"Identity" is an overused concept today: in a world in constant
transformation, it would sound obsolete if it were not re-proposed as a
myth linked to a sense of security, belonging and stability. The claim
to identity which is not only typical of those who appeal to old or new
nationalisms, but also of those who express awareness of minority
choices, thus hindering reflections that would like to shift the
substance of the debate to a "beyond identity" is surprising. , looking
for wide breaths of dialogue.
In anthropology for decades, different interpretations and implications
have been compared, especially in the fulcrum highlighted by its
antithetical: that of "otherness", in the sense that to evaluate the
levels of closure or openness of a society, or of a group, to the
inevitable mutations it is necessary to analyze the relationship with
what is defined as "other than oneself", "other than us", and with the
ability to grow in reciprocity. Identity defines a contrast: there is an
I, or an we, which strengthens itself against the you, generating an
aversion that can produce violent reactions.
Hannah Arendt already referred to the "magical condition of plurality",
hindering the assumption, in vogue in her time, which idealized the
drive towards homogeneity in a human group, so that it could be
protected from contamination. She understood the risk because in the
social and relational sphere everything that appears uniform, cohesive
and coherent actually borders on staticity, an obstacle to complexity, a
continuous need for internal purification that acts as a protective
shield to keep alive an elusive original model: here coherence
presupposes a reduction of multiplicity. We are therefore witnessing the
paradox of presumed majorities that feel threatened by other cultural
forms; the more the identity is circumscribed the less there is
dialogue, acceptance and acceptance. In various contexts the
hypocritical pretext of the sense of defense and protection initiates
more or less violent conflicts, recalling the fear of the risk of
cultural degradation or corruption. Obviously the aim of every war
conflict is the conquest of power and the control of resources, but when
it is triggered on the pretext of ethnicity the latter becomes an
effective means of unsolvable conflicts. It goes without saying that an
act of separation is established from those who will be excluded and of
assimilation to the selected circle to be homologated; this occurs on
different degrees of limitation to otherness, up to the extreme cases in
which its elimination is planned.
Analyzing the question in this way, however, keeps this reflection on a
level that could appear theoretical, in the sense that in reality
contaminations have always existed and, apart from the tragic examples
of genocides, cultures cannot maintain any vaunted purity as the
exchanges they are essential while the otherness, even if denied, will
resurface in various circumstances. Historically, internal/external
interaction has given rise to mixed and complex cultural phenomena, yet
the insistent reference to identity pride does not leave the scene,
bringing with it ambiguity and falsity. Anthropologists, sociologists,
historians and political scientists (M. Augé, J. F. Bayart, R. Benedict,
P. Berger, U. Fabietti, E. Goffman, E. Hobsbawn, F. Jullien, C.
Lèvi-Strauss, A. Marazzi, M Mead, F. Remotti) have analyzed the
repercussions. What does ambiguity mean? Why are we talking about
fiction? By shifting the view on individualities, they can only be
partially identified in a description that unites them to others (being
born in the same place, speaking a language, carrying out a profession,
practicing an activity, making existential choices, etc.) while, for
others aspects, they will be able to perceive an assonance with
completely different others: when one defines oneself through lived
experience, with the exception of the place where one was born, one
should take it for granted that experiencing is always subject to
novelty. But those who make identity a flag do not take this plurality
into consideration and tend to close themselves in a definition, such as
to delimit "being" and create relationship boundaries. And here a first
mask already emerges: by showing one aspect, it hides others; by stating
an alleged truth, it creates fiction and vice versa because the pawns
move on the chessboard, revealing paradoxes and modifying contexts. To
exclude this from happening is to try to protect oneself through the
illusion of a unitary, collective and permanent image, adhering to a
model that actually does not exist because it does not take syncretism
into account: with the exception of archaic societies, at least as long
as they have lived in isolation, they do not There are pure cultures.
And hence the arbitrariness: one pretends when one shapes, models,
refers to the as if. The singular cannot be separated from the plural
and plurality is composed of singularities: we implies fluidity. The
concept of identity is not just an expedient aimed at safeguarding the
stability of a social system: it is an ideological operation aimed at
establishing a detachment, fueled by pride, to affirm sovereignty and
superiority. It is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes, in addition
to political power, impose cultural models so that that sense of
identity belonging which establishes the superiority of us is introjected.
The request for identity recognition takes for granted a substance that
is presumed compact and unalterable, but when the need for recognition
corresponds to the demand for rights, and is therefore not cloaked in
myths, it requires a struggle that in itself should not be exclusionary.
