Sunday, November 19, 2006

The question of identity

I've spent the past few weeks being examined by assorted medical greybeards and then, more interestingly, getting involved in this conference (Thanks to Sunny Hundal for the pdf).

Panellists involved the polymaths Paul Gilroy and Tariq Ramadan, the incisive Dinesh Bhugra, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (who left without debating her rather provocative ideas), Charles Husband and a galaxy of luminaries (refer pdf, if interested).

Paul Gilroy
spoke of the inevitability of multiculturalism as a means of economic survival and how the experience of being a Black man in Hoxton has progressively changed for the better.Tariq Ramadan, a sparely elegant theorist, and a profoundly modern Islamic thinker, was the clear public favourite, coming in on both days and leading a breakout session on the second day- titled 'Multiple Identities- perceptions of the self'. Tariq spoke of Western politicians struggling to retain relevance in policy vacuums by creating a culture of fear (the world is full of terrorists, you aren't safe, let us protect you by taking away some more of your liberties, let's point fingers at any available aspect of non-Western life that appeal to the your basest fears e.g. the veil and hence, create some more resentment and some more terrorists so that we can remain relevant). Charles Husband spoke of the 'liberal' media's discomfiture with the sudden realization that minorities that used to be disempowered and therefore, could be benevolently patronized (you poor disempowered sod, come, let me hold your hand and lead you to a better place) are now on level terms in many areas of human activity. And actually competing, winning and buying up chunks of the economy, creating a profound internal tension that dare not speak it's name openly, but takes form in organized, subtle demonizations of the Other. He also, interestingly, pointed out how secularism can be as implacably dogmatic as any religion. Sunny and Tariq spoke of the impact of Globalization on social justice and the progressive marginalization of the White working class. Sunny also spoke of the poisonously reactionary culture of self-appointed, unrepresentative 'leadership' that bedevils ethnic minorities in Britain.Yasmin Alibhai-Brown spoke of the common threads between oppressions e. g. of religion and feminism. Dinesh Bhugra spoke of the profound impact of migration and social alienation on rates of mental illness in general and schizophrenia in particular, in people of all ethnicities across the board.

A common thread in my conversations throughout the conference, with people as disparate as English Professors of citizenship, Norwegian economists and South African journalists was the Idea of India as the classic multicultural template. Come to think of it, despite the constant sense of a society waiting to explode under the weight of its contradictions, we actually haven't, for well nigh 59 years, despite the best attempts of the retreating Empire, extreme Hindu nationalism, fanatic regionalism and opportunistic parochialism. Though, as the Lady, a veteran of conflicts, disasters and conferences of this sort, keeps telling me, we can't afford to be complacent at all. Absolutely. But still, there is something there to be proud about.

And finally, Tariq Ramadan asked us this profoundly searching question- in a globalized world, is the Question of Identity ever as simple as 'I am Western and you are not?' Or even 'I am a Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Rastafarian and you are not?'

No.

Not for me, nor for probably anyone at the Conference, for this was the idea that drew the most approval from this multicultural, international gathering of some of the most influential voices of these and coming times.

And so, let me try and list my identities as they come into my head-

1. I am a Londoner;

2. I am an Indian;

3. I am a health professional;

4. I am a doctor;

5. I am an academic;

6. I am an artist;

7. I am an athlete;

8. I am a tri-religionist; one by birth, another by upbringing, and a third by inclination;

9. I am a partner and a lover;

10. I am a man;

11. I am a socialist capitalist and democrat, in the sense that I believe that capitalism can be harnessed to ensure social justice;

12. I am an economist by aspiration;

13. I am a liberal and a libertarian; and finally (since I need to get some sleep)

14. I am also what each one of you see me as.

So, before I sign off, what are you?


P.S. We are trying to get a podcast of the Conference organized and I will link if this works out. If. Update: Until that happens, here is the New Generation Network's Manifesto on Race and Faith.

14 Comments:

Blogger twip said...

in a globalized world, is the Question of Identity ever as simple as 'I am Western and you are not?' Or even 'I am a Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Rastafarian and you are not?

I completely agree with your answer which is no.

But, what is human identity anyway?

Is it a product of our own ruminative conception?

And, with what perception do we classify the self as part of human and part of nature?

Monday, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who am I?"

This can be one of the most difficult questions to answer concisely. The interesting part is that the answer keeps changing, evolving, growing...sometimes surprising oneself too.

~N.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

Punkster, to part-answer your questions, I'm gonna be cheap and paraphrase Freud- In any conversation between two people, there are actually six people in the room. The person you think you are, the person you actually are and the person your counterpart thinks you are. Likewise on the other side.

So I would say that it's a product of ruminative conception, nature (i.e. the chimeric real you) and your/other's perceptions, plus a hell of a lot of other things. But then, that's just MY perception. How chimeric is this all getting here now?

Which makes me wonder if the definition of identity is not as important as it's form and content. By which I mean it's expression and it's constituent parts. After all, life's eventually about implementation, far more than theory.

