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.

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.

You are assuming that focus on identity is a modern phenomenon when that is blatantly not true. Tribalism might as well be humanity's default setting.

 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.

I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.

 John Prins wrote:


I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.

It's almost like gak is too complex to effortlessly fit into a self serving box of individual sentiment.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You are assuming that focus on identity is a modern phenomenon when that is blatantly not true. Tribalism might as well be humanity's default setting.

I definitely realize that tribalism is as old as humanity, but in recent times their seems to have been an explosion in fascination with identity, and it is getting more and more granular, to he point that many of us even have websites entirely dedicated to ourselves and our own identity.

Do you think this is the modern manifestation of our tribalistic impulses? Will this evolve until each individual is his or her own unique tribe?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You are assuming that focus on identity is a modern phenomenon when that is blatantly not true. Tribalism might as well be humanity's default setting.

Pft. Clearly sir you agree with the Saracens. I'll see you at the next Crusade, the annual visits of Franks to the Orient

Identity is extremely complex, and, while currently particularly sensitive, is always an issue and always will be an issue.

As for its value, I generally think it trends inversly with prosperity. Identity is a powerful mechanic to bind a group together in adversity towards a common goal or against a common threat. At the same time, subidentities will tear apart that same group of people in good times over relatively minor issues as tiny matters serve as the focus of identity rather than larger ones.

 John Prins 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.

I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.

I'm talking about what I perceive as an increase in the ways in which we separate ourselves from our fellow people at large, which seems to be getting more and more granular. Strangely enough, I perceive that national identity is on the decline, as we now have instant access to people from around the world, we come to understand that nationality is pretty unimportant (people are people, or something like that). But I perceive an increase in fixation on group identity and personal identity. People seem to want to define further and further how they are different from one another.

This stuff is hard to put down in words for me, but I hope that clears what I mean up a bit a least.

It's one part marginalised people finding their voice and taking space in the public discussion and one part the infinite atomisation of late capitalism.

"A focus on identity" is really a very vague thing to say so unless you specify what makes you wonder this you might not get a good answer.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's one part marginalised people finding their voice and taking space in the public discussion and one part the infinite atomisation of late capitalism.

"A focus on identity" is really a very vague thing to say so unless you specify what makes you wonder this you might not get a good answer.

I hope my replies so far have clarified what I meant at least a bit.

 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.

For the slow like myself what do you mean by focus on identity?

The value of the individual has always been a strong focus of western phylosophy.

You can go to Japan or China to find the other extreme. What happens when you destroy the identity of individuals and make them a homogeneus group. Those photos of japanese businessmen all with the same suit and the same haircut, walking alongside Lolitas and people with anime-hair style? Basically, as you try to make people feel the same, they will sthrugle to feel unique.

Is easy to dismisse the "identity" of other persons or groups when the identity of your group is the dominant one.
Theres no thing as a "No identity/cultural group". You will always be part of one, or more than one.

 Frazzled 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.

For the slow like myself what do you mean by focus on identity?

I mean a fascination with how we are unique and different from each other either as groups or individuals, and the broadcasting of those differences to each other. Or something like that.

Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? That's because we live in a society where you aren't relevant other than as a unit of labour or as a unit of consumption. The only choice we have is what to consume and you aren't meant to think about alternatives so that's what people get wrapped up in.

Are you talking about people arguing about sexual, gendered or racial identity? That's people who've been suppressed for a very long time finding a presence on platforms that are easier to access than traditional media plus capitalist attempts at commodifying these groups' struggles for liberation.

People care a lot about identity because generally it means you are something and thus ostensibly belong somewhere or have a people, which is not something that the economic system encourages. People use it to explain or handle their traumas, however poorly, because the rest of society doesn't offer much help there or outright creates the traumas in the first place.

Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.

I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.

I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.

Don't exist a proverb about being alone in the middle of a crown of people?

Compare it with a little town vs a city. You can live in a town of 100 habitants, and probably you will know every single one of them. If you live in a big city, if you know the people that live in others appartments in your same building, you are lucky.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? .

You may have to dumb down what you mean by this for me. I don't know what "living-as-a-brand blog" is, nor do I really see an emphasis on people connecting their fundamental identity to their consumer choices, except perhaps with the youthful and/or materialistic.

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". Or someone might say "I am a Subaru driver", but I doubt many would say "I identify fundamentally as a Subaru driver."

 jasper76 wrote:
I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.

I may be wrong, though I believe it is a reference to the effect cited in material such as this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

I've been saying for a few years now that I'm not certain the internet was a good idea.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Are you talking about people arguing about sexual, gendered or racial identity?

Yes, that's part of it, but not all of it. Political, philosophical, religious, motivational, generational, ideological, etc. Hell so.e people even separate themselves from each other by weight class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.

