Yesterday I was invited to an exciting group discussion about the topic of identity. The topic was raised initially because Sherif Yonis – a scholar and friend – has published a book on identity 10 years ago, and the discussion was about whether the concepts presented are valid.

 

Sherif’s point of view could be stated as follows – he can correct me if I’m wrong as this is a super-brief summary: the concept of Identity is really a false cover of the ruling system to control its subjects, claiming that it’s more aware of their “identity” and better representative of their collective good than anybody else, including their free will. The concept in itself is really a false image of a certain group of people about what’s common among them, yet in fact it drives only few commonalities and therefore should not be used to define them to this extent.

 

According to Sherif, the real risk arises in Egypt when the concept of Natinalism is used in the face of the concepts of Islamism or Arabism. For, he argues, the best method to defeat the arising Islamic nationalism movement is to evade altogether the concept of Identity and enable the people to rise above it in order to be able to fight a fair battle that promises rights for all.

 

The discussion of course didn’t end there, for points of view varied around the idea that in the heart of the concept of Identity there is a flexible part yet also a solid essence that would not fail to represent itself, and is what differentiates identities from one another. While the Islamic identity promises Heavens for example behind a certain religion, the Egyptian identity would then promise safety to all its followers – yet maybe not! For while the earlier is a solid concept the latter is a fluid one and therefore defines itself differently across the eras; which is by definition a healthy situation.

 

Another point of view was that identity essence goes beyond the thinking into the world of feelings, emotions, symbols and common culture, and within that, so much is developed such that to deny it would be to deny many their right to belonging, which is essential for any human being.

 

The discussion went past midnight, but in the end I found myself also remembering the dangers of the concept of identity when it becomes a small window through which one sees the world, and therefore in fact STOPS to see the world as it is. As much as being Egyptian is in fact a wonderful ground to battle for human rights of everyone subject to this identity, as much as its abuse can be as dangerous and delusional as any other false concept. The danger starts when one no longer recalls WHAT the identity is made of - essentially humans - and remembers only what it is is symbol of - for example religion.

 

I will end here with an exciting story told by Anthony de Mello in his collection book “Awareness”. The story here is as I recall it and not copied by word from the book:

 

“A Pakistani prisoner in the Indian lands begged to see his homeland one last time before he is executed. He is taken by the “kind” guards to the river which defines the border and they told him that right there across the river is Pakistan. The man kneeled to the ground and started sobbing while looking at the trees of his homeland, the sky of his homeland and the birds of his homeland. Before he’s done, the guards come and tell him apologetically that they were mistaken in the site and that the Pakistani border is across a different river around 500 meters away and they take him there where he starts again sobbing for the sky of his homeland and the trees of his homeland.”

 

The story is an extreme symbolic example of the point at which one fails to see any “Trees” or “Birds” or “Humans” unless they shared the identity together. And to that extent the concept becomes its own prison! To that extent the concept fails to benefit the real people and stops at the symbol. To that extent the concept will rage war against “Arabs because they’re terrorists” or “Copts because they’re disbelievers” or “Americans because they’re void of ethics.” To this extent the symbol becomes empty of content.

 

And to this extent, Sherif, I agree with you J

 

Yet again, I fight for THIS land and for THESE people because it’s HERE that I can do that and nowhere else, and under the conditions of THIS land I am allowed to do it and hardly anywhere else.

 

To be continued …. Sometime in the future J

In: Uncategorized | | #