Individual Identity
collective identity
The need for an identity in our modern multicultural society is often broken down in terms of one’s individual identity vs. a collective identity. Historically, civilizations were built upon the foundations of a set class structure, validated from “markers of certainty” (Mouffe). On the surface, an individual identity is based on the autonomy of individual choice and the notion of authenticity. In contrast, a collective identity is that of the specific culture. Major collective identities that currently demand recognition in North America include: religion, gender, ethnicity, “race”, and sexuality. Before diving into more detailed analysis of these two separate identities, more historical context is needed to provide reason and understanding to today’s view of these topics. Also, there is a need for a discussion of the relationship and influences between both the individual and collective, as well as proving the irony/contradiction that often occurs when discussing one or the other. These sections will all ultimately support the claim that an individual identity is more crucial to an enlightened human being’s life than their collective identity.
The breakdown of social hierarchies around the mid 19th century paved way for more universal ways of thinking. Hegel’s famous master and slave dialectic provides an example of a radical new way of thought that emerged. Hegel challenged people to see that the Master and Slave give each other their respective identities, with him arguing that slaves are better off than masters. This perspective would not have been possible, or even helpful, in past societies where honor was the basis our human rights. For some to have honor, other must not, therefore honor is inevitably linked to inequalities. These inequalities led to a revolution and rejection of Monarchy and a massive political, legal, and material shift during the Industrial Revolution. The collapse of honor, or preferences (political systems that had built-in preferences for hierarchy), led into the desire for dignity and liberalism. (Gutman)
Dignity was coveted for the common belief that all human beings had inherent dignity. Instead of monarchs and leaders inheriting God’s rule and will, all humans now had an equal inheritance to work with. This significant move from “honor” to “dignity” helped usher in Democracy and a politics of equal recognition.
The rise of individualism at the end of the 18th century brought with it the rise of a moral sense. An intuitive feeling for what is right and wrong was starting to be considered a universal human trait anchored in our feelings. Out of this grew the idea of a Notion of Authenticity, or the need to be in touch with our feelings and our own moral values to be true and full human beings. Here is where society diverted to a more modern way of thinking. Instead of being in touch with some source, such as God or the Idea of the Good, people now look to connect with their inner self. (MC)
At first, this monumental turn of modern culture was still closely tied with theistic believes. The inner self was to be discovered so that you could have a deeper connection with God or a religious source. Not until the realization of a significant moral difference between how human beings led their life, did this close-minded way of thought begin to expand, allowing individuals the freedom to elaborate on their meaning and existence. In the early 19th century, people began to comprehend the importance of being true to oneself and live in a unique fashion. “Self” originates in our inner being and put emphasis on originality. In earlier societies, what we now call identity was mostly fixed by their social
position. (Taylor)
With the background of ideological shift highlighted, we can now shift our attention to present day individual and collective identities. In modern-times the need for an individual identity is more pressing. Using Herder’s wisdom to help define individual identity, “I am not here to live in imitation of anyone else’s life, if I do not live my way then I miss the point of life.” This is the essence of being human and a core principle of someone’s individual identity. The principle of originality is another cornerstone of individuality, because it is vital that we realize we all have something unique to say. Herder’s claim combined with the principle of originality determines the impossibility of finding a model to live by outside the one you construct within.
The etymology of individual: “one and indivisible, inseparable”. This inseparable identity has two major components: the Atomistic and Social. Atomistic being the identity found from individual choice, instead of coming from one’s surrounding community and environment. This is crucial to keep in mind when considering the collective identity. As Amy Gutman points out, purely “atomistic” individuals is impractical, instead a combination of unique individuals integrating with one another creates the individual identity. (Gutman) This statement already pits the differences of individual and social against each other. She’s saying that people will undeniably impose their disparities onto each other, resulting in individual identities conceived from social interaction.
Dialogically, as Charles Taylor puts it, is the theory of conception of identity through dialogue with other self-creating individuals. So, where does this self-creating start and are these unique people conversing to build a culture and society, every truly authentic?
Authenticity must be at the core of pure individuality. The ideal of “authenticity” arose in the eighteenth-century with this notion that human beings had an inner sense of what was right and wrong. Again, this was a major shift in philosophical thought and spurred the movement away from divine subjects of power. The ability for each person to live on their own moral high ground suddenly opened up new doors of opportunity and equality. The notion of authenticity develops out of this experience. We now take on independent significance and have to strive to satisfy ourselves, not a rule-enforcing God, or some subjective Idea of the Good. This understanding of individual identity is enlightening and exciting, yet it does come with its critics, namely Anthony Appiah.
Appiah believes that authenticity is more of an illusion than anything else because the understanding of identity is reactionary. He contends the most common idea of “Authenticity” comes from understanding multiple cultures and deciding to reject one and conform to the other. A person feels authentic when they choose an already established category to live through. In simpler terms, society that expects X, so X is ground for identity. His criticism is valid and needs to be addressed in order to flush out the details between individual and collective identities.
In Appiah’s commentary, “Identity, Authenticity, Survival”, he proposes that a collective identity seems to heavily influence the individual identity and produce people who conform to societies ideals, thus violating autonomy. (MC, pg.150)
Appiah argues that most of today’s discussions on how to maintain and support authenticity and individualism end up in conversation about large categories - gender, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality – that are far from individual. This is where we find the crux of issue. All we know together in a public sphere is the major collective identities, which all conveniently have built-in restrictions and guidelines. We never truly can discuss our inner identity with other human beings because it’s always going to be different and unique. Instead, we actively pursue safeguarding our “private” individual identities. People are more worried about keeping their unique identities private than attempt to create a dialogue. (pg.155) The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides more insight into the protection and concealment of the individual identity.
In article eight of the document the author’s write, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence”. This has been interpreted to include “personal identity” within the meaning of “private life”. This “independence of mind” is necessary to develop a prosperous personal identity, yet reforms to allow for safe cultivation of personal identity in public is necessary. Unfortunately, past and present politics are more focused on controlling and fabricating their profitable image of an identity.
The ECHR Online states, “the scope of article eight is to ‘embrace personal autonomy’ and the freedom to make choices without the interference of the state to develop one’s own personal life.” This is inversely related to the treaty to establish a “helpful” interference from the state that will explain European citizen’s collective identities for them. The Council of Europe wanted to embrace personal autonomy, allowing individuals to develop and cultivate their own identity. (ECHR)
The etymology of collective: “gathered together”. In modern language, a collective is a group that shares an interest. The collective identity is in essence the degree of a person’s outward conformity. Conforming to major collective identities that currently demand recognition in North America (Religion, Gender, Ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) often has a stigma attached to it because no matter how common the identity is any form of conformant appears weak and submissive. There will never be a “cultureless” humanity, which brings us to an important point to consider from Habermas.
He contends, “Should citizen’s identities as members of ethnic, cultural, or religious groups publicly matter, and if so, how can collective identities make a difference within the frame of a constitutional democracy?”
Primarily, we need to consider if collective identities should determine decisions made in the public sphere. In idealistic terms, they probably should not be matter. Each person’s individual preferences should not interfere with overall goals of: equality, health, security, and happiness. However, we do not live in a world of perfect rationality. A disappointedly large percentage of our decisions are made from predetermined perspectives and stereotypes of seemingly harmless social categories.
Politically, the reasons for finding an identity are closely related to citizen loyalty to government ideologies and institutions. An example of these harmful intentions comes in the form of The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
In 2004, Heads of state held an intergovernmental conference to establish such a treaty, with one of its goals to give people a better idea of their European identity. They believed that the collective identity is social attachment that is deliberate yet impulsive and European identity politics should strive to shape the European citizen. He or she should instinctively conceive him or she as being part of a tangible group of Europeans and should act accordingly in the social sphere.
This brings up a troubling question: are all collective identities selected and authoritatively constructed? Is the constant tension between collective identities not simply the friction between dictated identities in the past and one’s being forced on people today? In my opinion, this is a frightening thought, but one that could be entirely true, and nevertheless help shape our accepting of a purposeful collective identity. The treaty documents, “a need for an understanding of where ‘we’ come from and which moral and cultural standards “we” deem imposing.”
The relationship and influences between both the collective and individual identities is where the main issues lie. This is where we find a contradiction between originality of person and culture. Our current deliberate democracy structure requires combining the two. In theory, that’s fine and accurate, but problems occur when, in our social contract, we aspire to for an individual life, but we live a collective one. People must find a way to live with each other without being ignorant to the fact that communities are never going to be completely uninfluenced from each other.
Individuals cannot become subjects to the opinions of others, but instead need to find that crucial dialogue between themselves and society. This is a human beings true form of identity. The unique combination of one’s collective and individual identities is the key. Referring back to the Treaty for a Constitution for Europe, the relevant political authorities of the member states, and the constitution ends up being based on the highest-level political representatives of the member states. Individual identities are taken into consideration and a form of social hierarchy takes place. Furthermore, the Treaty indirectly talks about Europe’s distinct uniqueness from the U.S. as a part of its people’s identity, a prime example of the need of another entity to not know what to not identify with.
In the article, “Metaphysical Conception of Families”, author William Ruddick uses specific examples to denote collective identities, in order to question their current form. For instance, he questions marriage and the “normal” family customs. He writes, “Is the traditional family of a married, heterosexual couple with biological offspring morally preferable to families formed by adoptive, single, remarried, […] On what grounds may friends, neighbors, or government agencies intrude upon ‘family privacy?’” In short, he wonders how can an ethnic or national identity require those to whom it is ascribed to marry and procreate within its socially constructed limits? (Ruddick)
The diverse individual identities should be spotlighted and related more frequently to the collective identity. Is there a line for questionable individual identities? Can all those deemed fit for society bring a million different unique perspectives to a situation and formulate progress?
After dissecting these texts and source documents, I’m concluding that it is vital for human beings to recognize the importance of the purest form of individual identity. Collective identities are remnants of past tradition and unequal forms of civilization. Our major categories that we fit ourselves into, such as our nationality or religion, are perceived as necessary for inclusion in society, when this really shouldn’t be the case. I understand the need for belonging and human interaction, but if those important desires would be so much more impactful and progressive if we could get rid of the superficial veil of the collective. These specific categories that are thrust down on us like cages from the beginning of our existence continue to block the communication pathways with chronic and circular debates.
Referring back to Ruddick’s case about “normal” ways of living, when we give importance to collective identities that have rigid shapes we inevitably also end up with an order of importance, or majority and minority. Individual identities are so powerful due to their genuine uniqueness because of that we are incapable of ranking them and degrading them.