Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
I mean, we may all say "I am a 40K player", but I doubt many of us would say "I identify fundamentally as a 40K player".

Ahah not true, there are so many people that “identify fundamentally as a gamer” in bs movements like Gamergate . And they get SO offended when anyone says anything negative about “gamers”.
Was that the kind of thing your question was about? Or was it about the rise of xenophobia?

If I offended myself when people talk bad about economical marxists...

I think a "focus" on identity is neither negative nor positive.

I've been writing a 25+ page research paper on the history of heavy metal, and the bulk of my historiography is from sociological texts. This is important (at least for me) because there is a sociologically recognized group of humanity called "metalheads" with some of that population being more visibly recognizable than others. If you see me walking down the street wearing my Cannibal Corpse shirt, or my Slayer shirt, you probably make a judgement about me, or think, "ahh, there is a metalhead"

Beyond this, I think the internet has definitely made the Tribalism over stupid crap worse. Just go on FB and look at a Mustang group, a Camaro group, or almost any other number of vehicle groups. Ya know, you see Bob and Joe come to literally hate each other because they drive a different vehicle.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If you see me walking down the street...

In all fairness I haven't seen you and I still and judging you. Quietly...from a distance...not nearby with a camera...

 Peregrine wrote:
The entire idea of "identity politics" is nonsense. Yes, people use labels for themselves and advocate for policies that are in their best interest, but that's not a new thing or something that is limited to one particular group/side. In my experience the people complaining about "identity politics" have plenty of labels of their own, they just use the term as a synonym for "people with opinions I don't like". It's a fake moral high ground that has no place in constructive discussion.

Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think a "focus" on identity is neither negative nor positive.

I've been writing a 25+ page research paper on the history of heavy metal, and the bulk of my historiography is from sociological texts. This is important (at least for me) because there is a sociologically recognized group of humanity called "metalheads" with some of that population being more visibly recognizable than others. If you see me walking down the street wearing my Cannibal Corpse shirt, or my Slayer shirt, you probably make a judgement about me, or think, "ahh, there is a metalhead"

Beyond this, I think the internet has definitely made the Tribalism over stupid crap worse. Just go on FB and look at a Mustang group, a Camaro group, or almost any other number of vehicle groups. Ya know, you see Bob and Joe come to literally hate each other because they drive a different vehicle.

One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.

 jasper76 wrote:

One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.

And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.

And, I suggest you look up the psychological research of Adrian North that shows a very strong correlation of a number of traits that people have. His research shows that, for instance, people who listen to almost solely pop music, tend to have low self-esteem, and high stress levels. Country fans are rather introverted, but tend to work hard. Both classical and metal groupings exhibited low stress, high self-esteem measures AND a higher creativity level than listeners in his study from other genres.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.

And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.

And, I suggest you look up the psychological research of Adrian North that shows a very strong correlation of a number of traits that people have. His research shows that, for instance, people who listen to almost solely pop music, tend to have low self-esteem, and high stress levels. Country fans are rather introverted, but tend to work hard. Both classical and metal groupings exhibited low stress, high self-esteem measures AND a higher creativity level than listeners in his study from other genres.

I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?

 jasper76 wrote:
Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.

If this isn't about the usual "identity politics ruins everything, democrats fix your party" complaints then what else is left? Some vague idea that people shouldn't describe themselves, or be conscious of which (significant) groups they are part of?

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.

If this isn't about the usual "identity politics ruins everything, democrats fix your party" complaints then what else is left? Some vague idea that people shouldn't describe themselves, or be conscious of which (significant) groups they are part of?

The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.

 jasper76 wrote:

I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?

Alas, everything I have on Adrian North is either the book publishing the results of the study he did, or stuff such as this link: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/sep/08/classical.metal.fans.study which are layman's summaries of it shortly after release.

 jasper76 wrote:
The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.

I honestly don't see how any of that stuff has any substance to it. The concept in general is way too broad to give you any useful insight into anything (there's quite a bit of life-experience difference between identifying as a member of a particular religion and identifying as a fan of a TV show), and I don't see any reason to believe that this is a new development rather than another iteration of "kids these days". People have been forming identity-based groups for as long as there have been people, and in the end most of these frivolous identities (like being a fan of a TV show) have no practical impact on a person's life.

 jasper76 wrote:

The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving o to another one.

