No individual or living being exists in isolation. Entities are products of preceding influences. Individual persons emerge as products of various interconnected aspects of existence, including the mental, physical, spiritual, genetic, and more. These factors interact with core properties that are relatively unchangeable, such as genetic material, natural proclivities, and inherited trauma—collectively termed “Natural Identity.” On the other hand, properties subject to change, like weight, contentment, attitudes, beliefs, skills, and group affiliations, constitute what we can call “Nurtured Identity.” The former involves physical and mental traits experienced as inherent, while the latter involves those traits that individuals actively shape and adopt.

To evolve into something, you begin as one entity and undergo a transformation into another. When someone declares, “I am now a doctor,” they transition from a non-doctor to a doctor. This transformation involves progressing through various stages, such as high school, undergrad, medical school, residency, and beyond, excelling at each stage until reaching the point of becoming what is considered a doctor.

The same principle applies to other forms of identity, but with a distinction: identity, as a sense of belonging that imparts a purposeful meaning to one’s life, is often a subject, journey, or destination guided by one’s parents, immediate surroundings and/or community. In contrast to this, being a doctor is an occupation that influences both Natural and Nurtured identity. Individuals progress from participating in specific events during childhood to gradually taking on more responsibilities and engaging with customs. This evolution continues until adulthood (puberty), where the responsibilities and challenges of the world become a force that individuals must contend with independently. While they have their family and community members as guides and helpers, these individuals play a crucial role in assisting with the ongoing battle between Natural and Nurtured identities.

The challenge with identity arises when individuals choose to represent themselves as a complete entity in aspects that exclusively pertain to either Natural Identity or Nurtured Identity. This involves the way people identify, connecting with concepts or expressions within familiar categories such as race, gender, illness, occupations and more.

WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?

Throughout history, the way people identified themselves differed from the nuanced manner we do today. Individuals are dynamic, and identification is a contemporary expression of connecting intellectually or emotionally to something. It encompasses self-concept, perceiving oneself in relation to an idea, and possibly feeling represented by specific markers. The key concern lies not in feeling connected to a group similar to oneself, but in assigning undue weight or status to that group affiliation in how one conducts their life and strives for self-improvement.

We all share a physiological need for belonging and a psychological desire to be part of a group. Our chemical makeup rewards connections with those who are similar or familiar to us. In the modern world, we articulate similarities and communicate the downsides, neutralities, and upsides of belonging to specific groups in new ways. We express different aspects of ourselves through various intersections of self-categorization, seen in various lights influenced by biases, stereotypes, and historical contexts related to different groups. However, within the complex landscape of identity, there’s an objective truth that has been obscured— not all ways of identifying are equal, and some can be detrimental to individuals, groups, and communities that strongly identify based on distinguishing factors that create the named groups.

For example, when individuals prioritize their race as the highest form of identity they connect with, it inherently implies one of two perspectives: (1) considering their race as superior, or (2) regarding their race as inferior. Otherwise, the identification with a particular group wouldn’t hold any significant benefit. Things that are entirely equal don’t warrant distinctions. Therefore, as individuals, it is natural to perceive one’s own ethnic or racial group as superior, unless one is in a state of depression influenced by feelings of inadequacy.

What I want to clarify is that perceiving oneself as superior doesn’t necessarily involve harming other groups to advance, at least not if one genuinely holds that belief. Consider basketball; if someone is the best 3-point shooter on the team, it doesn’t imply they look down on teammates with lesser shooting skills. More likely, their teammates excel in other areas on the court, like rebounds, assisting, defense, or alternative scoring methods. The underlying principle here is teamwork, as without it, the dynamic could devolve into a divisive “us versus them” mentality.

This is why the concept of SELF-IDENTIFYING and holding one’s race in the highest regard is ridiculous and only serves to further divide society if it does not address the elephant in the room. IF IT IS OKAY TO BE PROUD OF YOUR RACE, ANY RACE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO AND IF IT IS BAD FOR ONE RACE THE WHITE RACE (which is categorically undefined and constantly expanding) THEN IT IS BAD FOR ANY RACE TO BE SOLELY PROUD OF THEIR RACE.

