There are two statements in this that seem totally false to me, that make me skeptical of whatever point the author is working towards. I don't know anything ab

There are two statements in this that seem totally false to me, that make me skeptical of whatever point the author is working towards. I don't know anything about this author or the point they're trying to make, beyond what they say about it being related to identity in academia (presumably tenure). > As divorce and infidelity are becoming more common than ever they are also more painful, shattering one’s life story along with the relationship. I don't think this is true at all. First of all, in many places, divorce rates are declining (as are marriage rates). Second, while I understand the point about how marriage expectations are different now, at least for roughly half the population (women), divorce is much less painful than in the past -- women are less expected / forced / taught to define themselves as extensions of their husbands and families, have more options, etc., meaning they're less likely to be in the "I don't know who I am without this" trap. > Not to be outdone by romance, companies also jumped on the identity-producing game. Jobs used to be described in terms of action ... Now they describe a persona ... You no longer merely work at BigCorpInc; you’re a Googler, Postie, Amazonian. On what timescale is this true? Historically, your whole life was defined by your job. That's where many last names come from -- something way more permanent that being a "Googler". More recently, we had the era of lifetime employment, strong unions, etc. that meant you had a job for life. People were loyal to their companies in a real way. In some ways we still largely have this in the public sector. Instead, I think the "identity-producing game" modern corporations are involved in is about reproducing the parts of that system that were beneficial to the corporation without those that were costly for it -- bad, but different from what the author is saying. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding or missing context here. Edit: I read the previous few posts in this series, and while there are some odd references and lots of things I can't tell if they're true or not, I don't immediately notice anything false. I have only a light background in what the author is talking about (a few college courses a long time ago).