3 ms·
> it's not just the document that has been stolen but very well your identity as seen by society Yes, and that's also very wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/
by drdaeman 2y ago
> it's not just the document that has been stolen but very well your identity as seen by society
Yes, and that's also very wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15346081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15346081 (the article link died, but it's still available at https://medium.com/securitybytes/quick-one-stop-calling-it-identity-theft-10a5ab9e1b60 https://medium.com/securitybytes/quick-one-stop-calling-it-i...)
> but because your entire social identity has been taken away from you.
I totally agree with all you say, factually - yea, if the state decides I no longer exist, I'm pretty much fucked, pardon my language.
Except that - if we use correct terms - I don't lose my identity, I lose authorization because my credentials are revoked (or erased) and so no one formally or legally recognizes me anymore.
The identity is still there, though. Even the "social identity" - if we look at the original social identity theory, if I get it right, it's a self-concept, derived from one's own perceived membership in some social group. The social identity will be only "lost" (or, rather, transformed into something different) when I mentally process the erasure and stop believing I'm a part of the society I used to be a part of, and maybe start living and associating with somewhere else. Which is going to happen pretty quick in the outlined scenario, of course. But even though the factual outcome is the same - the semantics are whole lot different. And I believe that's really important.
Not using the correct terms is exactly the issue that irks me so much. If we start believing (most people already do) that "identity" is something that is provided to us by society, that our passports are our identities, it gradually leads us to decisions that we wouldn't have made otherwise, because things sound okay - but they only do because the language was perverted in a way to make them sound so.
- littlestymaar 2y ago> If we start believing (most people already do) that "identity" is something that is provided to us by society, But it is: first of all you didn't even chose the name you're bearing right now, society did it for you : your parents chose your first name among the list of socially cool/acceptable name in the context you were born in, your last name was given to you according to socially decided rules (patrilinearity, Zhukov/Zhukova, etc.). Then there's your job, from which we derive a significant part of our identity (note how we say “I am a software developer”). > it gradually leads us to decisions that we wouldn't have made otherwise We don't exist in a vacuum, most of the decisions we take every day, big or small, are shaped by the society we live in, no matter if you believe “that our passports are our identities”. The reason why you put an alarm clock to extract you from your bed this morning isn't because you believe in passports, but because you committed to, and this commitment is a big part of your identity: it shapes how much you sleep, how often you see your parents or play with your kids, it even shapes how much you have sex. Then of course you can argue that “your life” and “your identity” aren't the thing, thinking about the “identity” as some kind of abstract, immutable, thing that's attached to any individual (= the soul), but I don't think this thing really exist: we are the life we live.
- drdaeman 2y agoFirst of all, thank you for your comment, again. > first of all you didn't even chose the name you're bearing right now Oh, well, it just happens I actually did. When I naturalized, I literally picked my legal name (making some adjustments). I contemplated going as "Alex" (I use it as an informal name sometimes), but kept "Aleksei" just because I felt more like it. Even "Aleksei" is a choice (to some extent) - while society had dictated how it was spelled out in my old passport, I still had a choice of how I write it when I introduce myself. Quite a few people I know use names that are different from their legal names for themselves. We don't typically chose names we're bearing as kids, for obvious reasons. However, in reasonably progressive societies, we do have a choice regarding our names (most don't exercise it, keeping names as they were, but they still have an option) when we're adults. > Then there's your job, from which we derive a significant part of our identity (note how we say “I am a software developer”). That's not exactly right again - software development isn't there because it's my job. I've been pushing those Omnissiah-blessed (or cursed) buttons since I was five or six, so it's truly a part of who I am. Been like that way before I even got my first job. I wouldn't have put my job title ("Senior Engineer II") in the description, since I don't normally refer to myself that way. Some people do, of course - their identity, their choice how they present it. > The reason why you put an alarm clock Is probably not what you think, either. ;-) Yes, it's a commitment, but a very voluntary one - one of my cats has diabetes and he needs his pills and an shot of insulin. Plus, my overall health gets somewhat worse if I don't maintain normal diurnal schedule. I'm obviously very privileged here, but one of the [many] reasons I work for a company I work for, is flexibility I negotiated upfront - because I needed it for personal reasons. Again, it was me making that call, consciously ignoring the workplaces (= parts of the society) that don't work for me that well, and looking for the parts that do. And please don't get me wrong - I'm not bragging here or anything like that. It's just stating historical events - reading your comment made me remember things and realize they were quite different. I honestly wish everyone would be as privileged as me to be able to do the same: live their lives as much to their liking as the world allows it. > we are the life we live. I completely agree with this. Using formal terminology, identity is a description of self-concept, and if I get it right, self-concept is made of self-schemas, which are - simplified - a memories of our own lives. > We don't exist in a vacuum, most of the decisions we take every day, big or small, are shaped by the society we live in Oh, I think I see - we're basically talking something like individualism vs communitarianism at this point? I absolutely agree that coexistence with others (living in a society) means that our actions (and thus our identities) are greatly influenced by society. I find it ironic that my semi-liberal views on identity are definitely shaped by living a part of my life in a pseudo-collectivist society that I found disgusting. I'm not a libertarian, but I - quite selectively - like John Locke's "every man has a Property in his own Person" idea very much. And despite society playing huge role in forming identities, I still think I believe in individual volition as the ultimate factor. Assuming free will is a thing, haha. We may have limited options that we don't like - that's life - but - as I think - we still always make our own decisions. Otherwise concepts like "responsibility" stop making sense. So, ultimately, I'm all for the idea that I say "Hey, I'm Aleksei" and that's who I am, rather than society telling me "You are Aleksei". Societies can be very different. And if the society is [subjectively] good for some individual, society should have no problem with individual expressing themselves, right? And I just wouldn't like anyone to be stuck in a bad place - but if they are, in bad places, our own minds are always our very last bastion - and I think it's important to stand for it. Hope I understood your comment correctly, and that my reply makes sense.