Identity: Who Are We?
The Article Complexity of Human Identity: “Who Am I?” by Beverly Daniel Tatum, tries to help bring the issues of identity to light. Tatum mentions that “there is a group considered dominant (systematically advantaged by the society because of group membership) and a group considered subordinate or targeted (systematically disadvantaged)” (Tatum Page 2). The dominant identity is the one which the majority accepts and sees you but, it can also be taken for granted by the dominant culture. The subordinate identity on the other hand, is looked down upon as being incapable of performing their preferred roles. Tatum describes the power relationship between the two identities as, “Dominant groups, by definition, set the parameters within which the subordinates operate. The dominant group holds the power and authority in society relative to the subordinates and determines how that power and authority may be acceptably used” (Tatum page 3). The dominant identity seems to set the rules and standards for the subordinate to follow. Subordinates are looked down upon as being “defective” or “substandard” in the eyes of the dominant group who is more accepted by society. People may not understand exactly what dominant identities they may have but being white, male, and heterosexual are all dominant identities in societies eyes. Being born another race/color, woman, and homosexual can be labeled as subordinate identities because they are not as widely accepted as their counterparts.
The implications of the power relationship between the dominant and subordinate groups are astonishing. Not only do the dominant groups set the parameters for the subordinate groups but, they basically control the power and authority in society and filter what is acceptable and what is not. “ When a subordinate demonstrates positive qualities believed to be more characteristic of dominants, the individual is defined by dominants as an anomaly” (Tatum page 3). I find this a bit hard to sit with because there is not just black and white, but gray areas. If a subordinate demonstrates some dominant characteristics, who are we to define them as an “anomaly”? If anything this “anomaly” can teach us to coexist with our dominant and subordinate groups so we can all work towards equality. Another quote that struck me was, “ In a situation of unequal power, a subordinate group has to focus on survival. It becomes very important for subordinates to become highly attuned to the dominants as a way of protecting themselves.” (Tatum page 4). I found this quote to be rather perplexing. Before reading this article, I did not know a lot about our subordinate or dominant identities. I did not know there was such a power struggle between identities or the concept of survival was relevant. I thought that our identities were able to coexist and make us who we are, regardless of if we define more with one identity over the other.
In the article “Close Encounter by the Human Kind” by author and physician Abraham Verghese, he paints a picture of how hard it was for the victims of Katrina. He says, “ Driving home, I remembered my own metaphor of strapping on armor for the night shift. The years have shown that there is no armor. There never was. The willingness to be wounded may be all we have to offer.” (Verghese). I believe that he is trying to say that after what he experienced and saw that night, through all the people he helped, there is not way to prepare or protect yourself. All we can do is be willing and open to take it all in. We can make a change for the better between the dominant and subordinate groups by learning to accept one another, be open minded, and willing to realize that there is a problem right in front of our eyes. If we do not realize there is a problem we can never take the steps to move forward and address the issue.
