COLUMN: Sorting through identity

From Roberto Mantaro Samaniego's, "Kill the Octopus," Fall '98 From Roberto Mantaro Samaniego's, "Kill the Octopus," Fall '98Until I left Peru and came to the United States, I would come across the word "identity" in only two environments: Mathematics, as in "=," or roadblocks, as in "Your identity card is invalid; step out of your car." I had encountered diversity in other countries, but never much discussion of personal "identity." At first I took this as a sign of self-obsession, but frequent exposure to the issue eventually led me to question my own "identity." My father is from Peru and my mother from England, and depending on the context I can empathize with the English just as well as with Peruvians. Yet there is little "English" about me other than a BBC accent and an affinity for jokes nobody else finds amusing. And while I grew up in Peru, like soccer and drink Inca Kola, there is nothing terribly "Peruvian" about me either. Thus, I am more comfortable thinking about my identity on the basis of my beliefs, experiences and aspirations, not my national origin. There is nothing Peruvian, or English, about studying Economics. Still, national origins are important to the way many people think about themselves. "Identity," although a personal issue, also refers to some kind of collective property. Individuals have many possible characteristics: Iraqi ancestry, employment at Wawa, a predilection for Twinkies, the ability to communicate with the departed spirit of Elvis Presley. You might select any particular characteristic -- say, telepathy with Elvis -- and convene a group of all people who ever shared this feature. If sharing this property were important to the way you thought about yourself, then membership in this group would constitute your "identity." Of course, one can have multiple "identities" without fear of schizophrenia. For example, someone might consider membership in the assemblies of Canadians, Buddhists and Elvis mediums to be equally fundamental to "who she is." Thus, "identity" is belonging, while identity is being. The dilemma of identity thus becomes that of weighing which memberships are important enough to include in one's own personal definition. Belonging is a human need, and the groups one belongs to (one's "identity") are common and perfectly natural criteria for thinking about one's self (one's identity). In a land that propounds individualism, however, there is ironically a pressure to consider these group-based, rather than other, criteria. Perhaps this is not a coincidence. Stereotyping is like Hinduism. The god Ganesh symbolizes wisdom and sagacity, Lakshmi represents beauty and prosperity, and so on. Just as these gods personify various attributes, so society has its own, more worldly pantheon. Women, for you, may symbolize caring, beauty or weakness. Men may represent strength, valor or insensitivity. Latin Americans may represent passion, romance or laziness. These associations are quite strong; objections to politically correct speech are less often a matter of linguistic principle than of religious adherence to particular social deities. When identifying ourselves with a particular quality, we may do so by referring to one of these groups, seriously or humorously. We do so via assertion -- "I am Latin Macho Man" -- or by opposition -- "Those [insert ethnicity here] are so boring and inept," implying "I'm not like that." In both cases, we are responding to the same very human urge. We do so using national or ethnic stereotypes because they articulate the social order -- by personifying skills or attributes, placing us in history, etc. They make up our social landscape. They give us a point of reference. There may be other ways of defining personal identity, but when distinguishing ourselves socially there is no such thing as an objective standard. All we can do is ally ourselves with some and compare ourselves to the rest. When pressured to "be" an individual and explicitly define our identities, we are being asked to set ourselves apart and decide what qualities we do and do not personify. Ethnic, gender and other stereotypes constitute a natural, pre-existing, iconographic language with which to debate issues of identity. Diversity is present everywhere, and around the world we assemble along national, ethnic or religious lines. Yet overt discussion of personal identity in this regard seems particularly common in the individualist U.S. A society of self-aware individuals is a well-structured society. How interesting that, when you press them to consider their individuality, most people respond by placing themselves in groups.