believe we can, we can't read people's minds. We can't tell much of anything about their beliefs or character just by looking at them. We make a bunch of assumptions, remember the times when we were right, and instantly forget the vastly greater number of times we were wrong.
Our school board conducted discipline hearings. Kids making mistakes and breaking rules is normal stuff. But self-defeating and self-destructive behaviour is a warning sign that a kid needs help. Trying to determine if a student is exhibiting normal behaviour or crying out for help is very difficult to do.
Mr. Morley, an old friend and retired prison guard told me that he had faced the same dilemma. Old Morley had an impressive home library and had read every book in it (he always reminded me of the film The Green Mile). If our prisons were filled with guards like Morley, we’d be living in a different country. To help him separate the crime from the man, Mr. Morley told me he had asked each inmate one question.
Old Morley said the answer to that question tells you the man’s identity. If there is a difference between who he is, and who he wants to be, you can work together. If there is no difference, you know you’re dealing with a dangerous man (remember, Morley was talking about inmates, not kids). He offered me some examples, and I decided to try it out.
Turns out, Mr. Morley had given me really good, even magical, advice. Not one student refused to answer the question. Most kids started crying when they answered. Even the toughest kids choked up. A few kids cried so hard, they could not finish their answer (we got these kids services super-fast, by keeping them in school). Crying and choking up kept kids from telling their friends about that question, so kids were never prepared with an answer.
I am going to ask readers, to answer the question that Mr. Morley asked inmates, and I asked students at disciple hearings. Read the question, but do not think, do not edit, just hit reply, type your answer and hit the post comment button. Ready?
“When you are laying in your coffin, what do you want to hear people at your funeral say about you?”
I might never hear your answer, but you will – and that is the point. Whether or not, you are who you want to be, is the difference between having an identity and not having one. If you don’t have an identity, someone else will give you one. And I have a feeling, a whole lot of people are fighting the identity they’ve been given. The only way out of that identity, is to create your own identity.
Near as I can tell, this identity issue is something new. If so, what is that the source of this identity issue?
My kids answered that question without hesitation. I raised my kids, the same way I was raised. They had the same job I did – we were supposed to figure out who we wanted to be, and then create that person. Now in their early thirties, my kids tell me they were the last generation of free-range kids. If they are right, the last generation who created themselves are in their early thirties. Are younger parents guiding their children as they create their own identity, or giving them one?
Anyways, Steve and company, that’s what you made me think about this morning.
I had this reaction several times during those discipline hearings, so I should have expected it, but I didn't. Your reply, put tears in my eyes. Wherever you are, I am glad you are here.
Another solid piece, looking at this.
I can't help but note all the in-the-head thinking it through, though. And sometimes it's such a relief to get out of one's head. When I went through intense grief some few years ago, I made a point each day to spend time 'be'-ing. So I learned to play the saxophone, daily--the concentration needed cut off the "thinking"--and I listened to a lot of music--usually instrumental jazz, so it was word-free, and the improvisation happening again gave me something to absorb without thinking through... I also did 4 hours /week of flamenco, a dance form that demands attention, too... (you see the pattern!)
It's ironic, to just inhabit the body, and get out of the head. To enjoy and be in the world. I discovered that the body is capable of its own healing and the healing spreads to the emotions and general contentment. I shied away from articulating everything, and walked and danced and moved. And as months passed my life started to fit back together.
Just thinking here... about one person's experience. Thank you for working and writing these pieces.
"When I went through intense grief some few years ago, I made a point each day to spend time 'be'-ing"
Yeah absolutely. As you say, I think the problem is people getting too into their own heads. Who am I? How do others see me? What is my label? Do I still fit that label if I like this or prefer that? On and on. if I asked anybody to pick a word that described themselves, they'd disappear into their head for a while, fail to find any word that sufficed, and, perhaps, choose one that came closest to their mood at that moment.
