On Identification as an Act

In this post, I’m contrasting a more conventional outlook on identity (identity as trait) against another way of thinking about it (identification as an act). The first one is mostly fine to fall back on as a useful simplification, but there are also times when it can lend itself to problems, which is why I think it’s sometimes worthwhile to shift into another mindset. Note this post was written with orientation/sexuality/gender identity in mind, and whether it’s more broadly applicable is a question I leave to your judgement.

[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image by Reinhard Link.]

Identity as Trait

I’m using “identity as trait” to describe a particular way of understanding what “identity” even is in the first place: under this view, it’s an inherent personal characteristic. This would be the perspective which says everyone “has” a sexuality, and so picking a sexual orientation label is merely a matter of discerning what that sexuality is. Identity labels are understood as names assigned to each type of identity essence, and that essence needs to be assessed for the right properties in order to be correctly matched up to the right label.

This is a really, really common way of thinking about identity, and challenging it is difficult because one of its most common opponents is far worse. So for people who find this to be a comfortable viewpoint, any alternative may look like a threat: an attempt to tell them that their identity isn’t “real,” isn’t important, or doesn’t deserve to be respected.

Unfortunately, at its extremes, identity-as-thing can lead to its own problems.

Identity essentialism is one I’ve spoken about a lot, although not always under that name. I’m using “essentialism” to refer to ideas about supposed essential, immutable characteristics of an identity, which all people in that demographic supposedly share. Essentialism can be considered the ideological backing behind practices of identity policing or prescriptivism.

Definition wars are sometimes just identity policing en masse, although it’s not always that simple. In the ace community, as with many communities, there’s been quite the legacy of bickering with each other over how best to describe what asexuality “is,” what any of the identities related to it actually “are,” and how to define them “correctly.” Part of all this emerges from intracommunity concerns about getting crunched out of the definition themselves, so I don’t blame people for being invested. Where these conversations go wrong, I figure, is when they try to resolve these issues while also trying to keep definitions narrow, definite, and singular — angling to isolate that one essential characteristic instead of making room for multiple, varied paths to identity.

In addition to the above, identity-as-trait can also lend itself to identity stress. By “identity stress,” I mean the product of internal, psychological pressure to get one’s own identity “right,” elevating any doubt or ambivalence into stress about about the risk of getting it wrong. Identity stress can be found among many communities, but it’s especially fostered by emphasis on the absolute technical “accuracy” of labeling.

Identification as Act

In order to get around problems like these, I figure sometimes it can be useful to step back and re-figure identity not as a trait, but the outcome of an act. If identification is understood as an act — specifically, a communication act — then that has the potential to open more space without necessarily undermining meaning. Allow me to explain.

If identification is understood as an act, then identity words are tools, and identification means the use of those tools. What do you need your tools accomplish for you? What do you want to do, and which are the tools that best enable you to do that? Not every tool will be useful to your own personal projects, even if it looks like it should. I can’t tell you how many different times times I’ve encountered some identity label that’s meant to describe some part of my experience, figured, “yeah, I guess narrative matches a part of mine,” but still decided it didn’t have any use to me. Sometimes there’s just not anything it could accomplish for me that I’m actually interested in doing. In this light, identification is not a question of “true” or “false”; it’s a question of use and purpose.

If identification follows from a subjective assessment rather than a set of external criteria, then it necessarily calls for autonomy. Other people can’t necessarily know what would be useful for others. Other people can’t see directly inside their soul and take a direct measure of what lies there. Rigid rule-based criteria for these things becomes nonsensical.

If identification is an act of communication, then using identity words and symbols represents a contextual choice. In some contexts, we may be talking to someone who’s not already be familiar with our preferred vocabulary, and so we fall back on other words. In some contexts, we may be talking to someone who cannot be trusted with a fuller picture, and so we fall back on a safer way of presenting ourselves. In some contexts, introducing certain words might only provoke confusion or unwelcome questions, and so we weigh the risks. In this light, “inconsistency” (or variation) in acts of identification can be accepted as a natural aspect of communication, and so identity-as-act has the potential to resolve discomfort with describing ourselves differently moment to moment.

If identification is a choice and that choice can vary, then long-term identification can be thought of in terms of repeated re-use. Think of this like blazing a trail: if you walk the same path often enough, then over time, that path forms a trail — a “story” in its repetition. Yet a trail is not a railroad. You are not bound to it. Each re-use is voluntary. If you find another route that works better for you, you can choose to walk that one instead. And if your choice of route depends on the weather that day or whether you feel like taking the scenic route or any other factor, you can alternate among several different paths, too.

If identification is a choice, not a rule set by an inherent essence, then sharing identities with multiple people means we need to affirm multiple narratives of identity. There can be no one specific trait-based definition to rule them all. Identity labels can be used to communicate feelings, priorities, boundaries, desires, relationships to individuals or to community, identifications or disidentifications with a particular narrative, and more. We don’t need to try to pin down only a single master narrative and then regard every deviation from it as an aberration. It is unrealistic and short-sighted to hope for some kind of precise distillation of clones — because sharing an identity does, in fact, mean sharing.

