[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

i agree that ID's have some content, but it's often not what we say it is. .

There is a point at which labels lose meaning, but what we should do, IMO, is to positively describe ourselves, and not try to create a totally coherent, unique, or prescriptive ID. Know that the ID is porous. Think of it as a loose description.

I don't think that ID is all-encompassing--no particularly interesting sociological category you might know about me will give you anything like a complete picture. It won't even give you substantially accurate picture of me.

You can't even say that much about race. There are no basic behaviors. There is no genetic history that is shared by all people who ID as African American. It may LOOK like it. But it's not there. There is no cultural or class content that is common to all. What is common to all is the experience of racism against African Americans in the U.S. That is not how the ID is understood, of course. We act as if we believe that there is a shared cultural and genetic content even if we know better.

Actually, this is only partially accurate. There is now far LESS cultural continuity in the black community than when my parents were born in the first quarter of the last century. That said, I stand by my statement that if my partner--who is only a second generation American, her grandparents having come over in the 30s--were to start claiming that she is black and trying to explain to me how I needed to move through the world as a black woman, based upon her extensive experience, I would take a very dim view of that.
I would even go so far as to say that class is a powerful mitigating factor with racism. What racism looks like to me is *fundamentally* different than what it looks like to my cousin's on my father's side who grew up much poorer than my sister and I.

So, yes, we do have to have ID's that are useful and do exclude some people. But it is important to acknowledge that on the level at which they are useful to us, the level of coherence, they are cultural constructs.

And creating coherent identity categories is full of pitfalls. We do it because it's useful and it's how humans think. But we should do it mindfully. We should not define ourselves in opposition to others. And we should not try to create prescriptive identities.

Let's use my Rush Limbaugh example. Personal distaste for him notwithstanding, why should we be suspicious of Mr. Limbaugh if he were to launch into some diatribe about black lesbians if he were to state, beforehand, that his self-identity is that of a black lesbian and that any critique that he is putting forth is coming from a place of love and concern? This might be me, but I believe that as a black woman, I have room to offer necessary critiques of things happening within the black community that would NOT be welcome coming from someone who was, say, white. Now, if we are not creating prescriptive identities and if we're granting that these are just so many cultural constructs with no objective reality--and I don't think that this buys us what we might believe it does--then why should Mr. Limbaugh's critique NOT carry the same weight as mine since we are both claiming black and lesbian as our arbitrary, culturally constructed identities? Yet, most of us reading this thread would argue that if Mr. Limbaugh offers some critique about blacks or queers, it is more likely to be coming from a racist or homophobic place than if I offer a critique about one or both of those groups?


Cheers
Aj