Human
Why primary identity matters
Several recent things I’ve read or experiences I’ve had have led me to write this.1
We people apply labels to all sorts of things—names, if you prefer that to “label”: we’ve named birds down to the level of subspecies. We have national labels: “American,” “Canadian,” “Zimbabwean,” “Brazilian,” etc. We have racial and ethnic labels.
What we often don’t pay enough attention to is the level of the label we choose for something—or someone. What’s my top-level identity, the number 1 that applies to me?
One thing that’s drawn my attention to this is that I’ve recently joined the BlueSky social medium, and I have a label or identity there (my ID is @jimibooks.bsky.social, if you care to follow me there). I see people using shorthand to say something like “I’m @xyzxyz.bsky.social”, but that’s not their identity (“am” being an identity verb); it’s their “handle" or “label” on that platform.
Something I read, written by Jonah Goldberg, called attention to the fact that we love to use labels as ways of primarily categorizing other people (his essay is here, if you’re interested). This is not a secular or religious or political problem; it’s universal. This approach to labeling one another, other human beings, totally misses their primary identity and diminishes their humanity. Yes, we have to use labels even to be able to converse. The problem arises when we make the label we choose the primary descriptor of the other person. That’s a problem and that’s wrong.
Twenty or so years ago, when I was spearheading our church’s slow movement toward adding women to the eldership, the debate revolved around the primary label we would apply to ourselves or to other humans. Am I a male primarily, or a human being first of all? Some thought that, if asked “what are you?” (not who!) they would answer “male” or “female.”2 An analogy came to mind. Bearing in mind that all analogies fail eventually, I asked: “What do you think a stallion or mare or gelding would say if you were to ask it, ‘What are you?’ I think the first answer would be ‘I’m a horse’; it would not see its sex as its primary identity.”
This analogy, which I thought was quite direct and simple, was met with quite a bit of resistance, to my surprise. My analogy did not resolve the debate, probably because the idea of leadership by women in the church was at that point, in that group of people, quite challenging.3
Secondary Matters
Many commenters say that we are living in an age of “identity politics” or even an entanglement of various identities. An example: I’m what most people in the world of gender politics would call a (privileged) cis white male. I don’t by any means consider this my primary identity. Nor does the fact that I live currently in Indiana make my primary identity “Hoosier.” These labels, these “identities,” are valid descriptors. But if the ones I’ve cited rose to become primary for me, I would be making a huge mistake.
Context is hugely important. If I were to enter a gay bar, my gender/sexual identity would become more prominent, just by virtue of the context. Furthermore, for someone who belongs to a significant minority, being in a larger context more or less automatically raises that minority factor to a greater significance. I’ve never been the only Black person in the room (see identity cited above!), but I have been the only person of Western European extraction in a Chinese restaurant. It had its awkward moments. You get the point. Context matters, but it doesn’t get to the essence of primary identity.
Much has been written about the recent election, claiming that the Democrat ticket failed to appeal enough to this or that demographic or identity group.4 Now that the election is over, the hurling of invective at the other side has continued—a practice carried on by both sides both before and after the election and even inside each group. “Kamala Harris is a Marxist.” “Donald Trump is a fascist.” Neither is accurate as a core identity and perhaps not even as a secondary label; in any case, it misses the humanity of every person.5
The Primary Matter
Any time that we base our entire perception of another human being on a secondary (or tertiary!) descriptor, as if that were their identity, we have failed. There may be much about the other person to praise or to criticize—to disagree or to agree.
Furthermore, we tend to valorize—esteem or endorse—our friends or people with whom we already agree because doing so enhances us, in our own eyes and perhaps also in theirs. We tend demonize our opponents for the same reasons. Much of this is subconscious, not a result of a careful analysis, and may also be based on our emotions, rather than conscious rational thoughts.
Of course, we should continue to call a person who lies as a matter of regular habit a “liar,” as long as we recognize that her lying is secondary to her core identity. The flip side of that coin is also true, that when we consider someone a “hero” we are not using a term that identifies their core—but we certainly can still call him a hero. Nonetheless, both of these people are, first of all, human.
This song captures the point.6
Apologies to those of you (2 or 3?) who wish I had written more often in the last 2 or 3 months. I’ve been stymied by internal choices that are a mix of good and bad. C’est la vie.
No non-binary people were present.
It also probably reflects the fact that we will marshal whatever perspective we can to defend a received way of seeing things.
I’m not a political operative, so I can’t comment further on this. I don’t know. I’m inclined to believe that enough different demographics thought that they wanted DJT as president that they voted for him; but identifying those groups/identities can be quite difficult.
It is entirely fair to say that Trump is a bigger liar than any politician in recent American history, perhaps ever. But that nonetheless is not his primary identity. He remains human. (Note, too, that claiming that “all politicians lie” as a defense of the extent of Trump’s lying is a failure to see shades of gray.) People who label Harris as a Marxist don’t understand Marx or Marxism; and even were their claim true, again, it would not be her primary identity.
As always, I welcome comments on the substack page.