Do you like being put into a box? Is the complexity of your character clearly classified? Are the intricacies of your integrity irreversibly ingrained?
Or should not, rather, the mettle of your manner be made malleable?
I think so. I have always tried to think so, at least. Some would stand by their “fixed” identity. “I am the American Republican party supporter,” they might say. “Christian, conservative, patriotic, pro-life and pro death penalty. Any questions?”
It’s not for me. Size me up at your peril. I am a young South African. In a different age and under another, completely arbitrary, classification scheme I would have been deemed a “coloured”. Derisively, a “hotnot”. Today, 80% of former illiberal bigots can’t tell the difference. I’d show up for my pencil test, pass it, the “baas” would look at my light complexion, hear my anglicised accent, give me a familiar smile and leave me be. No dompas for me. “Thank you, my comrade,” I might jovially say.
The truth is, nothing is more abstract than identity; whether you define it by religion, race or culture. How many real traditionalists are there today? I have a colleague who defines herself as a Xhosa woman but also accepts Jesus Christ as her lord and saviour. She endorses lobola but not ancestral worship. There are those who pray to both Jesus and their ancestors. There is a group known as Jews for Jesus. Wonder what that’s about? I’m told, by the evangelist who thrust the pamphlet into my hand, that it’s for practising Jews who believe Jesus is the son of God: “We keep both kosher and communion.” How’s that for a catchy tag line?
So what happens should the Jews for Jesus accept Muhammad and Bahá’u'lláh as prophets as God as well? Well, they would naturally create the new mix box and find others with the same views. They then all get to share the box. The dynamic nature of identity is one of the beautiful things about being human. Of course, being human means wanting to be part of something and wanting to make meaningful connections with others. So we assign ourselves silos in which we can identify with one another. There’s nothing wrong with this. I’ve just never believed it was for me.
And why am I telling you all this? Because I was recently cast into a box. A complete stranger, who’d read something I’d written here on Thought Leader, asked me for a sketch of my person, my beliefs, my manifesto, if you will. And I gave them the “box” speech I just gave you. “No problem, just tell me what you think about things,” came the response.
Writers know that this is too good an opportunity to miss. We all write to our egos on some level and here I was given licence to shoot my load. This was my response; kindly excuse the more colloquial language:
Ever heard of the social contract? We did it in first-year political science. It’s pretty much the inspiration behind democracy. It advocates rule by the people. You’ve already read my piece for Thought Leader on why I advocate rule by all, so I won’t go into that again now. But what lies behind the social contract is something far simpler and far more universal. Hobbes believed that the natural state for mankind was chaos; a constant war of all against all — until we banded together. I’m not sure why we did. Perhaps we learnt that through cooperation we could all achieve more (as Rousseau demonstrates through his stag hunt); perhaps centralised agriculture brought us together; maybe it was a more base desire to interact.
But in order to work together, certain freedoms had to be sacrificed — simple things we don’t think twice about today. Neanderthal A had to agree not to kill Neanderthal B and vice versa, for example. The same would go for stealing.
One simple, universal principle: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
If you’re a Christian, you know this one well. From Buddhism it reads: “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” From Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Jewish sage Hillel said: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
So whatever you believe, and even if you’re an atheist of agnostic, you abide by this one principle. And it’s enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution, a document that strives for that balance of everyone’s individual rights: dignity, privacy, information, free speech. The right to have for yourself what others want for themselves. No one person’s gain should come at the expense of another. You may do as you will so long as it does not infringe on others’ chance to enjoy their freedoms.
Ever heard of cultural relativism? It’s the view that all cultures and beliefs are equal. That there is nothing to say that Christianity, for example, is superior to Islam. I am a cultural relativist but not to the point where everyone finds fault with it. The rule that guides law should be the Constitution. If it is OK, in my belief system, to go around shooting people, I can’t cite cultural relativism as a defence to that. The law is secular for this exact reason; it has to go by the other principle — the one that states “do unto others”. Without it, you have chaos.
Have I driven the point home yet?
And it’s strange that I’m so strongly anti-capitalist — given I’m such a liberal. It’s a contradiction that I battled with until I actually sat down to write this. I said earlier that no one person’s gain should come at the expense of another — it doesn’t fit in with the golden rule. And that’s how the current system works. Without regulation, the capitalist machine works to grow the divide between rich and poor. I recently started Raj Patel’s Stuffed and Starved, in which the first observation he makes is the “big fat contradiction” that there is more food in the world today than ever before, and more starving people in the world today than ever before. And it’s because of this system that dictates that only those who have are offered anything. And it’s because corporations are allowed to exploit the misfortunes of others to push their own profits. It’s not right.
I guess that’s what I think … about things.
My apologies. That was rather verbose and quite self-evident. So to cut to the chase, my “friend” (it’s a loose term on Facebook) simply replied: “Oi! You’re a social democrat: liberal, you lean left of the centre.”
And I felt a strange sort of remorse because, it seemed, I’d been writing in vain …
Again, I ask, do you like being put into a box?
