Identifying Identity

[philmosophy]

I write fiction, poetry, and non-fiction. It's what I'm at school to do (although I've been pigeonholed into being called a poet). I'm not going to get into the logistics of "I am a writer", but let me get this straight. And I'll be a bit more specific. I am a poet. Writing exists within me despite my background. Really

Comments

[conrad_zaar]

I'm not sure I agree that the definition you cite from Webster's is essentialist. Defining identity as "the condition or fact of being some specific person or thing" seems neutral to the question of the source or nature of identity. (If it were otherwise it would not really be performing the proper task of a dictionary, which is not to explore concepts but to define words.)

To define identity in terms of membership in social groups is undoubtedly par for the course in a sociology textbook. Any other sort of definition would place identity beyond the realm of sociology and therefore beyond the interests and expertise of the book's authors. In recent years, since the mapping of the human genome, biologists have been making much of the genetic basis of our behaviours, and sometimes implying a genetic basis even for our values and identities. But when you characterize identity as something that exists prior to the social world, I suspect you aren't thinking about genetics, but about a a rather more abstract conception of identity as roughly akin to an internal spirit or soul. This is an idea I can't really get behind.

Some people posit a sort of pre-discursive identity, thinking that once you strip away "race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and so on" you will reveal some sort of Kantian autonomous free agent lurking underneath. Even if this is the case, I can't see how one can regard this pure rational agency as being an "identity" in any meaningful sense, since there appears to be no way to distinguish one free agent from another. Alternatively, some people seem to suppose that concepts like "being a poet" exist prior to language and culture. But although I am willing to accept that people's brains are hard-wired to process information in certain ways (and that some are therefore naturally suited to be poets) the very idea of "poet" is only available to someone who has internalized the (culturally-specific) discursive forms within which "poet" is an recognizable entity.

Of course this is not to say that there is no such thing as a poet, only that "poet" is not available as a pre-cultural identity category, unless you subscribe to a sort of theological or magical thinking.