One thing I find most curious about the current public milieu is its insistence for certain kinds of identification and not for others. An example: I saw an interview where Lou Dobbs suggested Americans should stop celebrating ethnically European holidays such as Saint Patrick’s Day; reason being that we should identify not with some distant foreign heritage, which he seemed to suggest was divisive, but the contemporary public lifestyle. Asside: I wonder if he would suggest doing away with the likes of Kwanzaa or Cinco De Mio. But anyway…You see this sort of hypocritical attitude more and more these days. Folks want you to identify not as race, ethnicity, sex or tribe but the broad category of species (human) or, failing that, nation state (not nationality). You hear it all the time: you’re not “white,” “black,” “Oriental,” “Nordic,” etc. because we’re all part of one race—the human race. “But a race of what?” I must then ask, as one who makes such a statement is clearly ignorant of the fact that a race is merely a variant of a larger category.
It’s obvious politically correct pandering and a double standard, as the same logic for such identification could be used for any category: our identities are overlapping and coaxial. If I am to identify not with ethnicity or race, but humanity, supposing that subspecies characterization is somehow unethical, why not take it a step further? Are we not all Hominidae? Let us cease discrimination and unite with our great ape cousins. And why stop there? Subphylum identification is racist! All mammals are Chordata; it’s high time we embraced our yellowfin tuna brethren as equals!
Of course we don’t do that: we have limited loyalties and limited tastes. All animals naturally associate with those that are most like themselves. If you know of a pet store with a large display of finches, go and observe them. Likely they will have a diverse selection. Notice that, even though there is no difference between them otherwise, any polarity of different colored finches will congregate and exclude others. It is so with any kind of animal in large enough numbers to form localities of critical mass. This in-group impulse is a hardwired survival mechanism.
The point of this article is not to denounce the notion of species identification—I see no problem in collecting as a singular humanity in the face of greater outside aggression—but that humanism alone is very limiting. Indeed, I am a human, and that constitutes a large part of my psychological identity; but I’m also a Caucasian, an American, of Welsh and German national descent, a man, a mate, a brother, a son, an autodidact, an illustrator, etc. If I were to stop at species I wouldn’t be remotely as rich a personality as I am, and the world itself would be dimmer because of it.
We are all more than just “human.” Such a stunted public practice as globalist humanism will leave mankind a monocultural, ethnically deluded, socially retarded simulacrum of itself. Instead, our modus vivendi should be nepotistic, winnowing equanimity; and we should always strive to define ourselves by our differences and our similarities, as it is all our influences and heritages that constitute who we really are.
Shayne
www.inertiacide.com
6 comments:
Shayne, Hi its John from Melbourne.
Perhaps there is some latent Wisdom emerging in the call to transcend our provincial identities?
You complain about the potential tyranny of a global humanism of meat-body sameness, and yet your entire blog is awash with the language of meat-body humanism and nothing more.
And despite the presumed emphasis of supposed "difference" hasnt capitalism produced (or reduced everything to)a world-wide one dimensional meat-body "humanism".
How many people are watching TV right now---the universal cloning machine of the consumerist religion---buy this, get excited about this, hate that.
I shop therefore I am---nothing more.
With rare exception even most of what is called "religion" is a pandering to the consumer mentality. Jesus loves me, me, me, me. No profundity or depth required.
It is all the same.
The transcending of identity, the striving to overcome man, is a Nietzschean concept: Übermensch; and I wholeheartedly welcome it. In that vein, the bulk of my thought is decidedly anti-humanistic: my greatest wish is for postmodern man to no longer exist, as Neanderthal man no longer exists. But more than that, I would see an insurrection of metaphysical consciousness. This consciousness needn’t be some broad, publicized movement; rather a spark of curiosity amongst those capable.
