Every person has several identities, some made up of inherited traits from the genetics of a mother and father and others that are developed like a personality and a belief system. All of these traits, either inherited or developed/acquired, form one’s identity. Unfortunately, American society probably like many others is somewhat one dimensional despite the multiculturalism and global mindset that the US purports to have in the sense of being a “melting pot.” What is a melting pot? When something melts, it gives the impression that it goes from a solid to a liquid, thus becoming fluid and gaining an ability to mix, intermingle, coalesce, and from homogeneity to heterogeneity. However, American society seems to be a homogenous mixture meaning that, although there are a multitude of races, creeds, religions, languages, ethnicities, origins, beliefs, and cultures represented, they exist as stand alone entities (each person represents a compact morsel of identity that may exist alongside but does not intermix with the identity of other). In other words, there is very little cross-cultural exchange either in terms of sharing one’s culture and beliefs or adoption of beliefs and mores distinct from one’s own. At the risk of sounding contradictory, it’s important that the phrase— “morsel of identity” –be fleshed out a bit further. It was established earlier that identity is not unilateral meaning that there are many contributors to one identity and one could argue that because there are so many contributing factors, the identity of no two individuals is exactly the same. Nevertheless, the discussion about US society being a pseudo-melting pot suggests that identity is not fluid in this country. While there are many reasons why identity appears to be static and somewhat immovable…one plausible theory is that society creates a dominant/default identity for large groups of people that may or may not share the same culture, belief system, place of origin, ethnicity, race, language, religion, etc. In this way, society being very visual and somewhat rigid makes a prima facie determination on one’s default identity. For example, the fact that a black person may have one parent that is not racially black or ethnically African-American, is essentially irrelevant when defining the person. Even though I am not a proponent of splitting hairs or someone not cherishing their heritage, I do believe that this societal bullying in terms of identity and categorization is deeply problematic. When I say splitting hairs, one phenomenon comes to mind. I think it is weak and inconceivable when a person who appears to be one race or identity (and especially if this race or identity does not put him/her at the top of the social ladder) tries to mention all of the other ethnic influences on his/her identity to, in effect, neutralize the stigma caused by the default identity. Some may disagree, but Tiger Woods illustrates this point for me when he coined a term in an interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show that was not only difficult to pronounce but seemed as though he was doing what he could to quell those that deemed him as the first African-American to be a formidable competitor in golf. Woods explained that the term, Caublanasian, as a hybrid that includes the words, Caucasian, Black, and Asian to sort of capture his tripartite identity. I may be inaccurate, but in my opinion, Woods lost the respect of much of black America and, perhaps, that of other America for not owning a default heritage because it is linked to a lower rung on the caste system of race in America. So, I’ve presented two somewhat contradictory elements in staging this debate on identity. One argument forces one to look beyond a surface, default, and societally-imposed identity and one suggests that you ought to accept the identity that suits you the closest (largely based on stereotypical physical traits) because, in not doing so, it seems to evoke shame especially when the identity may place you on a lower rung in terms of societal status.
As difficult as it is for me to conceptualize it, I propose something that is a mixture of the two. Educate, defend, and own up to all aspects of your identity (even those that you may not be as proud of or as comfortable with) because they are all responsible for forming your identity.
Now, for a practical example: In the political arena, two big social, political, and identity-laden issues are the passage of Proposition 8 in California which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the 2008 election in which Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. I am not sure of a time in American history when identity politics has played such a crucial role. Although these events could be considered unrelated and in many ways…they are, for the purposes of discourse on identity politics—these events offer a great lesson. Regardless of the fact that there has been a fight for civil rights issues (in particular, equality in terms of race), one fight does not beget another. I say this because an Op-Ed piece in the times points the finger at African-Americans for the passage of Proposition 8 in California because they came out in such great numbers to elect Barack Obama. In fact, the piece says, in tongue and cheek it seems but accurately that “there’s a big difference between coalition politics and rainbow party politics.” Sure, there is a difference between coalition politics and rainbow party politics…but the difference should not be in intent but rather in content. The intent of both kinds of politics should be to include more people and to put differences aside. For coalition leaders, the people affected are those of color and, for rainbow party leaders, the people affected are homosexuals or anyone who does not live a hetero-normative lifestyle. However, this Op-Ed piece suggests that there is a difference in intent catalyzed by the difference in content. In other words, it’s unfathomable to discriminate or deny rights on the basis of race but completely tolerable and understandable to do so on the basis of sexual orientation or overall lifestyle. So, you may ask…just how bad was in this different in intent on the parts of blacks. According to the article, “They [Blacks] came to the polls in record numbers to support Barack Obama, and they brought with them a fiercely held and enduring antipathy toward homosexuality: 7 in 10 blacks voted in support of traditional marriage.” Now, I doubt that blacks…only making up about 12 or 13% of the US population are that much of a game changer on most political ballots; however, it is the principle that…given the opportunity to vote on an allowance of rights or a denial of rights for gays (who are currently disenfranchised from the institution of marriage), blacks would vote for gays to remain ostracized and second-class citizens. It seems like a classic case of the oppressed turning into the oppressor. Oh, and why have so many blacks turned into the oppressor? They are using the same tool that so well enslaved them…the Bible. When blacks were not allowed to read other forms of literature, the Bible was readily made available to them as a form of mind control. Through some interpretations of the Bible, blacks were led to believe that they were inferior and perhaps even made for slavery. So, why use a text that can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways as a guide for politics? I do not want to argue whether marriage is or is not a church institution because, while that is an interesting argument, it is one for a different time and not particularly relevant to this issue. Why? Because it appears that blacks voted not on the fact that marriage is a church institution but on their widespread belief that homosexuality is an irreverent and immoral lifestyle that is unacceptable. One question that I always want to posit to such people is: Does not accepting something make it go away? What have you accomplished? All of the things that we look down upon as a society are still here regardless of their levels of acceptance including out of wedlock births, abortions, suicides, prostitution, drug use, murder, theft, child/spousal abuse, infidelity, greed, sloth, etc. I do not mean to criminalize or stigmatize homosexuality by comparing it to criminal offenses or to the types of things that not only affect one person but act as a drudge on society. But, it is important to bring these things up to try to offer examples of how tough legislation and lack of acceptance does little to mitigate harms. One could engage in a debate that this says more about the failures of an overtaxed judicial and legislative system than the failings of society to keep antisocial behaviors in check. Whatever the excuse may be, the fact is that trying to squelch certain things because they do not fit on your moral compass does little to curb that behavior and may have more negative consequences because it must be dealt with. I feel like misusing a scientific principle here which says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but it may change form.