Why not just be? Why not stop worrying about what the way you're being should be called? I'm quite relieved that I don't understand it. It sounds exhausting.😅
I seems to me when people speak of identity in 2022, they really mean 'tribe'
Of course one never perfectly aligns in all ways with others in your tribe, but you align enough that you can band together, you have enough vested interests in common things that it makes sense to have loyalty to each other. I understand that you think we would all be better off not trying to form strong tribes, still I think we need to recognize that desire to form tribes is deeply hardwired into our genes and culture. Those w/o strong tribal associations are often at great risk from strong tribes (there is strength in numbers).
From an evolutionary point of view it does not matter as much what you select for tribal affiliation as it does that you DO select an affiliation, and you arrange for that tribe to defend you when needed.
Given how central sexuality is within human culture and human existence, it is not surprising to me that those who feel traditional sexual roles are a bad fit, also decide this particular aspect of themselves (as opposed to the many other aspects of themselves) is **THE** defining aspect of themselves. Whereas for me, I identify pretty well with standard male sexual role, so then the whole thing becomes much less salient for me. Yes I am a guy, but so are 40+% of all other humans thus it is not a very special thing for me.
Anyway, I am just explaining (to myself anyway), why a non-binary person would latch onto that label as being their defining label. you asked the difference between your feeling of mixture of male and female and the feeling a non-binary person feels. Well I cannot know, but certainly one massive difference is that while you and I do clearly feel both male and female in certain ways, we DONT feel that our feelings are very different from other males... we don't feel DIFFERENT because of this. The non-binary person DOES feel their feelings ARE different. It is a feeling that not just that maleness or femaleness does not fit. But that they whole experience they are having is qualitatively different from that of other males/females.
You and I don't feel that way. We both know our experience is unique... but it is unique just like all other males are unique... we see ourselves as still within the same distribution... if we think of it in statistical terms. For the non-binary, they feel they are not part of the same distribution.
Of course I am not non-binary, so maybe I am all wet.
"From an evolutionary point of view it does not matter as much what you select for tribal affiliation as it does that you DO select an affiliation, and you arrange for that tribe to defend you when needed."
Yeah, this is an interesting point. Dave Murray shared a fascinating video about tribalism recently (https://youtu.be/agNwB5xR9H4). And the speaker makes the same point about needing a tribe for defence. But I'd argue that our modern "tribes"don't do that. Group membership is earned by conforming to the ideology (which very often includes certain lies) of the group. If you fail to do that, or even fail to do it enthusiastically enough, the group turns on you.
Trumpism, gender ideology, even the various factions that formed during COVID, it's like we've taken on the worst aspects of tribalism whilst simultaneously losing the only benefits!
If I ask you "what is the sound of one hand?", I have given you a mind object, a thought of a thing with no physical reality. Perhaps the same can be said of asking what does it feel like to be a man or woman? Does it actually feel like anything or is it just a mind object from the question? If you assume a feeling for the mind object, it isn't a sensory feeling, but an emotional one. Emotions are real (and they are mind objects), we all have them. Here I suppose the Buddhist could ask, what do I do with this feeling? Does it have a basis? Is it beneficial to give it importance in our minds?
"Here I suppose the Buddhist could ask, what do I do with this feeling? Does it have a basis? Is it beneficial to give it importance in our minds?"
Ironically, koans like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" are supposed to break the illusion of self rather than reinforcing it. We’re not supposed to figure out what one hand clapping sounds like, we’re supposed to use this mind object recognise that *all* mind objects are illusions.
These mind objects are approximations of things that aren’t real. As Bruce Lee put it (https://youtu.be/lM4n1Jntqw0), “it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”
We’ve become way too focused on the finger lately.
The current preoccupation with gender puzzles me. For some reason I am so deeply offended by the foppishness of "non-binary" that I can't shut up about it and I am starting to push people away. Not that I ever have to deal with it, except for the walking-into-a-telephone-pole experience of "they" used for one person/
I'm male, and gay. I identify as neither. I feel no noteworthy camaraderie with other men nor with other gays. Asked to describe myself in five words neither would be in the list. My gender congruence (I refuse to use "cis") wouldn't be in the top hundred.
And as I get older and my libido dries up, I identify even less.
"I'm male, and gay. I identify as neither. I feel no noteworthy camaraderie with other men nor with other gays. Asked to describe myself in five words neither would be in the list. My gender congruence (I refuse to use "cis") wouldn't be in the top hundred."
