There
are foundational tensions at the heart of Kenneth Hoover's book The Power of Identity: Politics in a New Key,
and they go to the very core of what it means to be in the world and further to
be in relation with; i.e. the full range of what it means to exist as a
human. These tensions take various forms,
a couple of which are the us vs. them duality we hear in numerous contexts and
the positive vs. negative benefits as applied to the individual when referring
to identification with a particular group. Therefore the tensions are multi-dimensional,
multi-layered and complex when we begin to break down the internal and external
elements of human identifications and relations.
Politics And Power As Related To Identity
Politics
as defined by Hoover is also multi-dimensional and multi-layered. Here Hoover is partly referring to politics in the
"traditional" sense, that is to say in the state or governmental
spheres. But politics according to
Hoover is much more; it is essentially any interaction involving situations of
power, influence and knowledge (among other factors) which affect relations
between - and the concomitant identities of - individuals at the micro level
and communities/societies at the macro level.
Therefore,
the scope of this relatively short book is incredibly large as it attempts to
look at identity from the vantage point of many different perspectives and
group dynamics. However, Hoover's great
achievement is to instigate appropriate lines of questioning when it comes to
the meaning of identity. This type of questioning is not much
different from that which goes into the process of healthy identity formation
itself.
Stages of Identity Development
Integral
to Hoover's tensions within the various elements and types of identity is the
gradations in identity development, both within societies and communities, and
within the individual in relation to those larger groups. Hoover's statements resonate when he mentions
the stages of identity development within the individual, particularly the time
in late adolescence which he refers to as "moratorium". The
critical importance of this period is emphasized by Hoover, and with the
advantage of hindsight, anyone with a bit of life experience and a healthy
sense of identity should be able to recognize the decisions made - conscious or
not - during this time.
What
Hoover means by moratorium is that there is enough development in the
individual's mind and just enough life experience (in late adolescence) to
begin the process of questioning.
Whether or not this process is actually embarked upon at that time is
another matter. There is a danger in this stage of accepting
everything that has been presented to the developing mind without the
appropriate critical thinking that is so crucial to self-esteem, self-respect
and true identity formation.
"Identity foreclosure" is how Hoover describes the process of
closing further development at this point in one's life. One example of this could be the
fundamentalist - of any stripe - who simply accepts what has been presented to
them externally their entire
life.
However,
identity foreclosure is not necessarily a bad thing once proper identity development
has occurred. If one has given
themselves the opportunity and courage to question the world around them during
the moratorium period, and has come to certain conclusions on their own then identity foreclosure could be seen as a natural
progression. Hoover could be interpreted
as saying that having solid beliefs, with the caveat of flexibility and
openness to learning new experiences, is a healthy form of
"foreclosure". This flexibility
prevents the creeping in of dogmatic lines of action and thought.
Identity, Tolerance and Culture
Once
the individual has established and is aware
of their own identity progression, they are then able to confidently and openly
tolerate differences of opinion in others.
With the solid grounding of their own identity, they perceive no threats
from the outside. This review argues
that this is one of the most critical elements at any stage of identity in our
world today, whether it be at the individual level, or at the societal and
community levels. Additionally, it is argued
that intolerance results from a lack of appropriate questioning in one's life,
and this results in insecurity, which could be - and perhaps often is -
subconscious. There is an element of
fear that one's beliefs and worldview (a large part of identity) might not be
the final "truth", and the perception of threat from those with
different identities comes into play.
That is, the individual feels the instability of their own identity in
the face of "the other", and it is not inaccurate to say that they
almost believe that this "other" wants to change them in some way, or
that they might be changed themselves with continued exposure.
A
very close concept to identity foreclosure before a proper moratorium would be
labeled by Hoover as "diffusion".
This is the other direction in which the individual could head in the
moratorium period. Diffusion is where no
identity at all is claimed, whether external or internal. Where it can be interpreted by the reader as
similar to early identity foreclosure is in the sense that both elements
(identity foreclosure without proper moratorium and diffusion) lack internal stability. The process of questioning allows the
individual to "feel out" the world around them and establish identity
in relation to the world or culture.
This, we can argue, is what Hoover means when he talks about culture
being inseparable from identity.
This
statement about the individual process can also be applied to communities of
any size and the larger societies around them.