I hate being put into a box so I could identify with your post. Living in SA means being put into a box is a daily occurence. I’m an unmarried Catholic coloured woman in my 30s who looks indian and has a muslim surname. As such I am arbitrarily assigned to many boxes. Over the years I’ve given up trying to persuade people to see me as me. I just live my life and they can choose to see what they want to see.
Hey Warren, enjoyed your post immensely.
Let me just say that I can relate. I’ve never never liked boxes and/or being boxed and/or categorised. We do, however, have to understand that some of today’s ‘Neanderthals’ will not ‘relate’ or connect to another unless and until there is a box to slot you in. Its an established, tried and tested way of making sense of new data/phenomena. Often the failure to categorise or box you tends to create an insurmountable obstacle that is so big that you cannot relate/connect to each other with some civility. At some level, I cannot trust you if you cannot fit into any of my boxes. Respect and trust to some are borne out of being able to box you first (pun unintended). And then I can have the peace of knowing where ‘you belong’. If you are a whitey, a darkie, a coloured, or Indian, then I have the ‘comfort and peace’of knowing who I believe you are, because I know ‘your types’ and have some well-rehearsed form of relating to you…
Brilliant writing again Warren, refreshing.
Thank you
Dumisani, you put it so eloquently. Might I add that the “box mentality” also means people don’t have to think too much. There is a certain laziness of thought that prevails and quickly categorising someone on the basis of their skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. means you don’t have to think very hard about anything. A readymade recipe pops up and you can just refer to that without breaking a mental sweat.
Identity is always a constructed fiction. Whatever notions we draw upon to construct it are, at best, contingent truths and by no means absolute ones. Even the statement “I am white” is a relative statement, only understandably true in relation to a context and a set of conventions (which are themselves relative, even arbitrary). Moreover, implicit in the grammar of that statement are some stirring questions (what do we mean by I? does “I” refer to something real or is it imaginary? is being something we can call “it”? if so then we can ask, what is it to be? and then, what is it to be white?)
If someone creates a conceptual box to contain you, that’s just the way they see you and not the way you need to see yourself. It limits their perceptions and in that way is convenient, but limiting; it doesn’t need to limit yours. Use it, don’t use it. The truth of your identity is vast and empty-luminous. You are free.
Hi Warren
Which box would have ticked twenty years ago? Open a world of opportunity for yourself by ticking white or limiting your chances by ticking colored?
Excellent post Warren! Boxes are convenient but hardly ever accurate these days… I guess we hang on to these anachronistic methods of weighing up individuals because more honest alternatives require too much work.
Oh and by the way, this line:
“I’d show up for my pencil test, pass it, the “baas” would look at my light complexion, hear my anglicised accent, give me a familiar smile and leave me be.”
Is brilliant… I had a flash back to our fourth year writing class, with Sim discovering for the first time you were ‘coloured’…
am a little dumb, when you say rule that guides law should be constitution what of the concept of an unjust constitution? a small but common eg: many african americans are hauled to prison for having sex with what is constitutionally a minor in US (18) whereas in SA, minor is defined as being 16 – the constitution is nonsensical when it comes to sex especially in worlds of immense poverty where the government – by deliberately maintaining regions of unskilled, casual labor, ensure that such activity is a reality – actually encouraging subcultures such as gangs to rise to prominent position – so whose constitution are we talking about if the constitution (official) was not created for and does nothing to aid the bulk of people born outside the illusion of ‘civilisation’? or a case such as Britney Spears sister impregnated at 16 (minor) without bf being sent to prison – has the constitution, realised through its judiciary process been non-prejudicial? doesn’t the constitution, even secular, depend on for eg: the religious and cultural canvas of those who create it?
constitution is enacted in culturally bias way as well as being biased at the root, constructed by an elite who design such laws to protect their wealth eg: corporate law, myriad bills that are passed to make corporate corruption smoother when being swallowed etc but better eg would be the constitution re: environmental issues such as GM food, which the public has no right to know, cloning of animals, patenting, dumping of sludge, nuclear energy – all constitutionally acceptable but wrong!!!!!
constitution seems shit to me at this stage, a facade to appease people and confuse them, drag them by nostrils through system – cultural relativism seems to be another form of tolerance bordering on disingenuous thought forms and as per Hobbes, he owned multiple sections of enclosed land and feared civil war because it would level society.
OK, that was long – nice post.
Excellent article. Nice to see an informed opinion online.
Also, really dig the citation of Baha’u'llah. Of course, if Jews for Jesus DID accept Baha’u'llah, they’d also be accepting His principle of Unity that didn’t go along with being under a label like “Jews for Jesus”.
Cheers!
Djeef
I think Khadija asks a very pertinent and challenging question.. which box would Warren have picked twenty years ago? White, a convenient lie for privilege and opportunity, or Coloured, a limiting and damning truth?
(I, of course, feel that both categories are as good as lies. But I wonder what Warren thinks.)
Obviously I can’t say for sure what I would have done in the situation. I’d like to believe I’m made of the same stuff my father and his father are made of. That I would have done what most of my family did and refused to be classified at all. After all, I share the view that all these categories are imagined.