(ML) Who Do We Think We Are?

"Identity politics is inspired by the interests of, and intended to benefit, a particular group with a shared identity." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)

I scoff at the idea that Identity politics is comforting as it promises security and meaning. I think identities will always be changeable and, thus always pulled into question. It is just as unstable as small-scale social groupings, like those cliques in American high schools and barkadas in Filipino schools.

Identity politics then can only exist as long as people still feel like identifying themselves with a certain group that although may be intrinsically different, suspend these differences for the comfort and safety of a larger pack. But the fact remains, that in some way, they are quite irrevocably different.

"The illusion that people possess a single, fixed identity results in a culture of political correctness and a focus on personal conduct, rather than revolutionary change."(Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)

That a person's racial, religious, sexual, or class identity defines a person's (political) views is such a Western concept. It is not necessarily true. Sure, these may have a large bearing on people's decisions and opinions, especially when they are unaware of the implications of being boxed in by a label. But a person can always rise above labels.

We are whoever we consent to be at a certain moment in time. Philosophy accepts the fact that this can change from its initial state in event of some kind of life-changing experience. It may be a simple realization (which may not necessarily be simple) or a "faith"-shattering experience. But identity, whatever it may be can change. So an existence based on labels is not very reliable at all, and identities cannot, much less, be defined by a few words.