The PYRAMID of IDENTITY not a flat plain

Similar to many aspects of life, there exists a natural hierarchy regarding which form of identity is more constructive for individuals and the communities contributing to the broader locality, ultimately shaping society. This hierarchy can be visualized as a pyramid, recognizing that nothing in this world is inherently equal. Falling for the noble lie that everyone is equal often stems from the noble notion that “the government should treat everyone with the same level of respect, rights, and dignity.”

However, even if it is true—and society as a whole should indeed strive for this—it doesn’t mean that everyone is exactly the same or equally useful in various situations. This is not intended to diminish individuals. Every human being possesses innate value and a unique soul, with a distinct set of capabilities, tasks, and trials that only they can overcome. Each person contributes skills or abilities that make them invaluable to their community. Yet, the notion that everyone’s value is equal, while well-intentioned, is taking the idea to an impractical extreme. It only serves to create an illusion, allowing incompetent individuals to act as if they are on par with someone else, merely based on the chance that they belong to a different demographic. This leap in logic leads to the erroneous conclusion that every demographic is equal across the board.

The idea of universal equality leads to a belief system that is developmentally challenged. This system necessitates ignoring inherent differences in favor of forced equity. Equity, in this context, is a belief system that is willing to disregard facts to make outcomes appear more similar than they are. Additionally, it inherently assumes that any disparities in outcomes between distinct identity groups (easily distinguishable on the surface) are solely due to oppression. This is why the current landscape of identity politics is so absurd—it compels people to act as if every form of identity inherently deserves the same outcome without considering the nuances involved. It has people acting as if every form of identity deserves the same outcome a priori.

If you become a parent outside of marriage, the likelihood increases that both you and your children will experience poverty. Similarly, if you lack the skills for career advancement, your income is likely to plateau rather quickly. Identifying solely as a single mother may not work to your advantage. Even if you’re a skilled union worker—say, a TIG welder—once you’ve perfected your technique, your income potential might not increase significantly unless you venture into entrepreneurship. I’ve chosen welding as an example due to its demanding nature, the need for hands-on experience and education, and its relatively high pay. However, like many occupations, it also faces an income ceiling due to the limitations inherent in being a component within an organization.

THE TOP IDENTITY DAWG

If identity serves as a multi-faceted instrument guiding how one interacts with the world through Natural and Nurtured identity components, what is the most beneficial identity? A religious identity.

The Nurtured Identity with the most profound capacity to navigate, support, and assist an individual through life’s myriad challenges is belief. What one believes holds the power to shape one’s entire perception. The very same words can evoke anger or laughter, contingent on the individual’s beliefs about themselves, their relationship to the spoken words, and the beliefs they hold about the role the speaker plays.

There is no shortage of “isms” that can be employed as theories or themes to interpret one’s perceptions of events. However, most of these “isms” shape beliefs about the physical world and how it should be according to an ideal advocated by the respective “ism.” Beliefs based on such doctrines do not offer a framework for viewing the world in the form of normative; instead, they serve as descriptors into which one fits their experiences. Furthermore, these beliefs lack canonical traditions or cultures passed down from generation to generation. They function more as philosophies with which individuals can interact, or they aspire for the state or government to use them as a societal model. These “isms” and philosophies rise, fall, gain popularity, and then fall out of style over the centuries since their conception. Each iteration believes that if the philosophy is taught correctly or adhered to appropriately this time, the world will witness its superior perspective.

“But what sets religious identity apart from the ‘isms’ and philosophies?”

Religious identity demands something distinct from all other forms of belief. It necessitates belief in an entity, being, collective consciousness, or aura that transcends one’s individual existence. In contrast, other ‘isms’ merely require individuals to adopt the perspectives they provide regarding the material world unfolding before them. These often lack elements of practice, and when present, they are usually limited in scope. For instance, as someone who appreciates Stoicism, I’ve found it helpful in emotional regulation, but it doesn’t offer guidance on what is inherently good or bad. It emphasizes that such evaluations depend on how one perceives harm, asserting that only through perception can something be deemed hurtful.