I feel exactly the same way. Sex, sexuality, the colour of one's skin, I can't imagine how empty a person's life must be if these are the most noteworthy aspects of who they are. Or rather, I can't imagine how limited their imagination must be. *Everybody* is more interesting than their genitalia or skin tone or who they like to sleep with.
I see this as an expression of emptiness. People who have little sense of authenticity try to make up for it vicariously, with membership, with belonging. My father called these people joiners with an unmistakable tone of derision.
And, this is a theme I keep returning to, our entertainment-driven lives are not fulfilling. Cinema, television, popular music are wastelands and do I need to say anything about social media?
I used to go to the annual Street of Dreams exhibitions in Seattle; gaudy overly ostentatious houses where every single one ended up in a room with a giant television showing sports. The emptiness was palpable.
Even a wealthy person could feel the emptiness; now imagine someone with no noteworthy achievements or satisfaction, what does he have to make him feel valid? His white skin, or his gun, or his allegiance to Donald Trump.
Or his fictitious gender identity.
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love. And I'll no longer be a Capulet.”
Mine ears have yet not drunk a hundred words
Of thy tongue’s utterance, yet I know the sound.
I more-or-less agree with all six comments. Especially on this being a great one, Steve.
"I don't think identity needs untangling, it needs dismantling. You are who you are." Yeah.
"But maybe recognising increasing smaller subdivisions is part of this process? We need a working model of ourselves to function," This is where I agree with Ms. Alison. Sometimes I think the more we model something, the further away we get from it. Our whole world is overly preoccupied by thinking, right? Or no?
"Human beings are impossibly complex." Couldn't agree more, from that point in Your article to the end. TY again for writing, Steve. And to commenters as well.
I read all your pieces and always with interest and profit, but in this one you have knocked the ball out of the ball park.
I think the real pain and dysfunction occurs when social pressures enforce socially constructed boxes, complete with rewards and penalties. If people could be free to enjoy who they are and who other people are, without having to worry about being socially judged as being worthy or unworthy, good or bad, there would be no need to perseverate on "identity".
I just reread your last paragraph, which I had not fully digested. I think we largely agree. Identity isn't the problem; social pressure is. Yet we are social animals; survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups. Competition between groups. Wars. How do we freely express who we are while trying to function within judgmental groups?
What's the cross between an elephant and rhinocerous? "El-iph-i-no". Gods, we are a perverse species!
"survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups"
Yeah, this is true. But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity." When we lived in tribes, what mattered was our *behaviour*, no? We helped each other. We made ourselves useful to the group. We lived out our tribal affiliation through action.
I think one of the reasons these tribes have become so toxic is that today, they're based purely on performance and labels. There's no substance. People don't really look out for each other, in fact, they turn on each other as soon as they say the wrong thing. Or even the right thing with the wrong degree of enthusiasm.
I truly feel sorry for the people trapped in these bubbles.
"But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity.""
Yet "identity" may well be predicated on survival drives. Depending on the location, disapproval of one's behavior by the tribe could be met by ostracization, which would be tantamount to a death sentence. Though sometimes eccentric behavior was seen as special by the community, such as with "two spirit" people.
I wonder what determined the behavior of two tribes meeting for the first time, which could result in co-mingling, war, or mutual avoidance.
Regardless, survival instinct which could be seen as a form of pragmatism, would direct individuals to be congruent with others of their tribe. "Identity" could be the result of trying to the tension between individualist and communal mores. Social animals tend not to do well outside of socially cohesive groups. An exception to this might be humans making a hermit into a special category of human benefitting the tribe with magic or wisdom. They would be fed even though they might not hunt or gather.
Oh shoot, we are getting close to the territory of "nature vs. nurture" territory when we talk about instincts in humans; that is a rabbit hole I would like to avoid for now. The question of "identity" requires enough cogitation. ;-)
(I agree with Steve's assumption that current modern tribes, as differentiated from old-school tribes where cooperation was crucial to survival, have often become toxic in their superficiality.)
