Understanding Identity and conflict

Over the last few years, I have had many conversations on seemingly disconnected topics such as caste, gender, polarisation, discrimination, religion, colonisation, nationalisation and spirituality. I once facilitated a workshop for a leading non-profit on polarisation which soon, thanks to the thoughtful colleagues in the organisation, turned into a dialogue on othering . I have been reading Jonathan Haidt's work on conservatives and liberals and reflecting on what it means to India. I am part of communities discussing what it means to own up to one's own cultural and religious identity. This post is my attempt at articulating a unifying framework across all of these conversations.

As I write this, I know this topic evokes strong feelings among many. So if you are offended, blame it on articulation and understanding than intent. And do see it as a conversation starter - Your inputs will only make this discussion richer.

Understanding the two of types of identity

There are two broad types of identities that people associate to themselves: Identities by birth and Identities by aspiration. Identities by birth are what we are born with including our family, lineage, caste, religion, place of birth, language of speech and gender. These identities are handed to us and define us in ways that are not always explicit. Identities by aspiration are acquired through focused pursuit or are accorded to us by our families. This includes education, profession / trade, wealth, social status, social access, spoken language and many more. These are often positioned as coveted identities by society and fuels a lifelong pursuit to attain and hold on to them.

Each of us carry multiple identities - Our choice of identities define how we see our lives, live our lives and see others in our lives. There are those who see their identity of birth as the leading identity (e.g. their language or religion). There are those whose aspirational identities define them (for e.g. their education, trade or social status). And there are those who recognise their multiple identities and are comfortable with all of them. In our conversations, even among peers, what we posit as logical arguments are responses from our deeply held identities that determine our position on the subject.

The four conflicts of identity

There are four broad conflicts that are playing out in parallel in our society today across identities of birth and aspiration.

The Colonisation effect: Identity of aspiration is higher than Identity of birth

Every colonised country struggles with claiming its identities of birth above the identities of aspiration enforced by their oppressors. Europeans - buoyed by their age of enlightenment and their ability to win wars - saw their role as emancipating the colonised from dark ages. They systematically ingrained the belief that our identities of aspiration - the English language, new age scientific methods, western lifestyle - are inherently refined and more sophisticated than "traditional wisdom", the customs we follow, languages that are our own, our religious practices all of which define our identities of birth.

Today, the effect of this is so pervasive that it is barely discernible - Especially in India where the secular approach is identified as giving up on one's identity of birth. While we have largely retained our religious association (unlike in Latin America), we continue to be conflicted between our aspirational identity and our identity of birth. We see indigenous knowledge with doubt (and without proof). We are uncomfortable to flout our cultural identities in public and we subconsciously judge those whose primary identity is that of their birth because they might not be as evolved and more recently may be more radical.

The decolonisation movement: Building back the identity of birth

Over the last few years, there has been a growing movement around decolonisation highlighting the impact of colonisation and bringing the focus (and pride) back on the indic identity. As with any movement (much like our Independence movement), these are a continuum of voices. Erudite writers such as Pavan Verma and Sai Deepak make informed arguments about how severing our association with our identity of birth results in the loss of a huge part of ourselves. They highlight how in any discussion that is anchored on religion (e.g. Sabarimala entry for women), we are uncomfortable to even see the story from our identities of birth often ignoring it as a regressive argument.

On the other side of the continuum are misinformants who concoct stories (e.g. how Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya). They see the ambivalence in the country to own up to our identities of birth as their raison d'etre to draw militant lines of division in the society. Hence, more they are dismissed as being regressive, the louder their voices get since it fuels their fundamental argument of disdain against our identities of birth.

Structural discrimination: Structural discrimination with Identities of birth

As David Deutsch argues in his discussion with Tyler Cowen , every social structure has always assumed that few people know better than others. This could be Men vs. Women, Whites vs. Blacks and Forward castes vs. Backward castes. Societies stack up identities by birth in some order to create systemic inequities. Over time the clamour of equity becomes louder. This starts with the 'enlightened oppressors' rationalising the structure either in the name of god, scriptures of natural law. Subsequently the 'progressive oppressors' speak on behalf of the 'oppressed' often appropriating an identity that they don't fully understand. Subsequently, the 'oppressed' organise and speak for themselves and often fight against them being labeled as the oppressed in the first place. We have been witness to structural inequities for centuries in India across caste and gender.

Leaders of these movements have argued for annihilation of the identity systems that create the structural inequities arguing that one must be defined only by one's identity of aspiration. At the same time, other have argued that when members of lower caste who achieve social mobility choose their identity of aspiration over their identity of birth, it weakens the structural shift that needs to happen for not just one but for an entire community to move forward. There are ongoing dialogues on whether one can fully own the identity of birth without guilt, shame and discrimination along with one's identity of aspiration.

Being Woke: The discomfort with privilege

Today there is a broader dialogue among people around privilege across identities of birth and aspiration. What started as a movement against racial injustice has evolved to a broader discussion on all privileges that one carries - One's colour of skin, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, social status, social access. The onus is on the one with privileges to acknowledge it and act with awareness. The actions cut across how one presents oneself, the words one chooses and the associations one espouses.

In closing: Looking inwards than outwards

As we get more polarised and the clamour of each side is getting louder, I often find myself trying to understand my own identities. I am shaped by my identities of birth as much as I am shaped by everything I have sought. I don't yet fully understand the conflicts I carry and what my biases are.

I have always believed that Philanthropy's role is to build the vision of ideal future for all of us and ensure everyone gets there. It is sometimes important for those in civil society to take sides in these debates and fight for the position that they believe is true. While we need them, we also need those who are able to hold the space for dialogue. And for that we need people who are able to recognise and own up to their multiple identities, understand their biases and hold a space for dialogue for people who have same or opposing beliefs for us to better understand each other. Such spaces for dialogues are shrinking rapidly today (As evidenced by all WhatsApp groups that we are a part of). And we need many more of them.

Because we will be able to solve the problems we are fighting for not by having the loudest voices but through deepest resonance - and dialogue is the only way to get there.