N, now that's probably spot on, methinks. And if your identity has to remain relevant and adaptive (rather than a weighty, pathological, maladaptive burden on yourself and everybody else) it has to be essentially a flexible thing.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006  
Blogger milieu said...

I agree with the idea of india as a classic multicultural temple. Infact, I think India as a creation was one step ahead of the european union in evolution.
As for identity, that point is echoed by Amartya sen and he used it to argue against the clash of civilization thesis.
I guess it was an unbridled extension of this quest for identity which led many to spirituality,(eventhough this is completely unrelated to the point of ur post)

Tuesday, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True. But then there are those days when one doesn't know who one is anymore..




[extension of this quest for identity which led many to spirituality]

Quite unrelated to what you were getting at, but this brought to mind another aspect of 'identity' which I've been trying to understand...it might be a sensitive topic for some, but there's no offense meant, just an effort to try and understand something myself.

(1) Genetic offsprings: Is this quest for identity (and for perpetuating that identity) the reason why so many people get to such desperation trying to have their own genetic offspring, rather than adopting a baby which is already in this world and needs love & family as desperately?

(2) Male heirs: From what I've read, the Y-chromosome is passed on from father to son totally unaltered down generations. If that is so, then that's like a unique genetic fingerprint or identity, existing unchanging long after the person is gone. So is the madness for a male heir, a further step in that quest for 'identity' and its coveted immortality?


~N.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

Sreekumar, I agree, on both counts. Which brings me to consider this, vast swathes of humanity equate religious identities with spiritual ones. This, I feel, is dangerously misinterpretative, since it is so clearly feasible to have a spiritual identity without a religious one.

N, with regard to genetic offspring, I presume that is part of the answer. Now, we've decided clearly that if we (ever) want to go the family way, we are definitely going to adopt, but my instincts shout, 'But I want at least one child of my own..' I wonder why?

As for the male heir theory, I really don't think that most people possess that knowledge about the Y chromosome. And that knowledge, if it was the one that influenced our collective, cross-cultural preference for male heirs since time immemorial, had to have been in the public realm for a very long time in order to enter our collective unconscious, in order to be able to exercise such influence.

Thursday, November 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Genetic offspring: Yes, I guess it might be so to an extent. Though I don't personally feel it myself (yet), but I think I can understand another's deep instinct/desire to have a child of their own, someone who is forever an undeniabe part of them, a living memory of self.

Male heir: Can we really be so sure that the ancients did not know about the Y-chromosome? We are yet nowhere near discovering the true extent of the medical/technical advancements they had achieved. Besides, if we look at history, the entire population did not need to have the exact theory/knowledge to be made to believe in something. The masses were basically illiterate, with just a few handful of learned people in the society. So most of the times, knowlegde was disseminated with religious overtones, in the guise of another way to achieve that spot in celestial eternity, a place in Heaven.

~N.

Sunday, November 26, 2006  
Blogger Raindrop said...

Identity is everything, given that we are social animals who feel the need to belong. Take two people from different ends of the planet, tell them they have the same zodiac sign, and watch them bond.


Nice post. :)

Wednesday, November 29, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

Raindrop, true. The Zodiac thing's almost uncanny, isn't it? And thanks:-)

Sunday, December 03, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

Ooops, N, appears I'm too distracted, put it down to almost 6 months of sleep deprivation:-)

I agree with you on the first count, esp. the living memory part, and perhaps it's a lot more layered, with emotional needs/bonds/instincts trumping logic somewhere. But then, everything need not be logical. Who knows? Hello Horatio;-)

As for the second, true again. Though I'm no fan of theories that the Painted Grey Ware types had nuclear tech and other such, it is entirely possible that some of the ancients knew a lot more than we give them credit for. And yes, you're right in that knowledge need not be hard and explicit for memes to be transmitted far and wide. Strange and mysterious and magical, aren't we humans?

Monday, December 04, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

Take, for instance, Raindrop's Zodiac thing. I started reading the Metro (a free Tube newspaper) for a lark, and it's very creepily prescient on many many days. Weird.

Monday, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Six months of sleep deprivation! Hm, too little work, I see. ;-)

Though the emotional needs could be met even by adoption; yes, I agree that the desire to have a child of ones own is a lot more layered than just being a mattter of identity. And yea, there's hardly a place for logic when instincts/emotions kick in.

Ancient knowledge: Yes, the possibility can't be denied. The Egyptians were using nanotechnology to create hair dyes, the ancient Greeks were using highly sophisticated mechanical devices, Chinese surgeons were performing craniotomy 4,000 years ago, ...


Strange, mysterious and magical, yes we are. :)

Tuesday, December 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh the zodiac predictions; yes, sometimes they're so uncanny. Try reading them at the end of the day/week sometimes, it's astonishing how close they can be to reality at times...when you sit there reading the predictions for the day/week that was and realise that some of it did really happen!

By the way, what's your zodiac sign? I'm an Arien.

And Nikita, in case you're reading, what's yours?

~N.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006  
Blogger nevermind said...

No comment. Put it down to my cussedly private nature:-D

Thursday, December 07, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.