Contemporary debates on identity

Identity emerges through collaboration and compromise between individual choice and collective recognition, making it a reciprocal artifact. Contemporary debates challenge traditional notions of identity, balancing individual fluidity with group-defined characteristics. In a free society, identity is both a right and a recognition bestowed by the collective, essential for exercising rights and freedoms.

TL;DR

• Ethical Foundations of Identity: Identity is not solely determined by individual choice or collective authority but emerges through collaboration and compromise, making it a reciprocal artifact.

• Contemporary Identity Debates: Current debates often juxtapose individual fluidity with group-defined characteristics like gender and ethnicity, challenging traditional notions of identity as sameness across time and space.

• Balancing Individuality and Collective Recognition: In a free society, identity is both a right and a recognition bestowed by the collective or authority, essential for individuals to exercise rights and freedoms without oppression.

• Implications for Digital Identity: Digital identity systems must balance radical decentralization with necessary recognition by authorities for individuals to assert their rights effectively. Control and consent over digital identities are crucial to safeguard freedom and dignity.

‍Navigating contemporary debates on identity

The debate about identity, what it is and how it should be defined rages on in the contemporary political discourse. In many ways we’re seeing a quite paradoxical development, especially in the progressive movement, as identity on the one hand is seen exclusively as an individual choice, fluid and unique, while on the other hand factors of group identity (gender, complexion, ethnicity, sexual orientation) are seen as defining the individual irrevocably in relation to others.

The uniting theme behind these contradicting statements is a will to question and deconstruct the concept of identity itself. So what is identity?‍

From an etymological perspective, identity stems from a concept of “sameness”, meaning something that is the same across time and space. On a superficial level, this seems logical enough, but what does it mean to be “the same”, in relation to what are we the same, and according to whom? 

When talking about individual identity, we can make an ethical decision to award the individual the right to define spatiotemporal sameness (being the same across time and space), which is intrinsically tied to a notion of individuality and unicity.

This is the foundation for individualism, individual human rights and self-sovereignty. However, the concept of sameness and unicity becomes empty if not compared to others - after all, we are hardly the same everywhere and all the time. And the right to claim individual sameness is by necessity awarded by others, by the collective or by a recognized authority (typically both).

If we are to exercise our rights as individuals, we do this in the context of the collective and in relation to the collective. This is not only true on a conceptual level, but in a very practical sense: We are given the features that comprise our identity from our parents, both in the concrete and the abstract, and we must have a polity within which our identity is recognized in order to have a context where we can exercise our rights. 

‍Balancing individuality and collective recognition

In an oppressive or totalitarian state, to strip an individual of identity and the right to claim individuality is the first step towards dehumanization, whereas in a free society, to award a person a recognized identity is to give the individual freedom to exercise rights. But in neither of these situations is it possible for the individual to claim an identity without the acceptance of the collective and the higher authority.

At the same time, if the collective and the authority wants to recognize any identity at all, it follows that this identity, to be unique and thus to allow for sameness, must correspond to the individual in a fundamental sense.

Identity is thus reciprocal, neither the exclusive province of the individual nor the independent decision of an outside authority/the collective, but a combination of both. It is also an artifact, i.e. it is created in collaboration and compromise between the individual and the collective/authority. 

‍Implications for digital identity in the real world

What practical conclusions can we draw from this regarding digital identity? One is that the concept of radical decentralization (hyperindividualism) where the individual solely defines their identity has limited practical application. In most cases, especially those concerning important rights, an individual's identity needs to be recognized by an authority to claim self-sovereignty and exercise their human rights.

Another key takeaway is that any identity system aiming for self-sovereignty and enabling individuals to exercise their human rights must allow for control and consent over how their digital identities are used. If individuals lose control over their recognized identity, securing their freedom and dignity becomes impossible.

‍