Chris, you appear to be making the argument that it's natural for humans to have some degree of group identification, and you can rest your case because all of us understand that. We agree on that.
Some of us are making the point that the current political trend in the US has gone way beyond that natural tendency, to an unhealthy degree.…
Chris, you appear to be making the argument that it's natural for humans to have some degree of group identification, and you can rest your case because all of us understand that. We agree on that.
Some of us are making the point that the current political trend in the US has gone way beyond that natural tendency, to an unhealthy degree.
To use your example, suppose were were talking about the murder rate among a particular tribe being exceptionally high - and somebody in the conversation keeps pointing out that humans have certain proclivities which mean that we will likely never get to a completely zero murder rate. Agreed, but nobody was questioning whether it's practical to get to zero, only observing that it's abnormally high and that's not good.
One problem with substituting identity group membership for most individual traits is that group identities ALWAYS involve stereotypes. ALWAYS. Think about it.
So suppose you know that somebody is a member of the Black identity group. Or the Muslim identity group. Or the white identity group, or the bisexual identity group. What does that membership tell you? Does it tell you whether they feel oppressed? Whether they are middle class? That they are a criminal? That they are a Supreme Court Justice? That they like watermelon? That they like to dance? Other than the nominally shared trait, any other association involves pre-judging and stereotyping, and there are always such associations.
You might say that some of these things are statistically more or less common among some particular identity group, but even if that's true and you have an accurate understanding of the probabilities involved (rare), you still don't know in which facets that person is typical or atypical of the identity group. So all you have gained is a bunch of stereotypes which may or may not fit and so should be ignored until you know more about that person individually. I don't see that as a useful mental shortcut to encourage or cultivate. The pitfalls and downsides of the stereotyping shortcut as a filter to our mental models of people and the world outweigh the benefits in most cases. And doing this to ourselves rather than to others has its own problems.
An exception might be if you are in a dark alley and need to make a very important split second decision based on limited information - and thus might need to rely on statistical correlations between visible identity group information and behaviors more or less common in that group. That's a case where the shortcut of stereotyping (by perceived group identity) may be a survival positive evolutionary trait. Maybe somebody looks like a tweaker or a gang member and you don't have the luxury of getting to know them individuall.. But I submit that such situations are exceedingly rare for most of us today; we can generally afford take the time to learn about individuals rather than rely on stereotypes or group identities in our understanding of ourselves or others.
But let's put a finer point on it. As Steve says, he'd rather we abandoned group identities but if that's not realistic, that people think carefully about a few group identities which they choose to incorporate into their understanding of their very personhood, their core understanding of themselves as a being (versus just being one of many less central and less constrictive individual traits or proclivities or interests). I ratify that.
But today it's common to try to coerce other people into non-voluntarily conceiving of themselves as a member of an identity group, the characteristics of which somebody other than themselves are assigning. We adults are being taught in diversity education that we MUST develop race consciousness and consider race to be a core and essential part of our identity. If we do not, then we are either racists (if white), or self hating (if not white). And worse, in some schools, this is being imprinted on kids who are still learning to understand themselves and their relationship to society. I do not think this bodes well for the medium to long term.
We can discuss other pitfalls of excessive group identification if you wish; there are many. Like if being accepted as part of a group is framed as essential to your very identity as a human being, that group has coercive power over you and your mind (apostacy, heresy, shaming, shunning, expulsion, etc).
Just having an individual trait does not give any "community" control over your beingness or self image.
Yes we have a tribal nature so there will always be some degree of group identification, but no we don't have an innate tendency to make EVERYTHING about intersectional group identities - that's a more recent and somewhat regional political & cultural aberration from the norms.
Chris, you appear to be making the argument that it's natural for humans to have some degree of group identification, and you can rest your case because all of us understand that. We agree on that.
Some of us are making the point that the current political trend in the US has gone way beyond that natural tendency, to an unhealthy degree.
To use your example, suppose were were talking about the murder rate among a particular tribe being exceptionally high - and somebody in the conversation keeps pointing out that humans have certain proclivities which mean that we will likely never get to a completely zero murder rate. Agreed, but nobody was questioning whether it's practical to get to zero, only observing that it's abnormally high and that's not good.
One problem with substituting identity group membership for most individual traits is that group identities ALWAYS involve stereotypes. ALWAYS. Think about it.
So suppose you know that somebody is a member of the Black identity group. Or the Muslim identity group. Or the white identity group, or the bisexual identity group. What does that membership tell you? Does it tell you whether they feel oppressed? Whether they are middle class? That they are a criminal? That they are a Supreme Court Justice? That they like watermelon? That they like to dance? Other than the nominally shared trait, any other association involves pre-judging and stereotyping, and there are always such associations.
You might say that some of these things are statistically more or less common among some particular identity group, but even if that's true and you have an accurate understanding of the probabilities involved (rare), you still don't know in which facets that person is typical or atypical of the identity group. So all you have gained is a bunch of stereotypes which may or may not fit and so should be ignored until you know more about that person individually. I don't see that as a useful mental shortcut to encourage or cultivate. The pitfalls and downsides of the stereotyping shortcut as a filter to our mental models of people and the world outweigh the benefits in most cases. And doing this to ourselves rather than to others has its own problems.
An exception might be if you are in a dark alley and need to make a very important split second decision based on limited information - and thus might need to rely on statistical correlations between visible identity group information and behaviors more or less common in that group. That's a case where the shortcut of stereotyping (by perceived group identity) may be a survival positive evolutionary trait. Maybe somebody looks like a tweaker or a gang member and you don't have the luxury of getting to know them individuall.. But I submit that such situations are exceedingly rare for most of us today; we can generally afford take the time to learn about individuals rather than rely on stereotypes or group identities in our understanding of ourselves or others.
But let's put a finer point on it. As Steve says, he'd rather we abandoned group identities but if that's not realistic, that people think carefully about a few group identities which they choose to incorporate into their understanding of their very personhood, their core understanding of themselves as a being (versus just being one of many less central and less constrictive individual traits or proclivities or interests). I ratify that.
But today it's common to try to coerce other people into non-voluntarily conceiving of themselves as a member of an identity group, the characteristics of which somebody other than themselves are assigning. We adults are being taught in diversity education that we MUST develop race consciousness and consider race to be a core and essential part of our identity. If we do not, then we are either racists (if white), or self hating (if not white). And worse, in some schools, this is being imprinted on kids who are still learning to understand themselves and their relationship to society. I do not think this bodes well for the medium to long term.
We can discuss other pitfalls of excessive group identification if you wish; there are many. Like if being accepted as part of a group is framed as essential to your very identity as a human being, that group has coercive power over you and your mind (apostacy, heresy, shaming, shunning, expulsion, etc).
Just having an individual trait does not give any "community" control over your beingness or self image.
Yes we have a tribal nature so there will always be some degree of group identification, but no we don't have an innate tendency to make EVERYTHING about intersectional group identities - that's a more recent and somewhat regional political & cultural aberration from the norms.