And so:

What that an act of identification is — what that really is — is a choice to connect ourselves, as if by a string, to a much larger web of instances wherever those same words have been said, a choice to position oneself relative to others who do the same, an invocation of every other invocation of the word. Our personal reasons for that choice will vary, our relationships to these words will vary, our personal narratives will vary, and those little ripples and variations in the pattern, in speaking style, in specifics, in stories, are how we know we’re talking to another person and not just speaking to a mirror.

And so:

Leave behind the mentality that says you can be “technically” XYZ without your say so. There is no “technically.” No technicality can bind you. There is only your autonomy, your judgement call about whether something is worthwhile to communicate about yourself in that particular way.

And so:

When that person comes to you, hands cupped, beseeching, asking for your word of authority on what they themselves “are” or what to call themselves, I hope you will close their hands and tell them that you will not take what is rightfully theirs. That the decision must be their own, and that they have your welcome, not your dictum.

18 responses to “On Identification as an Act

  • raavenb2619

    Very nicely phrased. That last paragraph especially is something I try to emulate as more and more of my tumblr asks are from people questioning their identity

    • Coyote

      Thank you. It’s not a novel perspective, and around a lot of the folks I talk to, it usually just kind of goes without saying, but… sometimes it does actually need saying.

      • raavenb2619

        I will say, I do think there’s a place for the first perspective, where identity is more of a “definitions and checkboxes” sort of deal; I think the former can be easier to approach, especially when someone’s questioning, because the sort-of loss of agency can be a positive thing, in some circumstances. Someone who’s questioning might not be comfortable with fully embracing a term or identity, but using the “well I fit the definition so I guess this is me” excuse can provide an on-ramp to using a term without the full responsibility of identity as an act or political statement. (Certainly for my own journey, the feeling of “identity as an act” took quite a while even after I was fairly confident I had found my terms.)

        But the former is definitely disproportionately emphasized.

        • Coyote

          I don’t think it’s necessarily easier on questioning people across the board, no. Who it seems to sit best with overall is people who identify with a conventional or established label very strongly or for whom identification feels very simple and straightforward. I’m glad it worked out alright in your case, but I’m really antsy about generalizing outward from that experience because questioning folks are one of the exact groups I’m trying to look out for by challenging it like this, so to downplay that in their name would go against the goal here.

          If what you meant is that there’s a place for if (identity-as-trait) in general, then sure. As I said, it can be a useful simplification.

        • raavenb2619

          That’s fair. I guess the next question is, how to present both identity-as-trait and identity-as-act as being viable and approachable to questioning folks.

        • Coyote

          Hm. Well, as always, it depends. But for modeling some specifics, I recommend Sennkestra’s post here (scroll down to the last addition).

  • Linkspam: January 22nd, 2021 | The Asexual Agenda

    […] Coyote wrote about identification as an act. […]

  • Vacant Rooms & Stagnation in the Process of Assembly | The Ace Theist

    […] kept in the dark about these things is disappointing because considering what identification means, if I identify with any given word, how am I supposed to know what exactly I’m invoking […]

  • Plato(nic) is A Problem | The Ace Theist

    […] words, all those times I’ve argued for a more social constructionist view of things, like identification as an act over identity as a trait, I’m taking a stance in opposition to the Platonic view. Platonic […]

  • Anonymous

    Ever since AVEN’s proposed change to the definition of asexuality on its homepage and the controversy following it, there’s been talks of essentialism and the place for the utility approach to identity. These made me think about my fraught relationship to the word “asexual” and whether I should use it now, if ever (for now, I’ve concluded that I shouldn’t, and I’ve been rather fine with that, relieved even). And since essentialism was brought up, I naturally came back to your writings, and stumbled upon a comment of yours I still didn’t quite grasp, but felt personally relevant more than ever.


    « I don’t like the very concept of “definitionally bisexual” or “technically bisexual,” because it takes the emphasis off identity and autonomy and the inherently self-reported nature of the “data.” I have the same response to people who talk about being “technically ace” or how they “could identify as ace.” I’m like, okay, but you don’t. You (explicitly and decidedly) do not identify as ace, so you’re not ace, so you don’t get to position yourself as an ace in the conversation.

    Note I’m not talking about people who’re questioning or ambivalent or have a troubled relationship to their identity… I’m talking about people who claim moral impunity because of a potential, hypothetical label rather than any of the ones they’re actually willing to use.

    Down that path lies bad things. »

    What did you mean by that last sentence? I’m not exactly sure of what this is referring to since I haven’t met any example of this happening so far… with perhaps one exception: some people who were against the inclusion of some aces in the LGBT community used to ID as ace, and stopped doing so not because their patterns of attraction changed, but the usefulness of the identity did (the whole “ace is TMI” sort of thing). Have any of these people “claim[ed] moral impunity” because of that, or am I missing the mark and you’re referring to entirely different kind of people?

    People claiming to be essentialists have somewhat made me feel “guilty” for “betraying” the community by not recognizing myself as one of their own, and so I’m interested in how the opposite situation looks like, since it’s not one I’ve seen happening.

