Re: [ox-en] Re: Identity as an OHA aspect
- From: Casimir Purzelbaum <quasi utopix.net>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:31:11 +0100
* Ref.: »[ox-en] Re: Identity as an OHA aspect«
* Stefan Merten (2004-02-07 12:32)
Hi Stefan,
let me think about the difference between identities /
identification and about their respective use/purpose:
What is the identity of a free-software programmer? What does
it have to do with his name, with the programs he writes etc?
What does it have to do with the world he lives in? If there
were no free-software scene, he couldn't be an FS-programmer,
no matter what he would think about his programs and what he
would wish for.
Niall pointed out that it does not need an explicit scene to
have a certain identity. I agree with him. However, I think the
social conditions must be in a certain way to be able to choose
some identity. Insofar creation of a identity is closely linked
to the society as a whole.
Hence, his "real identity" as this or that cannot be
determined. The "real identity" of any {person | thing |
group | *} is an infinite thing.
This is where I get lost. What do you mean by "real identity"?
Or even more: What could such a concept be good for?
Doesn't it suffice to let it unclear to a high degree? ...
Do you "need an explicit scene to have a certain identity"? This
seems to be the distinction between the "real" and the
"practical" identity. Your "real" identity does not need anything
explicit, because it 'simply' describes what you are. The
"practical" identity however is attributed to you for a purpose.
Who attributes it to you does not matter here, but the purpose
does: the purpose of identification is to make it more
'practical' to deal with some problem. For that purpose you are
identified as a student, a homeless, a prisoner, a free software
author / sympathizer, an american, a woman, a moslem, a Tolkien
fan, an altermondialiste, a terrorist, an insider or outsider, as
the good, the bad or the ugly etc.
The obvious thing is, that all those so called identities in this
list and beyond, the "practical" identities, are not real, since
they can overlap, they can be half-true / half-lie, even in the
best case they only describe some tiny part of what / who you
really are, of your real identity. These "identities" are,
strictly speaking, *identifications*, abstractions of the real
identity, not identities -- that is what makes them practical.
The concept of the "real" identity is *only* needed for
understanding the difference here. It is absolutely impossible to
fully describe the real identity of anything or anybody. But it
is of utmost importance to realise that.
Therefor, it does not only "suffice to let it unclear to a high
degree", but this un-clarity of one's identity is a
non-neglectable part of one's real identity. That is exactly the
part that you are alienated from by being identified (or
identifying yourself) only whithin the limits of the "prescribed"
identifications (with their intrinsic purposes or social
functions).
... I mean what use does it have if you know all of your limits
at a given time as long as you are confronted only with a tiny
fraction of them?
The use of knowing about your "real identity" is the ability/ the
potential of overcoming the limits of "what you are confronted
as" -- the limits of being a (re-)acting *object*, the limits of
explicity.
The practical identity, however, is a conceptual thing and as
such it is limited. Well, as you said, it's very purpose is
limitation. Thus, his concept of his identity is different
from his "real identity". Or, as you might put it: the
practical identity is always alienated from the "real
identity".
Well, I'd put the practical identity in the focus so the "real
identity" seems to me the alienated part.
And, I think, that's why people come to think that identity
was as such anti-emancipatory.
Ah. I think I understand. But this concept of a "real identity"
is totally misguided - isn't it. Doesn't say much about what
you call practical identity.
Well, it shows that all conceiveable "practical identities" are a
result of the world as it is, they are, in a sense, conservative,
they put you into the drawers of an old cupboard.
<-- snippetery -->
I also hope, you will at least vaguely understand, why I do
not agree with your hypothesis that
...this is how the world is regardless of the concrete form
of society.
I'm not saying the concrete limits are the same in each
society. I'm just saying that there *are* limits. There are
even some which can not be overcome by any means. And there are
limits which can be changed as well as limits which are freely
chosen. I think *this* is the case in every society. Would you
agree?
I think I understand what you mean. And I do agree, to a certain
degree ;-)
Cheers,
Casi.
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/