Is the “protection” of marriage as between one man and one woman doing anything for heterosexual or homosexual couples? I say no because the practical civil rights issues are far more simplistic. The same homosexual couple that you stopped from becoming married does not have the same benefits afforded to them as a heterosexual couple in terms of tax breaks and health insurance, etc. So, if a person gets sick and they happen to be gay…you are virtually ensuring that you (who do not believe that homosexuals should have the same civil rights as a heterosexual couple because of their “sinful” lifestyle) may have to take care of this person if they do not have insurance. How magnanimous of such a short-sighted, holier-than-thou person? Furthermore, in the case of Arkansas in which unmarried couples have been forbidden from adopting children…you are increasing the likelihood that orphaned children will become of age in an overburdened and often un-nurturing child protective services system. If you thought it stopped there, wrong again—property or assets held by couples that are common law but unmarried often burden probate courts because there is no clear beneficiary upon death without an airtight will and testament. In the course of a discussion with some anti-gay marriage colleagues, I was told that gays could just fill out all of the necessary paperwork and file it appropriately so that they would essentially have all of the rights of heterosexuals in marriage. This is true…in some cases—but not in others. There is no way around taxes, there is no such thing as “married filing jointly” when you’re not married. And, oddly enough, isn’t it such a shameful argument that gays ought to just pay more for being gay? It’s almost like a gay tax…oops!
What is equally as damning is not just the financial costs of trying to deny civil rights to some while affording them to others are the cultural implications. Does anyone ever wonder why HIV infection is so high in minority (especially black) communities? One word seems to ring true: denial. Fortunately or unfortunately (for some), gays are in everyone’s family, in everyone’s neighborhood, someone’s brother, sister, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin, in-law, etc. It’s plausible that a very high percentage of people know someone that is an openly gay person and probably several who are closeted. What are you saying to that person when you laugh and talk with them and ostensibly care for and about them when you go to the polls and vote to deny them a civil right? Are all of these people just going to have to shape up or ship off because you decided that their lifestyles were iniquitous? Hardly, in fact the gay population is really much larger than many admit and is sort of a silent but burgeoning community in many families, towns, cities, neighborhoods, and the like. It’s there but few want to talk about it. It seems as though by treating something as a disease or some kind of plague…it becomes one. Since so many evangelizers of religion would like to castigate homosexuals for their sins, the gay population has become just that—very insidious not in the sense of being immoral or negative but in the sense of being hidden yet powerful at the same time. It is not going away because whether you believe that people are born that way or it is a lifestyle choice…it seems to be one aspect of identity that people are unable to compartmentalize effectively. This is one of the reasons why identity is not this static entity but rather a dynamic force field. One cannot just encapsulate everything that makes them attracted to the same-sex and exile it to the depths of his/her unconscious. Identity is far more complicated than many give credit for. The major justification for the discourse that opened this discussion on America being too one dimensional in terms of identity was this very problem of trying to privilege one identity over another. I suppose that a black gay person should just be happy that Barack Obama took office regardless of the fact that Proposition 8 passed on the same day and Arizona, and Florida passed two anti-marriage initiatives. So, one aspect of this black gay person’s identity was validated while another was made invalid. Very few people look at it this way though because, once again, in American society you are only what can be seen. Because being gay is not as highly identifiable an identity as having brown skin…having brown skin is a primary identity even though being a gay/lesbian may have an equal effect on one’s life.
I close this discussion to say that it’s unfortunate that in a society that is supposed to be so organizationally advanced and such a motley crew of culture and identity that there must always be an oppressed group. Furthermore, why is it that one must pick and choose which identity is most important to them? Why can’t I have as many identities as I wish and have them all be valid in the eyes of another? When will so-called conservative society understand that their ideologies often are not pragmatic? What will it take for society to become one unified while still preserving and validating one’s distinct identities?
Note: The New York Times Op-Ed piece quoted in this blog post is entitled Showdown in the Big Tent.
