When people need ‘identity’, it means they are fed up with anymore oppression and ready to fight. To me, the concept of ‘identity’ is very identical to ‘sovereignty’. Not simply a metaphor, it is the fundamental rationale for a subjective to position itself in a society, whether a State or a person. Within the socially constructed world, an identity may operationalise one’s uniqueness, but sometimes also undermine one’s chance to be normalised.
On one hand, both concepts give people power to feel stronger, solid and united in a community of the sameness, or at least similitude, along with its territorial borders against all the intrusions. On the other hand, they also make people identify, and even differentiate, self from others, so that the ‘self’ becomes a weapon to defy the ‘others’, with a symbol, an ideology, or a shared imagination.
Is it really good? I can simply say it is ‘practical’, in terms of instrumentality, collectivism, self-safeguarding, and -manifestation. However, it would always remind us we are ‘still’ different and separate. If there were nothing to do with ‘superior’ versus ‘subordinate’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or ‘morally correct’ or ‘incorrect’, why would people need ‘identity’, as a nation of ‘sovereignty’? Stemming from the sense of ‘equality’, and ‘distinction’ is just the threshold of achieving it.
Then, people come up with the other notion in the name of ‘tolerance’, which is ridiculous but urgent and necessary. As a transition stage, it seems to be inevitable for the ‘subordinate’ of ‘minority’ or ‘perversion’ to seek for the understanding, accommodation, and acceptance from the ‘superior’, perhaps of ‘majority’ or ‘mainstream’. Ironically, creating the so-called ‘identity’ as a ‘label’ for the self thus becomes unavoidable step of ‘de-labelling’.
What can be the next? People may have no idea yet. Just like after the concept of ‘sovereignty’ was invented for nations to prevent from outsiders’ intervention and aggression, the ultimate goal of ‘sovereign equality’ has never been really accomplished, although the purpose of ‘international peace’ might somewhat be maintained. Nevertheless, the state of genuine peace has yet been achieved either, when struggles have never ceased.
At the current stage, people are still working on exploring of their own ‘identities’, claiming ‘pride’ at a disadvantaged place, locating themselves in a fight for dignity and equality, and wishing to be no longer marginalised while being minorities. Some of ‘others’ are also learning to be more accepting, tolerating, and even helping. Maybe one day people will need no ‘identity’ anymore when the war is stopped.
When ‘identity’ becomes as a name of someone rather than a label, differences among people may simply indicate ‘diversity’ but nothing to do with ‘distinction’ or ‘gap’. No power can be placed against anyone’s self-determination, except in extreme circumstances for others’ justice or his/her own health and wellbeing. Otherwise, as the idea of ‘sovereignty’, everyone’s body and mind should be respected as his/her boundaries and internal affairs.
On one hand, both concepts give people power to feel stronger, solid and united in a community of the sameness, or at least similitude, along with its territorial borders against all the intrusions. On the other hand, they also make people identify, and even differentiate, self from others, so that the ‘self’ becomes a weapon to defy the ‘others’, with a symbol, an ideology, or a shared imagination.
Is it really good? I can simply say it is ‘practical’, in terms of instrumentality, collectivism, self-safeguarding, and -manifestation. However, it would always remind us we are ‘still’ different and separate. If there were nothing to do with ‘superior’ versus ‘subordinate’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or ‘morally correct’ or ‘incorrect’, why would people need ‘identity’, as a nation of ‘sovereignty’? Stemming from the sense of ‘equality’, and ‘distinction’ is just the threshold of achieving it.
Then, people come up with the other notion in the name of ‘tolerance’, which is ridiculous but urgent and necessary. As a transition stage, it seems to be inevitable for the ‘subordinate’ of ‘minority’ or ‘perversion’ to seek for the understanding, accommodation, and acceptance from the ‘superior’, perhaps of ‘majority’ or ‘mainstream’. Ironically, creating the so-called ‘identity’ as a ‘label’ for the self thus becomes unavoidable step of ‘de-labelling’.
What can be the next? People may have no idea yet. Just like after the concept of ‘sovereignty’ was invented for nations to prevent from outsiders’ intervention and aggression, the ultimate goal of ‘sovereign equality’ has never been really accomplished, although the purpose of ‘international peace’ might somewhat be maintained. Nevertheless, the state of genuine peace has yet been achieved either, when struggles have never ceased.
At the current stage, people are still working on exploring of their own ‘identities’, claiming ‘pride’ at a disadvantaged place, locating themselves in a fight for dignity and equality, and wishing to be no longer marginalised while being minorities. Some of ‘others’ are also learning to be more accepting, tolerating, and even helping. Maybe one day people will need no ‘identity’ anymore when the war is stopped.
When ‘identity’ becomes as a name of someone rather than a label, differences among people may simply indicate ‘diversity’ but nothing to do with ‘distinction’ or ‘gap’. No power can be placed against anyone’s self-determination, except in extreme circumstances for others’ justice or his/her own health and wellbeing. Otherwise, as the idea of ‘sovereignty’, everyone’s body and mind should be respected as his/her boundaries and internal affairs.
全站熱搜
留言列表