This was a great convo! I learned a lot from it.
This was such a healthy conversation to read, loved it. Also love that you both are fond of the smiling cold sweat emoji! I use that one a lot too.
Haha, the smiling cold-sweat emoji is the best emoji. Closely followed by this guy 😁
Mark, how does one insert emojis on this platform? I don't see that option.
😅
Copy & paste is my way. So I don't do it as much as I'd like because it interrupts my flow lol.
https://www.symbolcopy.com/smiley-symbol.html
https://emojicut.com/
https://www.copyshrug.com/
I'm trying to approach new people now with a sense of "Cool! Here's a new person!" rather than making identity judgements, and thinking about what to do if they dislike me, or brush me off, or are rude, or whatever. Yesterday I got a bit of a test as I passed a black busker on a street corner playing his guitar and singing. As he turned his head and caught my eye I smiled and I thought he looked at me fairly hostilely - not threatening, just that he didn't like me. I just smiled and looked away, then wondered if it was really about me, maybe he couldn't even see me, he was squinting a bit in the sun and it might have just been the expression on his face.
If I were a different sort of person I could have turned it into a PROOF OF BLACK RACISM narrative, and if the colours had been reversed I could have gone of on a YUUUUGELY social media rant about vile white supremacists, LOL. Instead, I just thought, even if he *did* dislike me on sight, so what? I can't do anything about it, and maybe it was just sun squint.
I'm trying to move beyond the labels, and here in Canada the race situation isn't as ugly as it is in the US, so the challenge is more the snowflakes of the genderbender movement. So far haven't many any assholes IRL, they've all been on, big surprise, social media :) But I'm thinking...I can't change other peoples' minds so if someone wants to hate on me because I'm female, or white, or blonde, or a writer, or just look like their evil ex-wife, that's *their* problem, and I don't have to let them define who *I* am.
As a Boomer/Gen X 'cusper' (I could be both - hey! I'm non-generation!) we eschewed a lot of labels. The hippies were particularly famous for this. The constant labeling the kids are doing drives me crazy, mostly because they expect everyone to keep up on the labels du jour and turn it into 'offense' if you get it wrong. Which shows you it has less to do with better understanding the many layers of identity and more an excuse to hurt other people.
Interesting, though, that they can endlessly label every permutation of gender, preference and identity, but only permit us ONE definition of woman: Whoever says s/he's allegedly one.
"As he turned his head and caught my eye I smiled and I thought he looked at me fairly hostilely - not threatening, just that he didn't like me"
Nobody dislikes anybody on sight. It's impossible. They dislike their own mental projection of this person they know nothing about. And in turn, in our own heads, we create a story about what they're thinking that somehow involves us. We all do it, myself very much included, but I find it helpful to remember that you simply can't dislike (or like for that matter) somebody you don't know.
If it makes you feel better, I still remember an occasion a few years ago where a woman smiled at me out of the blue. Just a really lovely, friendly smile. But it was so unexpected, and I was so busy thinking about something else, that I didn't respond for a few second, by which time she'd looked away. I still kick myself for it years later!😅
Not because I was hoping to get anything out of it. I don't think she was flirting. It was just such a lovely, human moment and I wish I'd participated. And I was especially sad that she probably thought I'd ignored her or that I'm not a friendly person.
Oh, it's not true you can't dislike someone on sight. Plenty of women have had that feeling, someone you see whom you've never seen before and immediately...you just don't like him. Something about him isn't right. Hard to explain. I don't know that I've ever had it happen with a woman, but our spidey-sense about potentially dangerous or just problematic men sometimes activates. It doesn't happen much, it's just...something about him you don't like. Do I *dislike* the person? Not the way I dislike Donald Trump or the person who stabbed me in the back (figuratively of course) a few years ago, but, it's something beyond wariness.
The dude could have disliked white people, or women, or white women, or, as I expect, maybe I just caught his face the wrong way, esp since it's in a busker's best interests to smile and be friendly with people even while performing since they might drop money into your guitar case. I bet incels dislike 'Stacys' on sight when they meet the tall blonde beauty of their wank dreams. Quite certain *you'd* meet instant dislike if you walked into a Klan meeting with a big smile on your face, lol!