I'll be plain, I saw the title and thought, 'Ah, someone's probably trying to subtly complain about other people daring to define themselves as non cis-gendered or something'.

I mean, let's be honest, the minute someone starts trying to define 'positive and negative for society', that means they're trying to put people/behaviours in boxes and issue highly subjective moral judgements on them. What's good and bad for society is entirely dependent upon what you think is a good and/or bad society, after all.

People identify themselves as one thing or another all the time. Charles VI identified himself as made of glass. Generally speaking, the Western/liberal view these days is that you can identify yourself as a small donkey called Harold if you feel like it, but so long as you don't hurt anyone, that's entirely your own affair.

Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.

You'll find this is History as well, particularly immigration history where it's been a theme since the work of Oscar Hamlin in the 50s.

More recently the torch has been picked up by a gal named Nancy Foner, who has written two books focusing on "imposed identity," one about the Irish in the Civil War (Or apparently Foner didn't write this one, no idea why I thought she did XD Appropriate author Susannah Ural), and the other about the two immigration waves to New York in the 20th century. For some reason the concept hasn't caught on in social history yet. Not sure why. Sociologists talk about it, immigration historians talk about it, and that's like 3/5's of the social historian's reader list.

 Ketara wrote:
Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'

Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
People have been forming identity-based groups for as long as there have been people, and in the end most of these frivolous identities (like being a fan of a TV show) have no practical impact on a person's life.

Tell that to the Achaemenids.

Damn Homer, espousing the glories of Greek culture and talking about how they were strongest when united against a common foe. And then there's this fether.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?

Alas, everything I have on Adrian North is either the book publishing the results of the study he did, or stuff such as this link: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/sep/08/classical.metal.fans.study which are layman's summaries of it shortly after release.

Thanks for providing the link. I do admit that it is interesting to me. For example, the correlation between heavy metal and classical musical preferences to creativity. Alot of heavy metal and alot of classical music is pretty darn complex, and alot of creative people tend to be very intelligent.

Something that struck me as interesting was the correlation between low income people and soothing people, and higher income people and exciting music. I wonder if this might be situational. This is all just speculation based on my experience so bear with me. When I am stressed out (and lack of money can be a big stresser) I find that if I listen to exciting music like fast or chaotic metal, or fast or chaotic classical, to actually increase my feelings of stress, and to level myself out, soothing music reduces it. So if I'm stressed about money, I'm going for the Enya over the Megadeth. But when I'm fairly worry-free, I find the Enya boring, and the Megadeth invigorating. Maybe a persistent stress in life about money due to having lower income lends itself to wanting to be soothed by soothing music.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'

I'm willing to have this conversation if you are sincere in putting it out there. I think discussing social phenomena as positive or negative is ultimately positive for society. I think society is something that we collectively create for ourselves, and if there are certain things that are having a negative or positive effect society, then they are worth thinking about and discussing, so that as a collective we can move away from things that are harming us and reinforce things that benefit us. To me, his isn't playing at God so much as being a concerned citizen.

To relate this to the thread, it's my opinion that if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other, which is good for society, and conversely when we put an emphasis on what divides us, we become more fractured from one another, and less sympathetic and empathetic towards each other. And I think we see this play out all the time. And I think the increasing granularity with which people separate themselves from one another (at least in my perception) will likely lead to a decrease in our sympathy and empathy for one another, because it leads to us alienating ourselves from other people by defining ourselves against them, and it also lends itself to self-absorption, where we think more and more about the details of our self-definition, and less and less about what's going on around us.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.

I honestly don't see how any of that stuff has any substance to it.

Fair enough. When I encounter a subject that I feel lacks substance, I tend to just move on to a topic that interests me.

 jasper76 wrote:

I'm willing to have this conversation if you are sincere in putting it out there. I think discussing social phenomena as positive or negative is ultimately positive for society. I think society is something that we collectively create for ourselves, and if there are certain things that are having a negative or positive effect society, then they are worth thinking about and discussing, so that as a collective we can move away from things that are harming us and reinforce things that benefit us. To me, his isn't playing at God so much as being a concerned citizen.

