Identity is a concept that needs further examination in today’s society. Our perceived identities drive so much of our behavior that it requires self-examination, a thoughtful dissection of why we might identify in certain ways, what those identities say about us, and how identity affects how we walk in the world. Identity is formed early in life, from gender identification or familial associations to extracurricular activities and how those labels project what or who we might be or become. A great example of this is depicted in the old 80s classic movie, The Breakfast Club. Young teens are categorized as athletes or jocks, band geeks, academics, motorheads, or even goths. In The Breakfast Club, a mix of five different types of students are brought together on a Saturday for detention where they are forced to spend the day together. Throughout the day they initially clash but then come together in shared identity by the very fact that they are labeled and forced into boxes of Self that don’t necessarily represent their individuality or even commonalities among each other. The overarching message is that identity labels are limiting and constricting. In my view this is true throughout all walks of life. 

A hyper-obvious example of this is through identity politics. Without a firm grasp on political issues, many glob onto an identity either because of their upbringing or familial attachment or because of their cultural upbringing or both. There are many influences to political identity, but in a culture where we are all quite “team”-obsessed, we are taught through our tribal tendencies to wave a flag for the team we most identify with from childhood. In my formative years I was raised in the Reagan era as a Republican. I had no idea what that meant, but I knew I was a Republican because my parents were Republicans. Because of my natural familial loyalty in childhood, I was “Team Republican.” As my worldview broadened and my knowledge of issues grew, it became clear to me quite quickly that I was, in fact, not Team Republican (at least in its current form) and as most kids do in their late teens/early twenties, I became quite dissident to any kind of label. I became an independent, not wanting to be boxed in or pigeon-holed. I think this is a natural progression of any young adult coming-of-age. They are looking for their own individual identity and searching for answers outside of their comfortable upbringings. I think some fly farther from the nest than others, and our identities can be influenced more or less dependent on our cultural and life experiences as well as our level of education. I don’t necessarily mean formal education (although that does play a huge role in many respects) but by our desire to be open-minded and willing to educate ourselves in worldly topics and issues. I think we see this trend in our youth today through sexual expression. Many of my friends’ children are coming out as non-binary. As they explore their gender and sexual identification, I think many aren’t so much questioning their sexuality (though many do) as they are rebelling against the label that they should identify in a certain way or love any one gender. They inherently understand that the limiting label is harmful despite their preference, not just to their own exploration of Self and definitions of femininity and masculinity, but even more so to those who do end up identifying in ways that don’t fit the current culture of heteronormativity. Our youth today (and in every generation of their time) are the best examples of pushing against the grain of harmful identity classifications in order to forge forward with more expansive definitions of what it means to live a fulfilling life without limitations or judgment. 

I believe it is unrealistic to think we can shed labels completely. Humans are a classification-obsessed species, and we organize our lives and societies around these classifications. From a scientific perspective it is actually quite necessary and very useful to classify and study different aspects of our realities whether we are studying gender, age, medical conditions, developmental tendencies, etc. There is a role to be played in organizing and classifying groups of people. However, it is important that we be aware of these classifications and the purposes they serve, separating those purposes from an actual person’s unique experience. We must view our individual relationships with people holistically, understanding that every single person is unique and their personal heritage combined with experiences create their own worldview/perspective. So much can be learned from each experience that requires our attention. 

My journey through the political landscape lands more in line with the current progressive party (yes, quite leftist…which isn’t that left compared to the rest of the world by the way), but political parties are constantly evolving as do all things on Earth. Creating classifications can be dicey in this regard. Nothing remains stagnant and as societies evolve, so do definitions and classifications. That is at the heart of the progressive mindset. The world moves on, and so given that, what are we doing to adapt? That is why I strive so much to think about political issues as problems to be solved rather than taking a side on an issue. How we approach politics matters. Only through a thorough understanding of a problem and then coming together to discuss all possible solutions can we come to some form of compromise and agreement about said problems. Where people go wrong, in my opinion, is remaining in rigid ideological stances that rub up against the actual ability to solve a problem. Let’s take the abortion issue, for example. Roe v. Wade came out of a dire situation where women were dying trying to perform unsafe abortions. It became such a public health issue that even doctors were speaking out stating the need to provide safe care for those who were going to get an abortion with or without the legal permissions. Staunch religious idealogues spoke out against abortion as the taking of a life. Of course, as we all know, your religious/moral affiliation determines your own stance on whether or not an unborn fetus constitutes a “life,” especially given it is not viable outside the mother’s womb. That question became the center of the issue until Roe v. Wade, when it became a health issue for the mother and a right to privacy related to the mother’s health and well-being, a private matter between her and her doctor. Solving the problem of maternal death by self-imposed abortion and taking the life of a fetus required the two sides to meet in the middle to find the best solution to protect both lives in question as much as possible. Roe v. Wade sought to find that compromise, providing safety for pregnant women while honoring as best they could the life of the unborn. 