It's why we say "You can't judge a book by its cover," which is 99% true although...sometimes you meet someone from whom you get an instant bad vibe. Or there's something in their eyes...or their eyes rest on you a certain way.
Others, I think they can instantly dislike someone over a particular prejudice, however misplaced that dislike might be. That's the nature of prejudice...disliking people on sight for not looking a certain way.
And sometimes it's just the sun's fault.
"Oh, it's not true you can't dislike someone on sight. Plenty of women have had that feeling, someone you see whom you've never seen before and immediately...you just don't like him."
Oh sure, everybody's had that feeling. The point I'm making is, that feeling isn't real.
I guess we should differentiate between a fear reaction, where somebody strikes you as dangerous, and a "dislike" reaction where you just dislike somebody for no apparent reason.
The fear reaction is often not real either, but it's based on long-honed instincts that have kept us safe for thousands of years. We can get it about a doorway, or a path or a strange sound. It can be wrong,I'd argue that it often *is* wrong, but even if it keeps us safe even 20% of the time, it's useful.
But the "dislike" reaction is different. It's no longer about safety but, as you say, prejudice. One could argue that it's the exact same reaction that makes people think, "I don't trust/like you because you're black."
As much as we might believe we can, we can't read people's minds. We can't tell much of anything about their beliefs or character just by looking at them. We make a bunch of assumptions, remember the times when we were right, and instantly forget the vastly greater number of times we were wrong.
Love your point about definition of woman and also loved the non-generation quip!
Our school board conducted discipline hearings. Kids making mistakes and breaking rules is normal stuff. But self-defeating and self-destructive behaviour is a warning sign that a kid needs help. Trying to determine if a student is exhibiting normal behaviour or crying out for help is very difficult to do.
Mr. Morley, an old friend and retired prison guard told me that he had faced the same dilemma. Old Morley had an impressive home library and had read every book in it (he always reminded me of the film The Green Mile). If our prisons were filled with guards like Morley, we’d be living in a different country. To help him separate the crime from the man, Mr. Morley told me he had asked each inmate one question.
Old Morley said the answer to that question tells you the man’s identity. If there is a difference between who he is, and who he wants to be, you can work together. If there is no difference, you know you’re dealing with a dangerous man (remember, Morley was talking about inmates, not kids). He offered me some examples, and I decided to try it out.
Turns out, Mr. Morley had given me really good, even magical, advice. Not one student refused to answer the question. Most kids started crying when they answered. Even the toughest kids choked up. A few kids cried so hard, they could not finish their answer (we got these kids services super-fast, by keeping them in school). Crying and choking up kept kids from telling their friends about that question, so kids were never prepared with an answer.
I am going to ask readers, to answer the question that Mr. Morley asked inmates, and I asked students at disciple hearings. Read the question, but do not think, do not edit, just hit reply, type your answer and hit the post comment button. Ready?
“When you are laying in your coffin, what do you want to hear people at your funeral say about you?”
I might never hear your answer, but you will – and that is the point. Whether or not, you are who you want to be, is the difference between having an identity and not having one. If you don’t have an identity, someone else will give you one. And I have a feeling, a whole lot of people are fighting the identity they’ve been given. The only way out of that identity, is to create your own identity.
Near as I can tell, this identity issue is something new. If so, what is that the source of this identity issue?
My kids answered that question without hesitation. I raised my kids, the same way I was raised. They had the same job I did – we were supposed to figure out who we wanted to be, and then create that person. Now in their early thirties, my kids tell me they were the last generation of free-range kids. If they are right, the last generation who created themselves are in their early thirties. Are younger parents guiding their children as they create their own identity, or giving them one?
Anyways, Steve and company, that’s what you made me think about this morning.
"He was kind."
I had this reaction several times during those discipline hearings, so I should have expected it, but I didn't. Your reply, put tears in my eyes. Wherever you are, I am glad you are here.
"She was fun, she was a breath of fresh air, she changed her little corner of the world for the better."
I bet that's what you'll hear too :)
I hope so :)