Interestingly enough, the most important thing to people today is their need for identity. One’s need to identify or recognize with something unnatural or abstract surpasses one’s need for survival. These affiliations are usually associated with strong in-group entities like religion, state, country, language, race, political parties or anything superficial, which gives you a sense of being in a group. “Need for Identity” tends to casts a shadow on our decision capabilities by keeping us from absolute objectivity. Majority of the people, may be living an individualistic life today, but they are still dependent on their sense of identity or a need to be in a group.
These identifications are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. One can have multiple identification and even conflicting identifications as long it satisfies one’s need at the moment. These identities originated with a positive sense of security and togetherness. However, within the positive sense of identity there is a negative identity interdependence on the “other”. The “other” is nothing but a different abstract institution. This negative interdependence can lead people to make seemingly irrational decisions based on fear of losing the self-assigned superiority. Over the top nationalism, insane communal intolerance, overrated loyalties to political parties and ignorant sense of pride on culture, language and many more things. These are just few examples of irrational decisions people made because of the fear of “other”.
The sense of identity is not easy to lose, because this is how we evolved. We started it out of a sense of community and sharing a commonality and have carried it on with us believing that our affiliation is better than the “other”. This leads us to make subjective and biased decisions. We are imprisoned by the walls of these unnatural entities. It is unrealistic and undesirable to expect everyone to change and give up the need for identity. It is tough to contemplate if we were asked to make decisions without putting ourselves first, or our family first, or our religion or country or in cases like mine our ideology first. These are the things that shaped our thought process and personality, so giving up on them might lead us to to giving up a big chunk of ourselves. It is extremely hard to give up an identity because that leaves a vacuum, which must be filled by an alternative one. In addition to this, we have also cultivated our own hierarchy for these associations, which we like to enforce on others and vice versa. But with the advent of knowledge sharing we are continuously evolving and shifting our abstract identifications and their importance. People are adapting different religions as compared to what they were born in. They and their nationalism are migrating from one country to another. Our ideological identifications are changing at an even faster rate. We are becoming fickle minded, which is not a bad thing. These changes of identities are not a result of some absolute knowledge that we acquire, it is rather more of a social contemplation of relative knowledge of how our society is like, and how it should be, how we should be governed and how we should move forward or go backward.
(I think people might confuse this with the process of gaining knowledge and jumping to something better, but it is not that. These are merely one’s judgements based on their abstract and unnatural inceptions. I personally don’t think they should exist, but why do people love to be with them is something which I have DECIDED to leave it to the people because that decision doesn’t let me move forward with my hypothesis.)
Now let’s say there is a state of mind where one doesn’t feel the need to identify or recognize with an abstract idea. The mind has already over the period of time enjoyed and learned from numerous associations it accepted and rejected, but now its beyond the state where it needs to have the satisfaction of association. The first critique this idea will draw is that this idea itself is very abstract and unnatural and it could very well be the first reason to associate with this idea given our affection towards abstraction. The second set of criticism would on the lines of idealism, super humanly or totally in-human, maybe another reason to like the idea given our yearning of super human figures or God and constant effort towards idealism.
Currently this is not applicable to all. However, for a small group of population this could be their shot at rejecting antiquity, and conventionality once again. A group of few thinkers or leaders who can give up their need for identity and think absolutely objectively. Their role no more requires them to align people to one identity or in many cases their personal favorite identity. In this state we ask them to just manage people’s affiliations and cultivate mutual existence. Even in this state, when they have given up their identifications, people will continue to identify through a narrow lens of contemporary perception. To people, it would seem that the idea has failed practically and change bearers could never go beyond their affiliations. Therefore, the idea of lacking a need of identity would seem abstract and just like our current abstract entities, it will settle down for the long haul with the leadership of human civilization. Gradually, it will be absorbed by a larger group of people and would have a strong hold onto our subconscious, until the “other” breaks this association and takes the need for identity to a different level.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.