The problem is that 'harm' or 'benefits' are entirely subjective.

Example. I like weed. You don't. I believe it should be legalised, as it does less harm than say, cigarettes, which are legal. You believe it empowers gang violence. I say I should be allowed to put whatever I like in my mouth as a free adult. You say I'm a bad influence to passing children. I say that it has medicinal purposes. You say it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood. I say it helps me to relax. You say it's giving me mental health problems.

Is it good or bad for society? The answer is, it's about as good or bad for society as a large rubber duck. ie, who knows? But in a Western Society, because I'm not really hurting anyone, odds are most officials will let me get on with my life and not obsess about forcing me to 'move away' from it.


Another example. I have a pop-up noodle stand in the streets of Beijing. You're the Chinese Government and want to get rid of me. I say I boost the local economy. You say I'm an eyesore. I say I provide a sense of local community. You say I obstruct part of the street. I say I've been here for thirty years and nobody's complained, cars can still get past. You say the Olympics are coming, and I need to get out of the way, chop chop. I say that I'm providing cultural delicacies for the tourists.

Am I good or bad for society? The answer is, we're in communist China, and it doesn't matter. Because of people trying to decide what's 'best' for society, I get locked up, my stall torn down, and a McDonalds thrown up in my place. Trebles all round!

And that, generally speaking, is what comes from worrying too much about what other people are doing with their lives as 'concerned citizens'. There are times and places for the needs of the majority to take precendence over individual property rights and opinions. War, life or death medical emergencies, disaster relief, and so on. How people choose to define and perceive themselves is not one of them, and is only ever considered one of them if you've gone so far left or right wing you've found the magical place they hold hands round the back. At which point people start being prosecuted for not 'thinking' the right way.

This is generally perceived by a large number of people to be a 'bad' thing.

jasper76 wrote:To relate this to the thread, it's my opinion that if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other, which is good for society, and conversely when we put an emphasis on what divides us, we become more fractured from one another, and less sympathetic and empathetic towards each other. And I think we see this play out all the time. And I think the increasing granularity with which people separate themselves from one another (at least in my perception) will likely lead to a decrease in our sympathy and empathy for one another, because it leads to us alienating ourselves from other people by defining ourselves against them, and it also lends itself to self-absorption, where we think more and more about the details of our self-definition, and less and less about what's going on around us.

I think that's the other way around. If you have something in common with someone then you have something that connects you despite all possible other differences. But you are still two individuals and this one connection is not all you are and this common interest doesn't completely define you as a human being. This probably makes it easier explore your differences than if you had to start at zero. Many people have found friend online in all kinds of niche interests that they couldn't find locally (or would have a hard time finding) who are from all kinds of different backgrounds or nations. Don't these connections count? Or are these similarities only valuable if they are locally made? Overall I think the fact that people are different and individuals is much more beneficial to humanity than being some sort of "one big mass" that's all the same. I'm all for more biodiversity, it makes everything more flexible and resistant to catastrophic events (even if it's a bit more more work).

Where's the threshold for this "if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other" bit. What counts as similarity and what counts as granularity/separation? If we, for example, connect over wargaming and become friends, are we finding similarities and growing more empathic or are we separating from the rest of humanity that's not in the wargaming in-group? How does one define "similarities as people" without creating a separation?

 LordofHats wrote:

Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'

Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?

Lol, I didn't say that. Not sure what happened with the quote blocks there

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'

Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?

Lol, I didn't say that. Not sure what happened with the quote blocks there

I know you didn't XD

Sometimes when cutting out bits for quoting I end up cutting out the name of the actual poster, leaving just a quote block. I figure everyone is reading the thread and actually knows who said what, and if they're not they shouldn't be quoting people anyway

But if it bothers you I'll fix it right quick! EDIT: Fixed.

This thread reminds me of this:




focus on identity can only be a positive thing, and it's not a big deal. everyone is different, and never fit into broad labels that society want's to impose of everyone. It's not a big deal, it's just the way it is.

"to label me is to negate me" truer words were never spoken.

Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual. Yet when you start looking at everyone in the mob, it becomes clear they`re all individuals as well with their own identity often pretending they think exactly like the mob to fit in, so they`re not rejected.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual.

Do you want a Stand Alone Complex?

Cause that's how you get a Stand Alone Complex

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual.

Do you want a Stand Alone Complex?

Cause that's how you get a Stand Alone Complex

sirlynchmob wrote:
Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual. Yet when you start looking at everyone in the mob, it becomes clear they`re all individuals as well with their own identity often pretending they think exactly like the mob to fit in, so they`re not rejected.

Sounds like what someone in the mob would say whenin denial about being in the mob to protect their own ego. Heard it hundreds of millions of times...MILLIONS!

All kidding aside I've heard this kind of sentiment for decades. It isn't really all that radical or new.

I think this guy in Muppet's Take Manhatten sums it up pretty well.

It's not Sarte, but there you go......

I think identity has always been with is. Like many things in life, it is just becoming more nuanced.

The issue I'm finding, though, is that notions of identity have traditionally come with a sense of responsibility. You belong to a town or a country, and as well as giving you a sense of belonging, but it also gave you expectations, about how you should behave and about what you should give back. A lot of modern identities don't have the latter part.

I have no reading or studies to back that up, it's just a general feeling I've developed over the years. Which means it might be completely wrong, of course

 Peregrine wrote:
The entire idea of "identity politics" is nonsense. Yes, people use labels for themselves and advocate for policies that are in their best interest, but that's not a new thing or something that is limited to one particular group/side. In my experience the people complaining about "identity politics" have plenty of labels of their own, they just use the term as a synonym for "people with opinions I don't like". It's a fake moral high ground that has no place in constructive discussion.

Fairly often people critical of identity politics are mostly just resentful that someone's identity other than their own is now being represented. Look at all this nonsense after Clinton defeat, claiming that instead of focusing on 'identity politics' she should have focused on the concerns of the white working class. The criticism completely missed that WWC is an identity group.

The art of political campaigning is all about telling groups of people in a convincing way that you are like them and will do things for them. The idea that identity wouldn't play a part in that is bonkers.

Well, if this thread has taught me anything, it's just how bad that OT needs a US Politics thread. Without it, US politics makes its way into all other threads. It's an irresistible force

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?

(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)

I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.

What do you mean by identity? M/F/Trans sex? Nationality? Race? Religion? Or all of the above?

 kronk wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?

(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)

I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.

What do you mean by identity? M/F/Trans sex? Nationality? Race? Religion? Or all of the above?

I was thinking more or less all of the above. But not just those things you listed. Like there seems to be an increased focus people have on the various aspects of themselves and how they identify that separates them from other people...special snowflake syndrome, if you like, but certainly not limited to any part of any spectrum. For example, many regressives play the special snowflake game (and are frequently called out for it), but so do many liberals and conservatives. Many Muslims play the special snowflake game, but so do many Christians and atheists. And on and on it goes.

But honestly I've lost steam in continuing the conversation. It's true that identity has always been an important aspect of people's lives, and others here don't seem to think there is anything out of the ordinary going on in recent times. Even though I do still think the focus people have on themselves and their identities seems to me be on a marked increase, my idea here is not regarded as valid by most in this thread, so I'm happy to just let the subject drop.

Is it possible that you just hadn't noticed it before?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Is it possible that you just hadn't noticed it before?

Perhaps the explosion of the internet has either changed things, or laid things bare that were once hidden. The internet was just becoming available to the average Joe when I was in my late college years. It seems to me that before that, the focus on the self and ones identifying features did not seem as extreme as what it has become since then.

To me it seems that one of the things about the internet, and this has been mentioned before, is that we are no longer just members of our local communities, but part of this worldwide community of all internet-connected people where we are drowned out and somewhat dehumanized due to the overwhelming volume of participants, and perhaps people are finding more and more granular ways to differentiate themselves from the uber-herd.

The internet has definitely hyped some of that up, some of the stuff always existed but the interconnection and reinforcement of many things has definitely grown with the internet, particularly as hype machines and people's own self selections intensify.