4 ms·

This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even if you don't consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it. For th

This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even if you don't consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it. For those not of the dominant identity, to "not even to consider yourself an x" is a problem if you are an x and the problem you want to address is systemic unfairness toward x. Imagine yourself a slave in 1850 being advised to not consider yourself a slave, or black, because you'd avoid useless discussions. Imagine yourself a woman today being advised by HR to not consider yourself a woman or your experiences as one when discussing workplace discrimination or harassment. Imagine yourself a gay man being advised to forget you are one when discussing laws restricting gay marriage. You get the picture.

grzm 9y ago
Note the title is "Keep your identity small", not "Reduce your identity to zero". While I think I can see what you're getting at, I'm not sure I follow the logic. Bear with me for a moment: In the case of slavery, I wouldn't want someone to consider themselves a slave, I'd want them to consider themselves a human being and expect to be treated as such. Similarly for anyone dealing with harassment or unjust marriage laws. These conditions aren't unjust because one is a slave or a woman or gay. They're unjust because you're a human, and the conditions are inhumane. A slave doesn't want to continue to be a slave; a woman doesn't want to have to put up with harassment because they're a woman; a gay man doesn't want to be treated differently because he's a gay man: they want to be treated fairly and justly because they're human. I think one of the things Graham is pointing towards is finding what is common among people, rather than focussing on the differences. A couple of sentences that stood out to me when I read it were "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities." I read that as focussing on those topics in common. None of this is guaranteed, of course. But I think it's a more constructive way forward than focussing on what divides people. Would you expand on what aspects of the piece you took to supporting the conclusions and examples you provided above?

grzm 9y ago

Note the title is "Keep your identity small", not "Reduce your identity to zero". While I think I can see what you're getting at, I'm not sure I follow the logic. Bear with me for a moment: In the case of slavery, I wouldn't want someone to consider themselves a slave, I'd want them to consider themselves a human being and expect to be treated as such. Similarly for anyone dealing with harassment or unjust marriage laws. These conditions aren't unjust because one is a slave or a woman or gay. They're unjust because you're a human, and the conditions are inhumane. A slave doesn't want to continue to be a slave; a woman doesn't want to have to put up with harassment because they're a woman; a gay man doesn't want to be treated differently because he's a gay man: they want to be treated fairly and justly because they're human. I think one of the things Graham is pointing towards is finding what is common among people, rather than focussing on the differences. A couple of sentences that stood out to me when I read it were "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities." I read that as focussing on those topics in common. None of this is guaranteed, of course. But I think it's a more constructive way forward than focussing on what divides people. Would you expand on what aspects of the piece you took to supporting the conclusions and examples you provided above?