This is not always the case, ambiguities can emerge. It is not a
question of puns but of placing the reflection on the relationships
between I/us and you, on the quality of the interrelationships so much
so that the theme of identityism has common features with that of
racism, even if the second receives less consensus: the defense becomes
offended, we ghettoize ourselves to discriminate against those we want
to keep on the margins, perhaps resorting to a hypocritical safeguard of
other people's diversity.
It is therefore a question of distinguishing between instances and
references, between projects and representations, between the
intolerance inherent in the sense of identity and the richness of
comparison.
In the ongoing debate there are also those who belittle it by asserting
that identity is what it is, (and here we should answer: "or what is
presumed"?) and those who identify its limits in the growing cultural
impoverishment, dictated by commodification and encouraged by the use of
digital, but the reversal between cause and effect leads to a stasis:
monotonous mirrors, induced feelings of contrast.
Furthermore, there are those who support its positive value by
associating it with the fear that traditions and peculiar traits of a
culture, based on collective history, will fall into oblivion: it is a
false problem as it always depends on how the relationship with
otherness. We could probably overcome this incessant reference to the
logic of identity, and its ambivalences, by recognizing in otherness not
the element that removes or adds characteristics to what is defined as
original, but the novelty on which to base future coexistence without
deprivation or renunciation. Where complexity and dialogue win, each
particular instance, as long as it does not fossilize on exasperating
and hypocritical entrenchments, will acquire space and value: history
demonstrates that the more ontologically restricted cultural models are,
the sooner they are destined to become extinct because only on a mosaic
of elaborations can there it can be emancipation. Interculturalism makes
sense if it does not focus on factors of prevalence and power, otherwise
it is an empty word.
Otherness is a cultural concept, but it is curious that it has a
transposition into medical and legal language as opposed to normality,
or legality, of behavior: the other becomes outside of oneself/outside
the law. Otherness, in this sense, indicates the forms of madness/crime
that a culture, and its legislative system, excludes from what it
considers similar to the norm; but this last concept, being in turn
built on criteria of cultural prejudice, is subject to changes which may
also depend on the collective feeling which is renewed and influences
symbolic references, communication and, finally, social relations. Just
as otherness, thanks to its characteristics of multiplicity, undermines
identity unity, so madness crumbles the foundations of that structure
called "mental health".
Freeing yourself from the logic of identity means accepting the
inexorable precariousness of existence, it means knowing how to
experience freedom as a risk, which is then equivalent to savoring the
most difficult and joyful of opportunities.
clear gazelle
https://www.sicilialibertaria.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
transformation, it would sound obsolete if it were not re-proposed as a
myth linked to a sense of security, belonging and stability. The claim
to identity which is not only typical of those who appeal to old or new
nationalisms, but also of those who express awareness of minority
choices, thus hindering reflections that would like to shift the
substance of the debate to a "beyond identity" is surprising. , looking
for wide breaths of dialogue.
In anthropology for decades, different interpretations and implications
have been compared, especially in the fulcrum highlighted by its
antithetical: that of "otherness", in the sense that to evaluate the
levels of closure or openness of a society, or of a group, to the
inevitable mutations it is necessary to analyze the relationship with
what is defined as "other than oneself", "other than us", and with the
ability to grow in reciprocity. Identity defines a contrast: there is an
I, or an we, which strengthens itself against the you, generating an
aversion that can produce violent reactions.
Hannah Arendt already referred to the "magical condition of plurality",
hindering the assumption, in vogue in her time, which idealized the
drive towards homogeneity in a human group, so that it could be
protected from contamination. She understood the risk because in the
social and relational sphere everything that appears uniform, cohesive
and coherent actually borders on staticity, an obstacle to complexity, a
continuous need for internal purification that acts as a protective
shield to keep alive an elusive original model: here coherence
presupposes a reduction of multiplicity. We are therefore witnessing the
paradox of presumed majorities that feel threatened by other cultural
forms; the more the identity is circumscribed the less there is
dialogue, acceptance and acceptance. In various contexts the
hypocritical pretext of the sense of defense and protection initiates
more or less violent conflicts, recalling the fear of the risk of
cultural degradation or corruption. Obviously the aim of every war
conflict is the conquest of power and the control of resources, but when
it is triggered on the pretext of ethnicity the latter becomes an
effective means of unsolvable conflicts. It goes without saying that an
act of separation is established from those who will be excluded and of
assimilation to the selected circle to be homologated; this occurs on
different degrees of limitation to otherness, up to the extreme cases in
which its elimination is planned.