This issue, of course, assumes that honest actors are brought to the negotiating table. Where it gets even muddier is in looking at the history of abortion and fully understanding that legislating a woman’s body, historically, has been used to control women and keep them in their place. In fact, the abortion issue is one of the factors considered when looking at authoritarian tendencies among societies. When we lose the ability to reach compromise, resorting to forceful actions taken by leaders of a minority party, we risk losing the will of the People and skate on the edge of authoritarianism. It is in these moments, we need to step back and take a longer look both at history and within a wider framework of what we are trying to accomplish. Whose life is more valuable? A mother’s or her unborn child’s? When the choice comes down to life and death, who gets to make that decision? My stance has always been trusting women to make those choices as freedom requires bodily autonomy, and that no law should take away that right. Choice should always be an option because as a society we can’t account for every single scenario that could morally present itself, providing tough choices for the mother. Bodily choice can also bleed into the vaccine argument (no pun intended there). I’ve always maintained that a vaccine mandate as it relates to public health and public spaces is necessary to keep people safe. No mandate has ever required vaccination of a person but, rather, only in certain public spaces. So, though I agree that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated, that doesn’t mean they are allowed into public spaces, working with sick individuals for example, as an unvaccinated person. And even with vaccine mandates, exceptions are made for medical or religious purposes. The abortion issue and the vaccine issue truly aren’t that fundamentally different. Both should allow for choice but those choices should not affect public safety. My point in looking at both these issues is in considering how enacting laws that affect lives must take into consideration every possible scenario that could hinder someone’s capacity to thrive in society. This will, in fact, require compromise and allow for options and choices.

Back to identity on this issue…so many religiously-affiliated people have an extreme all-or nothing stance on abortion, wanting to outlaw it in all cases, and that is entirely associated with identity. It is rooted in absolutist moral stances defined by religion. The majority of people on this earth are easily influenced by group think. Teaching intellectualism isn’t high on the priority list of anti-democratic societies, particularly ones where money and Capitalism are the god of choice to worship. The fact remains that the affluent and the powerful (generally one and the same) have a lot to gain in influencing societies through their buying habits aka marketing tactics but also through indoctrination that serves the interests of the wealthy. Intellectualism threatens to thwart that goal, providing societies with not only context but the ability to grapple with complex problems, seeing through the black vs. white, us vs. them dichotomy that keeps us divided from each other. This indoctrination, this identification with certain ways of thinking, particularly as defined by political parties, are what cause people to vote against their own self-interest. It was a long held strategy (and still is) of the Confederate apologists to create a grievance for poor white people against black people in order to keep them distracted from the knowledge that the system and how it was set up was actually harming both groups of people. The fear of the word “socialism” developed from this strategy. That myth of the zero sum game kept poor and some middle-class white people bought into the idea that black lives must be suppressed for fear of rising up and taking wealth from white people. Never mind that many white people were/are not wealthy and, in fact, struggling as much as black people. But the wealthy and the powerful (both terms synonymous with each other in our current society) on both sides spend a lot of money marketing the divide and stoking the fires of division, playing us against each other through rhetoric manipulation, propaganda, and half-truths (or minimal information/context) so that we don’t join together and demand more from our politicians. Identity is so embedded in our behaviors, voting in particular, and in our rhetoric that we lose the ability to have conversations about actual issues, instead regurgitating talking points not necessarily based in facts or logic. In my opinion, with identity politics comes a certain laziness in letting our “team” do the thinking for us and hitching our horse to the wagon that soothes our insecurities and placates our fears. It takes courage and effort to step outside of a particular identity label and examine what that label says about me and whether or not I accept that definition of myself. Ridding ourselves of labels forces us to verbalize our own personal stances and creates opportunities to bridge gaps and find consensus.  

I believe a person’s goal should be educating oneself and finding our own authenticity, celebrating diversity, and creating spaces where we can celebrate our own unique gifts that contribute to the collective fabric of a flourishing society. We naturally gravitate towards identities that ensure belonging, and in that inclusion we find safety. This is a natural human tendency. But I also believe we can celebrate difference within that inclusion, taking care to listen to other members of our group, treating their stories with acceptance and care. We should also be reaching out to members outside of an identity group in order to form new identities of commonality that may not be superficially transparent. That requires active engagement and communication and stepping outside of our comfort zones. Personally, I have always had a tendency to operate on the edges of any given group, always hesitant to identify myself in a way that might pigeon-hole or brand me. I have always tended toward keeping one foot out of any proverbial circle. I am not sure where that comes from except to say that I have always had an independent streak, a tendency to rub up against the grain and explore another perspective. I have never been one to accept anything as truth or fact, needing to discover the truth through my own experience and study. That may have come from being born into a family of four unique children, all vying for our own identity within the context of our family, or it could just be my natural personality to question and dissect concepts in order to better understand my world. No matter the reason, I have found so much value and satisfaction in discovering news ways of looking at things and never settling into any one perspective. As I said at the beginning, the world is constantly changing and our views and ideas must change with it, adapting to new problems that present themselves. The only way through the complexity of life is through collaboration, and we can’t have successful collaboration without flexibility and consensus.