A-Infos (en) Italy, FAS Sicilia Libertaria: FOR THE DEBATE: ON IDENTITY (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

"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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en