Analyzing the question in this way, however, keeps this reflection on a
level that could appear theoretical, in the sense that in reality
contaminations have always existed and, apart from the tragic examples
of genocides, cultures cannot maintain any vaunted purity as the
exchanges they are essential while the otherness, even if denied, will
resurface in various circumstances. Historically, internal/external
interaction has given rise to mixed and complex cultural phenomena, yet
the insistent reference to identity pride does not leave the scene,
bringing with it ambiguity and falsity. Anthropologists, sociologists,
historians and political scientists (M. Augé, J. F. Bayart, R. Benedict,
P. Berger, U. Fabietti, E. Goffman, E. Hobsbawn, F. Jullien, C.
Lèvi-Strauss, A. Marazzi, M Mead, F. Remotti) have analyzed the
repercussions. What does ambiguity mean? Why are we talking about
fiction? By shifting the view on individualities, they can only be
partially identified in a description that unites them to others (being
born in the same place, speaking a language, carrying out a profession,
practicing an activity, making existential choices, etc.) while, for
others aspects, they will be able to perceive an assonance with
completely different others: when one defines oneself through lived
experience, with the exception of the place where one was born, one
should take it for granted that experiencing is always subject to
novelty. But those who make identity a flag do not take this plurality
into consideration and tend to close themselves in a definition, such as
to delimit "being" and create relationship boundaries. And here a first
mask already emerges: by showing one aspect, it hides others; by stating
an alleged truth, it creates fiction and vice versa because the pawns
move on the chessboard, revealing paradoxes and modifying contexts. To
exclude this from happening is to try to protect oneself through the
illusion of a unitary, collective and permanent image, adhering to a
model that actually does not exist because it does not take syncretism
into account: with the exception of archaic societies, at least as long
as they have lived in isolation, they do not There are pure cultures.
And hence the arbitrariness: one pretends when one shapes, models,
refers to the as if. The singular cannot be separated from the plural
and plurality is composed of singularities: we implies fluidity. The
concept of identity is not just an expedient aimed at safeguarding the
stability of a social system: it is an ideological operation aimed at
establishing a detachment, fueled by pride, to affirm sovereignty and
superiority. It is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes, in addition
to political power, impose cultural models so that that sense of
identity belonging which establishes the superiority of us is introjected.
The request for identity recognition takes for granted a substance that
is presumed compact and unalterable, but when the need for recognition
corresponds to the demand for rights, and is therefore not cloaked in
myths, it requires a struggle that in itself should not be exclusionary.
This is not always the case, ambiguities can emerge. It is not a
question of puns but of placing the reflection on the relationships
between I/us and you, on the quality of the interrelationships so much
so that the theme of identityism has common features with that of
racism, even if the second receives less consensus: the defense becomes
offended, we ghettoize ourselves to discriminate against those we want
to keep on the margins, perhaps resorting to a hypocritical safeguard of
other people's diversity.
It is therefore a question of distinguishing between instances and
references, between projects and representations, between the
intolerance inherent in the sense of identity and the richness of
comparison.
In the ongoing debate there are also those who belittle it by asserting
that identity is what it is, (and here we should answer: "or what is
presumed"?) and those who identify its limits in the growing cultural
impoverishment, dictated by commodification and encouraged by the use of
digital, but the reversal between cause and effect leads to a stasis:
monotonous mirrors, induced feelings of contrast.
Furthermore, there are those who support its positive value by
associating it with the fear that traditions and peculiar traits of a
culture, based on collective history, will fall into oblivion: it is a
false problem as it always depends on how the relationship with
otherness. We could probably overcome this incessant reference to the
logic of identity, and its ambivalences, by recognizing in otherness not
the element that removes or adds characteristics to what is defined as
original, but the novelty on which to base future coexistence without
deprivation or renunciation. Where complexity and dialogue win, each
particular instance, as long as it does not fossilize on exasperating
and hypocritical entrenchments, will acquire space and value: history
demonstrates that the more ontologically restricted cultural models are,
the sooner they are destined to become extinct because only on a mosaic
of elaborations can there it can be emancipation. Interculturalism makes
sense if it does not focus on factors of prevalence and power, otherwise
it is an empty word.
Otherness is a cultural concept, but it is curious that it has a
transposition into medical and legal language as opposed to normality,
or legality, of behavior: the other becomes outside of oneself/outside
the law. Otherness, in this sense, indicates the forms of madness/crime
that a culture, and its legislative system, excludes from what it
considers similar to the norm; but this last concept, being in turn
built on criteria of cultural prejudice, is subject to changes which may
also depend on the collective feeling which is renewed and influences
symbolic references, communication and, finally, social relations. Just
as otherness, thanks to its characteristics of multiplicity, undermines
identity unity, so madness crumbles the foundations of that structure
called "mental health".
Freeing yourself from the logic of identity means accepting the
inexorable precariousness of existence, it means knowing how to
experience freedom as a risk, which is then equivalent to savoring the
most difficult and joyful of opportunities.
clear gazelle
https://www.sicilialibertaria.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten