Identity is relative. Far from an expression of oneself, it is largely a performance for others, a pantomime in the limelight of another’s gaze. We have no self-concept except the one reflected in the imagined eyes of others. We can’t be someone without someone to be someone for.
That's the thing, though. It would only have material significance if you believe it does (i.e. with your complicity). People for whom blackness is part of their identity make it so. Many people, after all, regard skin colour as immaterial.
-
-
I don't see how we can deny that, say, physical violence against the self as a result of an imposed identity has no material significance unless one is complicit.
-
I'm struggling to grasp what you mean by an imposed identity. Having it drilled into you that you are black may be called "identity politics", but it's not a sufficient basis for a full identity. No one sees themselves as just a black person.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.