: “Hold your beliefs less tightly” ≠ “Forget who who you are”
I resonate the idea that we should not hold our beliefs too closely. Better to keep them at arm’s length, separated from ourselves, so we can turn them over and feel their weight, or see them in a wider frame, understand how the beliefs in the collection work together or fail to.
I know that many take offense at the idea that beliefs are abstractions. “To you,” this group argues, “my beliefs might seem like a matter of debate, but to me they are an extension of myself. When you challenge my beliefs you are challenging my right to exist.”
IMO, this version of “the personal is political” is a bit overcooked. It’s true that our identities influence our beliefs, but they are not one and the same. My identity is the collection of traits that I cannot separate from myself. My beliefs are a reaction to my identity—a specific plan for keeping my identity safe.
You can hold your identity close while keeping your beliefs at a critical distance. In fact, you should do so, or else you risk growing more attached to the belief than the identity it was supposed to protect, and lose a part of yourself in the process. Don’t do that!
As a thought exercise, you might wish to consider some of your strongest beliefs and figure out which parts of them are actually just statements of identity (non-negotiable) and which parts might have some room for negotiation.
I hate it when people write posts like this in abstract language, so here is an example:
- Identity: Christian
- Reasonable belief to protect the identity: We should have religious freedom as a human right
- Overcooked belief that conflates the identity with a specific set of protections: Starbucks removing Christmas symbols from their coffee cups is an act of war waged by secular society on Christians
If you want an example from the political left, just ask Grok or something lol.