Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:51:59 -0800
From: soumitra-AT-ix.netcom.com (Soumitra Bose )
Subject: Is "identity"exclusively obtained with birth?
To: seminar-13-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


Pretty recently I am amazed to find that the notion of "identity" 
politics is creating more academic confusion than it shold and more 
than it did when the "class" politics came into fray.
I am kind of intrigued to find people take so "technical" and 
theoritical views (mostly academecians)about identity in Post-modern 
era for(mostly) a Post Colonial subject.
All along before listening to these great academecians I knew that the 
concept of "subject" and "identity" has been defined quite clearly in 
the previous ("modern") era.Choice do definitely come into picture in 
"choosing" identity .It came very clearly for class 150 years earlier.
One can be born in a class but one can very well choose to either 
represent or follow another class or class-views ,I am sure I need not 
to elucidate on this anymore.Then why does not one think can "identity"
could also be chosen.There are millions back home like me born in 
upper-caste,middle-class,western-educated,developed-ethnic,urban and in 
the invader community ,but they have been espousing ideas and working 
for just the opposite categories.If there is a distinction called 
"class-base" and "Class-character" why cannnot there be a similar 
distinction in the identity politics.The whole of Jharkhand movement 
and Chattisgarh movement is led by people born in the Diku communities 
and in the enemy ranks and camps.The stalwarts of 
Post-colonial,Post-modern movements are born all in the 
Colonially-speaking comprador and the non-producing parasite 
communities .So where is the confusion .Why should the notion of 
"Identity" be not transferable or transgressable across birth-marks?