At its core, identity is a concept founded on an ethical definition of what it means to be an individual. In a free society, what constitutes identity can neither be reduced to purely individual choice nor to decisions by the collective or a higher authority. The individual and society collaborate and compromise to give identity meaning and content - identity is thus a reciprocal artifact, something we create together.
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 be drawn from this in the field of digital identity? One is that the idea of a radical decentralization of identity (hyperindividualism) where only the individual itself decides who it is will have little practical application. In most instances, and nearly all important ones, the identity of the individual in relation to the assertion of an authority is necessary in order to claim rights and sovereignty.
Another is that any identity system that strives for self-sovereignty and the possibility of exercising individual human rights must allow individuals to control and give consent to how their digital identities are used. If control of one’s recognized identity is taken away, it is not possible to secure one’s freedom and dignity.
Digital identity must thus balance the rights of the individual with the responsibility and authority of the collective, and the technology underpinning it must manage both sides to work.