I may be wrong, though I believe it is a reference to the effect cited in material such as this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

I've been saying for a few years now that I'm not certain the internet was a good idea.

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? .

You may have to dumb down what you mean by this for me. I don't know what "living-as-a-brand blog" is, nor do I really see an emphasis on people connecting their fundamental identity to their consumer choices, except perhaps with the youthful and/or materialistic.

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". Or someone might say "I am a Subaru driver", but I doubt many would say "I identify fundamentally as a Subaru driver."

There are food and home decoration and what have you blogs that are, well, incredibly up their own asses for the aesthetics of the craft rather than the actual practice of it. They're usually run by wealthy white people who love the word "inspirational" and aimed mostly at other wealthy white people and the middle class in general.

Ads are usually about selling a feeling that you can supposedly only get from that particular product. Look at Coca Cola ads, they're all about how life is better then you've got a coke. Look at car ads and the image they sell, look at the kind of life the advertisement tells you that people who buy their cars live. The end result is people think about themselves as "Ford guys" or "Marlboro men" and so on. Companies are very good at exploiting insecurities. Consider what it means that this is the angle advertising has chosen to work on. Billions have been spent on optimising ads and what thousands of people working around the clock have arrived at is that the best way of selling something is to make you think that it'll fill an emptiness in your life. What does it say about our society that this not only happens but works?

Rosebuddy wrote:
Billions have been spent on optimising ads and what thousands of people working around the clock have arrived at is that the best way of selling something is to make you think that it'll fill an emptiness in your life. What does it say about our society that this not only happens but works?

That some people's lives are unfulfilling. I'd argue that only those who actually do not lead fulfilling lives are especially susceptible to this kind of advertising. Maybe that's more people than I think, maybe not. I'd like to think most people just need toilet paper, toothpaste, a way to get from A to B, etc., and they know that advertisers are trying to sell it to them through fantasies.

I don't know much about the efficacy of marketing, but the games they play are pretty obvious to me. TBH I don't even know what commercials are like these days as I hardly ever watch television. Most of the ads I see are on YouTube and they are for video games or movies, selling escapism (nothing wrong with a little escapism ).

It's worth noting thay not just capitalist advertisers that try to fill the "God-sized hole". Political movements do it, religious movements do it, and so do identity movements.

Some people need to feel special, and the prevalence of social media shows us that no, you really aren't special. So some people go down the rabbit hole into ludicrous caricatures of themselves in order to try and stand out.

 jasper76 wrote:

That some people's lives are unfulfilling. I'd argue that only those who actually do not lead fulfilling lives are especially susceptible to this kind of advertising. Maybe that's more people than I think, maybe not. I'd like to think most people just need toilet paper, toothpaste, a way to get from A to B, etc., and they know that advertisers are trying to sell it to them through fantasies.

People need more than simply the existential minimum. People need fulfillment, rest and culture. People need to feel that things are, on the whole, worth it.

People are also a lot more affected by advertising than they think. Being bombarded day in and day out with ads is going to shape anyone. Being constantly exposed to something is going to eventually rub off on you, no matter how aware you are that it's all fake. If most of society buys into the fundamental assumptions of advertising then you're going to get pulled in to some degree as well. You can't live outside of society, after all. Being unhappy also does a number on your ability to make good choices. It's why comfort eating and vicious circles are a thing, to say the least.

Rosebuddy wrote:
People are also a lot more affected by advertising than they think. Being bombarded day in and day out with ads is going to shape anyone. Being constantly exposed to something is going to eventually rub off on you, no matter how aware you are that it's all fake. If most of society buys into the fundamental assumptions of advertising then you're going to get pulled in to some degree as well. You can't live outside of society, after all. Being unhappy also does a number on your ability to make good choices. It's why comfort eating and vicious circles are a thing, to say the least.

To give a more direct example of this; those super annoying adds that pop up and take over your screen to play some stupid video for a some Hyundai SUV you'd never buy?

Well that add was never really intended to get you to buy that SUV. Marketers know that the ad itself will result in little sales. What it will do, is that the day you're having a conversation about modern advertising you'll make a post about that annoying Hyundai SUV ad that took over your screen to play some stupid video. Now everyone who reads that post will know about it, and they'll think "Hyundai SUV ads, I hate those too." Now everyone's talking about Hyundai SUV ads, and that annoying jingle that was playing.

Brand awareness. Marketers know how annoying many internet ads are, and purposefully make them annoying because brand awareness, positive and negative, has been shown to increase sales. They don't care if you like the ad, agree with it, or if it directly connects to you and leads to a purchase. The more you talk about those annoying Hyundai SUV ads the more people talk about Hyundai SU-

Oh dear go they've won! You bastards! *shakes fist at sky*

Kitchen cabinets are the only thing more annoying than Hyundai SUVs.

 d-usa wrote:
Kitchen cabinets are the only thing more annoying than Hyundai SUVs.