My argument in the above post is within the context of secular identification: the idea today seems to be that of eliminating all sub- / pro-species identity such that nothing beyond “human” matters (the destruction of sex, race, nationality, etc). To buy into such an idea, I think, is shortsighted foolishness. As mentioned above, if we are to be “human”, we must also necessarily be all the rest of our innumerable constituents. The article is intended to denounce limiting self identification within the context of the secular experience and has nothing to do with transcendentalism.
As to consumerism: I agree that it has impregnated the global thought with humanism, however I do not believe it has “reduced everything” as such. There is still authenticity to be found, even in religion; it’s merely contextual and thus subject to the limitations of interpretation. The vast majority of humans are plebeian cogs of the mob, and experience even divinity temporally: “If I adhere to sacred rules then I—me—will go to heaven.” You should recognize that this is not the fault of religion itself.
Thanks for the comment.
We are all part of the human race and I enjoy experiencing other cultures and faiths. You'd think Lou Dobbs would like an excuse to party like St. Patrick's Day. I know I do - and I'm a Buddhist American woman. :-)
The stupefying paradox of today’s postmodern multicultural egalitarian is their adherence to tolerance of cultural admixture, sit fas aut nefas. They suppose that accessibility of diversity makes a culture more enjoyable, but the price paid for this easy amusement is the overall cheapening of cultural. St Patrick's Day is a perfect example. It used to be a sacred religious feasting holiday, now it’s a secularized excuse for drunkenness. So-called “ethnic foods” are watered down and covered in excess sugar to better suit the American pallet (the Mexican, Chinese, Indian, etc. food we eat is not nearly what they eat in the motherland.) It’s not really diversity; more like the homogenization of diversity towards the emanate disintegration of difference. The fact that so many buy into it without any discernable resistance or nausea…I don’t know. It’s so proletariat. So soporific.
there are a lot of thoughts here that i want to respond to. shayne... in response to your last comment. i think the cooptation and commodification of culture is an important concept to be critical of. i think it's also important to consider the notion of hybridity, that there is no "pure" essence of a culture. culture is always the site of contestation and redefinition of meaning. Chinese food in the US would be a perfect example of this. the important point is to be aware of tremendous power asymmetries in, for example, global capitalism.
as for the question of identity, i agree with your critique of liberal humanism. and i think it's important to consider that liberal humanism was always inseparable from the imperialist project that funded it. but the point that is totally missing from your post is identity politics. if there were no racism, then race as identity could very well be meaningless. but it is politically strategic as well as culturally meaningful for people and communities of color, as the oppressed, to identify as people of color. for me, as a queer person, it is politically essential for me to stake out an identity on the basis of sexuality and gender identity because we live in a patriarchical and heterosexist world. i do, of course, also identify as a human being and as a child of the earth or whatever you want to call it... but when people start to talk about transcending identity is when it starts to look like white people looking for an excuse not to talk about racism or straight people looking for an excuse not to talk about heterosexism, cisgender people looking for an excuse not to talk about transphobia, etc. etc.
<3
~f
Fokion:
It is indeed important to recognize that culture is malleable. Circumstances change, and understanding changes with it. However, what I’m interested in, primarily, is how accurate one’s perception of these circumstances is. A culture which accepts its heritage can more readily define what these circumstances mean to them and how to move forward with them. In this sense heritage is a form of wisdom, and race (ethnicity) becomes spiritual before biological.
"if there were no racism, then race as identity could very well be meaningless."
Well, probably. Though consider how possible this is. Science is slowly revealing what tradition has known forever: race matters. People identify with their race whether they like it or not. There are two options for preventing this 1) mix all types together until race differences are merged, “gray race”, or 2) allow types to separate and identify themselves. Option one is a progressive attenuation eventually resulting in a weak, lowest-common-denominator people, whilst option two results in the traditional cultures we as confused modern folk idolize today.
One who transcends identity for the sake of avoiding uncomfortable problems has transcended nothing. All I’m saying is simply that we are what we are – all of it – and if we accept that, amorally, and move on, we will be better suited to deal with reality.
Great comment, by the way.
Post a Comment