Why do humans like to have identity?

Gender, race, religion, country, region, political party, sports team...
Female, black, Christian, USA, Atlanta, Georgia, Republican, Hawks... I probably just described a few thousand people.

I've gone back and forth with my friend on this: I don't identify as Jewish anymore because I don't believe in the philosophy/theology. He also is not a believer, but still identifies as Jewish because he likes to be part of the community.

I think part of it is that we like to feel that we belong. We like to feel that we fit in. We like to be part of a group because it means that there are others like us, and we aren't alone.

In my eyes, these groups both unite us and separate us. And surely, something that is both uniting and separating is imperfect, and should be looked at for a better solution.

Why do we feel the need to be a part of some exclusive group? To me, it perpetuates elitism, because these groups naturally (almost always) compete amongst one another.

If you think about it, there are many people that hold each of those identities that I listed that think they are better than anyone with a different identity. (To be honest, probably everyone on this forum thinks we're better than a fan of any other NBA team).

And I'm not saying that we should all be grey blobs running around the exact same... But is it possible to have identities that does not also translate into elitism?

 

A neuropsychological perspective, gathered from several sources, by Dr. Bruce Perry:

In other words; humans have evolved to need human-connected relationships. If novelty is perceived as unsafe or a potential threat by default by the nervous system, and the familiar as safe and welcomed, it makes perfect sense why we are predisposed to seek out relationships that display familiarity in physical appearance, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc.

 

@Punk-101 that all makes sense. what about elitist relationships?

 

what do you mean? Are you referring to why people who view themselves as better than others congregate with others like that? I guess they're just a group of people who have something to prove to themselves by having a certain status and material gain. that comes from a lack of self worth bestowed upon one in childhood. Meaning the parents only valued the child for what he DID, not for WHO he was. In others words, their sense of self worth can only come from proving to others their status, talents, achievements, or material gain.

 

A better question is why do groups of people want to dominate and control other groups of people? The elitist groups do this almost be definition. To me it's almost a sickness by association.

 

some anthropologists and sociologists feel human nature is to dominate and overpower. the more I study the neuroscience of attachment, the more it points to the default of human neurobiology to seek cooperation and altruism. Cooperative groups can be very successful, but I think they eventually get infiltrated by sub-groups of individuals who are as I described above; needing to prove themselves by external showings. That behavior is a product of an insecure attachment in childhood. Another product of poor attachment is the need for power and control. Anxious and hurt children bully their siblings and other children... and this dynamic usually continues into adulthood. So I guess my thesis is that groups that bully and overpower other groups are just a bunch of insecurely attached adults, drawn together. Idk, just off the cuff.

 

This is in line with some of my reading on the subject as well. It's describes political ideologies to a tee. If history can be overlaid on this theory then it shows that societal models separate into disparate groups and typically fail. Some in spectacular fashion. I'd love to quantify this in math if I had the time.

 

To buy beer.