I think much of politics stems from identity construction. Most discussions about identity are approached from the question of the Other -- include them or teach them or change them. But really, any position of otherness must be mediated by what the Self is. The self mediating the self is the "invisible" point of reference that creates this initial distortion.

Post race isn't exactly the same as post identity. Even if it's a class distinction or, say, identifying as a "punk" which means "I'm real" then others who are not punk are "sell outs.". Identity works that way.

So being American. Being a man. Being your age. Your personal history your children's future your parent's past your politics your sexuality your (in)unique soul. These are still pretty much identity construction that traps us as being a type and others as not being us. Except for genuine interaction, which basically needs both sides of the interaction to shed the image of itself, the Other is always a mirror that reflects back to us our negative that is not-me.

These groups of similar mes that see me as being us organizes groups, and super-groups. This organizationing(s) "hows" how we talk to one another and share resources/work. But each group, and group of groups also describe it's own outside. You have to be outside the outside, to really step away. This organization/description/structure is not accidentally, how things are supposed to be. Based, on the outside of itself, it has to be this way, as defined by the outside that is not itself defining itself. So, each grouping also describes it's own outside or "rebellion". Being a punk is inscribed at the heart of being a sell-out. So it really seems impossible to step out of this reality.

But I guess that really doesn't matter. Most people just want to fit in somewhere and be themselves. Lol, be who their identity tells them they are. :-)

Views: 76


You need to be a member of Open Anthropology Cooperative to add comments!

Comment by John McCreery on April 26, 2014 at 4:56am

A bit peculiar, isn't it, starting a questioning of self with, "I think"? Otherwise a nice statement of stuff that has been pretty much common knowledge since George Herbert Mead's Mind, Self, and Society (1934). Rediscovering what has been said before doesn't invalidate the discovery. Still, it would be nice to see someone who had taken the time to read Mead take his work a step further. The mind's mills are not supposed to be treadmills.


OAC Press



© 2020   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service