That's another thing that's been happening of late.

Company's try and create a meme that can propagate their brand throughout the internet.

Most recent example?



Smug/sassy Wendy, achieved by Wendy's social media managers being hilarious.

And then there are the memes that get created by accident.

Such as people wondering why nobody on an airplane tried to offer the cops a Pepsi while they were dragging a bloody body down the aisle.

It's insidious.

Just like root beer, and the Federation!

jasper76 wrote:I'm talking about what I perceive as an increase in the ways in which we separate ourselves from our fellow people at large, which seems to be getting more and more granular. Strangely enough, I perceive that national identity is on the decline, as we now have instant access to people from around the world, we come to understand that nationality is pretty unimportant (people are people, or something like that). But I perceive an increase in fixation on group identity and personal identity. People seem to want to define further and further how they are different from one another.

This stuff is hard to put down in words for me, but I hope that clears what I mean up a bit a least.

I see rather a resurgence of national identity/patriotism/nationalism in most developed countries (especially after 2008 crash). Nationalistic right wing parties are growing in popularity all over Europe and the US even elected a guy as their president who used that rising sentiment as a way to get the needed votes. I don't know how one could see all that and count it as a decline in national identity. But overall identity politics like you apparently worry about (repeatedly) is not really a problem from my point of view (and I say that as a white/cis/hetero/male who's not included in the list of allowed identities to have). A lot of our culture, history, and economic preferences were formed/guided/made/curated — call it whatever you want — by people like me (w/c/h/m) but that's slowly changing (which in turn worries some people).

We also made some cultural progressive stuff happen and that led to groups — that were historically disenfranchised, suppressed, or otherwise disregarded — getting a bit more visibility because they are now more secure in their lives and have found, more or less, safe spaces to voice their opinions (often some place on the internet). But a lot of us are not used to actually hearing the voices from marginalised people and see any disagreement as an attack on us (instead of seeing as displeasure with how things are). You can see it every time when a very white and very male person writes a really ignorant article (like about living in ghettos any "why don't they just make better life choices") and gets some pushback from people who are actually living these lives. They are just not used to that type of feedback that is available today and often react poorly to that (they were happily sitting in their male dominated white/middle class echo chamber).

In "identity politics" underrepresented people have found al kinds of communities where they can talk about issues that address some of the things they have with the general public but that they can't discuss there (at best they get ignored, at worst killed). The people who are used to the status quo from ten or twenty years ago seem way more worried about identity politics without realising that a lot of the things they take for granted are drenched in white/male/middle class identity politics and solutions that benefit them disproportionally.

For a fish, water is the most normal thing in the world and if they had big enough brains they would think it's absurd how we humans can't handles this or how it could even be a problem ("you just move like this, simple"; "what do you mean with, you need air?") but you take a fish out of the water and it flops around in panic. A lot of this panic about identity politics comes from people who are used to how things are and don't see how all this affects other people and assume everything is fine because it works for them and they just can't believe that others could have problems with how things are.

I don't know if or how it applies to you but identity is also having a favourite sports team and most people accept that as totally normal and only certain types of identity seem worrying for people (because they are excluded an can't easily get access? I don't know). It's similar to trigger warnings, people have no problem when somebody asks for spoiler warnings but when somebody asks for consideration because or something that could be traumatic for them all hell breaks loose instead of people just behaving like civilised humans. The same for trans people and their pronouns. If a friend doesn't like a nickname you use and they ask you to not use it you stop doing that but when somebody asks you to use different pronouns it becomes incredibly hard for some people to remember that. And I am writing this on a forum where a lot of us have memorised whole combat resolution tables, who knows how many stats lines, some probably even know hundreds of Pokemon names (and ancillary details), the names of uncountable Space Marine chapters and IG regiments, some of us even speak german and learned how this works. Pronouns should be manageable for such a smart bunch.

In short: Identity has become such a big deal because the internet made it really easy to self select and form communities, these communities and culturally progressive politics have given more — and different — people a voice, and some people are just not used to hearing these voices and are concerned because it deviates from the norm they are used to. Whatever identity someone identify with online is usually not the one defining thing for a person but it's just what we see online a lot (and this heavy focus makes them look like a very one dimensional person). It's a bit how facebook tends to show you all the best parts of your friends' lives and nothing else (to keep you "engaged with the platform") while you are very cognisant of the different layers, ups and downs, and complexities of your own life (this dissonance can lead to "facebook depression").

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.