    • Coyote

      Those thoughts were just sort of off the cuff, so I don’t have particular links or examples lined up to demonstrate. What you described is close. Except instead of “I used to identify as ace and no longer do” (that’s fine, no problem), I mean this have-it-both-ways approach to saying “I technically could identify as ace, but I don’t” as a defensive maneuver in an argument. It’s sort of like what rubyfruitjumble did here in saying they “could” identify as demisexual… More specifically, though, I’m thinking of times when anti-ace bloggers would bring that up for no apparent reason but as a rhetorical shield, basically to act as if aces shouldn’t treat them as an outgroup/should accord them the rhetorical position of fellow aces, even when those people were actively saying that ace identities are bad and ace communities shouldn’t exist. If you haven’t run into anything like that, well. I hope you never do.

      If you’ve considered whether to identify as asexual and have chosen not to, you’re not “betraying” anyone with that. You don’t owe your identity to anyone. I think it’s best to focus on whichever tools are useful to you.

      • Anonymous

        Seems like I didn’t miss the mark, then.

        « If you’ve considered whether to identify as asexual and have chosen not to, you’re not “betraying” anyone with that. You don’t owe your identity to anyone. I think it’s best to focus on whichever tools are useful to you. »

        Thanks for the reassurance. It seems like even though I know that I wasn’t “betraying” anyone, those feelings managed to still come back. Like I had a duty to recognize that part of myself because otherwise I’m shying away from the fight for ace acceptance, I’m admitting defeat, I’m giving in to the lies of the opponents (about young aces being late bloomers, etc.), I’m only avoiding the stereotypes or the “heat” that aces get by selfishly distancing myself from it. I suppose that when a tool starts to hurt, or may potentially get in the way, it’s best to give it up.

        « I’m thinking of times when anti-ace bloggers would bring that up for no apparent reason but as a rhetorical shield, basically to act as if aces shouldn’t treat them as an outgroup/should accord them the rhetorical position of fellow aces, even when those people were actively saying that ace identities are bad and ace communities shouldn’t exist. »

        So the issue was that they were trying to paint their complaints as an intra-community issue, even if said issue was about ace identities/communities themselves? As a way to say that “since I’m ace and can do [X], then so should you”? I haven’t always understood the idea of someone speaking for their community, since no one can do that? You can only speak for yourself, not for everyone who has something in common with you. I know that claiming to have “ace experiences” yet not IDing as ace, as well as this “having-it-every-way” approach rubs me the wrong way, but I can’t exactly put my finger on why.

        « If you haven’t run into anything like that, well. I hope you never do. »

        Unfortunately, I have. But it’s been… alright, I guess. I don’t know if it hurts less because it doesn’t come straight from the ace community itself, or because it has somehow given me permission to not ID as ace, especially since my introduction to the ace community was the rather essentialist AVEN where I just felt like my disidentification with asexuality could be seen as either a lie or a denial of the “truth”. Knowing that I could ID as ace despite not “fitting” the common definition, and knowing that I could disidentify with it despite “fitting” it, were both ideas that helped me get out of my essentialist paradigm where I kept going in circles without any answer, and that allowed me to focus on what I felt was more useful for me. And it was all thanks to you!

        Also, I’ve got a completely unrelated question to ask, but that I feel is of utmost importance: how do you pronounce “coyote”?

        • Coyote

          Coyote is a North American animal whose name in English is pronounced “kai-yo-tee” (where kai rhymes with eye). I named myself after coyotes, so I pronounce my alias here the same as “coyote.”

          It looks like you’ve spotted a relevant Pillowfort post about these sorts of things — like you said, it seems like people have brought up “I could identify as ace” as a way to claim a kind of authority status or peer status with aces. I guess it’s meant as a “don’t assume I’m all that different you kind of thing”…? …Which, alright. But there have also been cases where it’s used more like “I don’t identify as ace so you shouldn’t either,” which… doesn’t compute.

          Thanks for commenting again, and I’m glad my blog could be helpful to you. :)

  • Attraction-Based Essentialism | The Ace Theist

    […] A more social-constructionist approach to identity recognizes identity words as communication tools. Individual people make a subjective judgement about which tools feel personally useful to them, and no one else can say for sure what orientation or gender label is right for anyone else. As I wrote in my post On Identification as an Act: […]

  • 14 Signs of Anti-Grayness in Your Communities | The Ace Theist

    […] Identities like these are subjective, and which labels feel useful (and where and when) is a personal judgement call. Trying to police people into gray-asexuality is still an anti-gray problem because it treats […]

  • Ace Family Resemblances: Absences & Alienation Beyond Attraction | The Ace Theist

    […] As most of y’all know, I advocate viewing labels as as tools, as a matter of family resemblance, and as strings in a web: […]

  • Under the (Micro)scope | The Ace Theist

    […] over cultivating them. An over-saturation of identity labels can contribute to what I have called identity stress, or the product of internalized psychological pressure over getting your identity […]

This comment section does not require an account.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: