Against small identities

Lots of people in the EA and rationalist communities are into ‘keeping your identity small’, an idea inspired by this blog. I think this idea is overrated.

In the blog, Paul Graham argues that:

‘People can never have a fruitful argument about something that’s part of their identity. By definition they’re partisan.’

I agree that when Christians clash with atheists, Democrats debate Republicans, vegans argue with meat-lovers, or feminists confront men’s rights activists, it’s difficult to have a fruitful conversation. Things can quickly turn vitriolic and abusive, ending in mutual frustration. But this isn’t because ‘Christian’, ‘Democrat’, ‘feminist’ etc. are part of people’s identities. It’s because identities naturally form around beliefs that are important. If you have strong beliefs about things that matter, it’s hard to avoid partisanship. It doesn’t matter whether you say ‘I am Christian’ or merely ‘I believe in God and the Bible’, whether you say ‘I’m a feminist’ or just ‘I believe in equal rights for all genders’. If you’re arguing with someone who believes the opposite, and you think that it matters whether there is a god, or that our beliefs about gender matter, then it’s hard to avoid getting defensive.

If someone tells me that atheism is stupid and evil, this will feel like an attack, whether or not I ‘identify’ as an atheist — I’m perfectly able to translate ‘atheism’ into ‘the belief that there is no god’. If I really wanted to avoid feeling defensive in this case, I’d have to drop my beliefs about there being no god — but I don’t want to do that! I think those beliefs are correct!

Is the idea that one shouldn’t even have strong beliefs like this? You can’t be angered by people being Wrong on the Internet if you don’t even have strong views about what’s Right on the Internet. Maybe that’s what the small-identity fans are aiming for.

But I’m not sure that this is a good idea. If things are important — and it seems like it is important to work out whether there is a god, or which political party should be in charge, or whether eating animals is morally fine or abhorrent — then of course people will form passionate, deeply-held beliefs about them.

Plato, in the Theaetetus, compares beliefs to children — we conceive them by inspiration, give birth to them by a long, painful struggle, love them, and will fight to the death on their behalf. This can be a problem — helicopter parenting is bad, and so is clinging to a belief long after you should let it go, just because it’s yours and you’re attached to it. Paul is right that identities can be too ‘sticky’, and we face temptation to mould our opinions, Procrustes-like, to the atheist or feminist or conservative or vegan consensus. But as with children, there are good reasons to have beliefs, and good reasons to fight for them. We should be open, we should be kind, we should have huges doses of moral empathy — but it’s ok to be a partisan for a view that you think is right and important.