Social identities are simultaneously self-presentations, the bases for group formation, and socially imposed. In the first instance, we are able to present ourselves in ways that we feel are most authentic to our culture and sense of self. Additionally, based on our social circumstances and commonalities of experience, we can also identify with other people with which we are socially grouped and the ties forged on this basis can amplify our sense of who we are. At the same time, the rules and routines that structure power relations across social differences impose social identities in a way that mirrors the asymmetric flow of resources, rights, opportunities, and justice within a society.
Dichotomized social identities are especially powerful and perilous. They are powerful in the sense of how virulently they are felt at the individual level, and perilous with respect to how much damage they can cause to families, organizations, public squares, and civil society. Dichotomized social identities are borne from the construction, maintenance, and inheritance of hardened boundaries that distinguish an in-group from an excluded out-group. These group formations simultaneously lump social agents deemed similar together, exclude agents considered dissimilar, and define the rules structuring the relationship between dichotomized groups.
Within the context of power relations, dominant groups on one side of the dichotomy are defined as ‘normals’ and subordinate groups on the other side are considered ‘deviants.’ The normal/deviant demarcation not only provides a foundation for discrimination and exclusion, it also fuels a sense of identity in the form of “I am, who they are not.” Zero-sum beliefs propagate when white maleness, for example, consists of not only existing as a White male, but also in being the categorical opposite of Black males across the racial dichotomy, White women across the gender dichotomy, and Black women across both. When your sense of identity is forged by who are not as much, if not more, as who you are, it is not much of a leap to see the progress of marginalized groups as a personal attack.
When every human being exists in the image and likeness of God, but you feel personally diminished by the success of someone on the other side of an artificial divide, there is great danger there. Black success and autonomy should not diminish anyone, it should be greeted as a human triumph. The success, freedom, and bodily autonomy of women—after thousands of years of systemic oppression—should be viewed as crossing a remarkable threshold in the long journey of human progress. These dangerous dichotomies set the stage for other forms of inequality. They are powerful templates for marginalization that cannot and should not be minimized in the interest of making room for other forms of social division. If anything, we should enlarge the room to properly map the interconnectedness between these dichotomous social divisions, other dichotomous social divisions, and those that are not dichotomous.
The deconstruction of dichotomized social identities will mean losing out on the lunacy of people being defined so simply. It will require a historically accurate portrait of how we got here in the first place and a greater curiosity for how our common humanity has been expressed across artificial divisions. Surely, we have the capacity to evolve from social simpletons and realize the promise of us.