To expand even further on the concept of culture being inseparable from
identity formation is that culture provides a starting point. There is a grounded reference found in
culture than can be accepted or rejected by the party (individual, group,
society) given all the elements at their disposal. Even if this culture is rejected by the
identity-seeking party, there is still an identity in relation to that particular culture. The environment around the individual cannot
be ignored, because a non-reaction to culture is still a reaction. The inter-connectedness of all that is comes through very strong in this
important idea.
Identity, Government and Diversity
A
further tension in Hoover's work is seen in the concepts of politics and power
in the commonly perceived sense, which is the government or larger
community/society. For a society to
exist, and for it to have an internal cohesion, there is a requirement for
balance in identity. This statement
seems to match well with Hoover when he illustrates the drawbacks of the two
commonly perceived "sides" of politics. The right can
become intolerant in its sometimes closed conservative ideals that refuses to
bend to allow others into the circle.
Further, a different sort of conservatism - involving the market mentality
- is individualistic to a fault in that the idea of competition has clearly
established (and isolated) winners and losers.
On
the left side of the political spectrum, we can see the demand for tolerance of
any and all types of diversity, ideas, personalities, etc. In theory this is a very laudable and desired
concept. Yet much like the right's insular community this can be taken to
an extreme, as Hoover illustrates, by the very stringent demand for diversity
being itself an inflexible idea. There is
little room in both mindsets - the closed community of the right and the
stringent demand for diversity on the left - for compromise in coming
together. Both end up being
self-defeating and intolerant in the end by refusing to allow true diversity which is grounded on a
stable identity that is not just unthreatened but enriched through the flexibility to consider outside ideas, however
they might arrive.
Hoover's
idea of the proper concept of power in government or polities/politics at any
level is something with which this review can agree. He believes that power in its most ideal form
is something which creates a space for the freedom to engage in proper identity
development. To do this, there must be
freedom of expression and ideas. It is
argued here that nothing should be off the table - which would mean a minimum
of any type of censorship by power structures - and further that an environment
conducive to tolerance is necessary.
This would mean not just laws that technically allow freedom of expression,
worship, information, etc.. but an environment that is conducive to
equanimity in application of these laws and structures.
Further,
diversity should be embraced and accepted as a desirable part of
community. Proper identity formation
allows this, and the institutions of power and politics can help create a
culture and atmosphere conducive to this, but Hoover makes explicitly clear
that mutuality is not something that can be mandated at a macro level. He illustrates this point quite effectively
by referring to China at the end of the book and how - particularly under Mao -
the Chinese identity was so homogenized that the identity of the individual was
lost in the collective. This is
counter-productive to the concept of community.
A healthy community (and Hoover would likely agree) is one where
identity is properly established at all levels, from the individual to the
community and ultimately the larger society.
The very nature of healthy identity formation will produce its own
diversity.
As
Hoover mentions, this is not something that can be mandated by the state. Proper identity formation involves relations
between individuals and the world around them, and decisions resulting from
those relations. This is an
interpretation of a context where Hoover's concept of "mutuality" can occur. Mutuality is dependent on individual
relationships grounded upon healthy "interiors" or identities, and
cannot be state prescribed. Cults of
personality and the resulting identifications as tied to those personalities in
authoritarian regimes are external not
internal forms of identity. The same
can be said for blanket acceptance without question of any ideology, including
religion. Accepting any identity without
the proper internal work goes back to Hoover's description of identity
foreclosure.
Concluding Statement
It
is the interpretation of this review that Hoover's book is yet another example
of the attempt to balance the conflict of opposites inherent to the human
condition; in this case "opposites" as referring to the opposing tensions
in identity development and the necessity to balance those opposites for proper
development. Hoover's illustrations in
the structures of politics and the dynamics of power that coincide with them
rest on a solid foundation of properly developed identity with the ability of
the human consciousness (at any level, micro or macro) to rise above this foundation and immerse itself in diverse ideas,
cultures, opinions, peoples, etc. It is
through this paradigm of identity that we as a species can work towards the
reduction of fear and the acceptance of "the other" as an integral,
yet uniquely diverse expression of our common humanity.
1 comment:
Excellent post. I was looking for information on this work and Google trusted you with the top results. Well deserved!
Post a Comment