In contrast, religious identities demand that individuals first scrutinize their own behavior and adhere to the moral codes governing normative conduct in their personal lives. Moreover, every religious text provides insights into emotions—what they signify, their causes, how to manage them, and the reasons behind the world’s workings. Embracing a religious identity involves a profound struggle, requiring individuals to contend with their natural inclinations and subdue the instinctive pursuit of pleasure devoid of higher purpose. It also entails a heightened awareness of the lower-level nurtured identities one may embody or associate with, whether correctly or incorrectly. A Religious Identity imparts purpose and meaning to one’s life in the face of existential uncertainties. Anyone identifying as religious or belonging to a religion understands the ongoing internal conflict between desires and the morally correct course of action.

This concept seems challenging for many with liberal inclinations. It appears that they naturally possess a lower level of negative predispositions towards what modern society generally deems as bad or evil. As a result, the internal struggle that often propels individuals toward a religious identity is mitigated by the contemporary legal landscape. Moreover, liberalism tends to amplify emotions, transforming them into a currency that can be exchanged for any other grievances, provided they align with the prevailing dogma.

BUT WHY SHOULD YOU CARE.

It matters because all other forms of identity not only tend to become tribal but are inherently tribal, particularly natural identities. They function as clubs one is either born into or must undertake specific acts to be considered a member. However, these identities fail to provide meaning regarding why each individual is important in the world, why personal struggles are surmountable, or an overarching purpose. While many borrow theistic principles, they often lack the codification of those principles within the identity itself. In essence, these identities are constructed and activated solely for political purposes to address the current societal “dilemma.”

This is why identity politics is perilous. The aim of these loosely defined forms of identity is often to gather as many members and allies as possible for a cause, whatever that cause may be. Unlike traditional identities that foster communities, uphold traditions, maintain culture, and strive for a better future for the next generation, modern political identities tend to select one of these objectives and utilize emotional narratives to enlist people as proxies for the agenda of the purported leaders of the identity group. They assert that you are fighting for the just cause and, if not you, then it will all be over, as if the entire world rests solely within your control, burdening you with the overwhelming weight of the world on your shoulders.

This is not to dismiss the noble pursuit of positive change. However, many of these identities lack an a priori perspective on what is truly noble. They often stem from reactions or power grabs founded on abstract notions of equity, which may seem superficially plausible when one unquestioningly accepts the noble lie of everyone being exactly equal. In contrast, religious identity mandates that individuals align their own values before attempting to influence the broader context.

Moreover, religious identities necessitate genuine community. Definitions of community rooted in secular (non-religious) principles or identities serve practical purposes by delineating socially recognizable groups of individuals. However, they often lack the concrete and unchanging moral guidance required to steer society towards a virtuous course. In contrast, religious communities stand out by providing enduring, timeless principles that have withstood the test of time and continue to be steadfastly embraced by their adherents (community members). This holds significance because communities shape children into adults, instilling them with moral convictions and an identity that the rest of the world must contend with.

The concept of secular identities are be deceptive, as it is inherent in human nature to engage in acts of reverence or worship, whether directed at tangible objects, individuals, or abstract concepts. Consequently, modern individuals often exhibit a secular orientation that frequently lacks a well-defined, enduring framework for the transmission of their beliefs across generations. As a result, these beliefs serve not only as tools to shape all of one’s experiences but also as mechanisms for shaping the future. While we all hold beliefs about various things, it is the beliefs we identify with that propel us to action or inaction, and the identity that has endured longer than any other form of association is that of religious belief.

Hence, if you choose to retain your lower form of identity, be prepared for the likelihood that what you presently perceive as just will probably be deemed as evil and archaic in the next two generations. However, if you believe yourself to be more morally upright than your predecessors solely due to being born in a more modern era, there may be little I can do to convince you otherwise.

On a final note, the criticism of wars, killings, and oppression under religious kingdoms and doctrines can be disingenuous. Hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of communism, secularism, and the right to be a sovereign nation, just in the 20th century alone. Conflating the idea that nations use ideologies to conquer, kill, and manifest their destiny seems more like an inevitability not solely tied to a specific identity. War will persist as long as misunderstandings exist between people with different identities, particularly when the conception of identity is misaligned with secular identifiers. Moreover, even more conflict and loss of life may ensue if the highest form of identity is not recognized and reintegrated into the psyche of individuals through religious communities.