I’ve heard it argued that what one DOES is more important as an outward identity than what one IS. For example, if someone is naturally an introvert but they push outside their comfort zone to spend time with those in need, what they DO is more a sign of their character than their natural introvertedness. Another argument in favor of this is that you can tell more about the qualities of a person by what they do than by knowing what they are. An example here might be that if you know someone plays rec soccer on the weekends and is a dad, you could reasonably assume this guy is athletic and is a people-person, or at least has some good friends he still wants to play soccer with in his free time. Being a dad comes with its own load of stereotypes but doesn’t automatically tell you about this guy’s personality or what he’d be like to talk to.

There are a lot of people who rely on what they are rather than what they do, meaning they identify with groups and let that define them. This seems to be the heart of the disagreement as to whether identity is a good thing or not. Those who think of identity as something bad or constricting are referring to it in regards to group associations. For example, if one chooses a political affiliation and lets that define them without other qualifying factors, one could argue that their view of themselves was limited. I happen to have some liberal beliefs, but I wouldn’t want to be labeled “liberal” and have that be my whole identity. This 2009 article by Paul Graham talks about keeping one’s identity small, rather than choosing big themes like political or religious affiliations as sole sources of identity.

So is one’s identity only important in relation to other people, or is it important for a person to understand one’s own identity? Really, it’s both, but let’s start with how one is viewed by others. This might be an initial or surface-level definition of identity. I think a lot of outward identity is so people can be categorized. That’s why some people push back on having to have a defined identity because they don’t want to be put in a box or be made into a stereotype. The problem is that we can’t control what others think of us at a certain distance. I’m writing this and putting it out on the internet. I’m pretty confident that most of the people reading this know me personally, but who knows. Maybe someone is reading this and gleaning all they know of me from this blog. I can only control their understanding of me so much. I’m essentially using lots and lots (like probably too many) of words to tell that person that I’m a mom and former athlete trying to still be an athlete. Maybe this person has a specific impression of what rowers are like, so that preconceived notion has been attached to me as well. I want to yell “I DO OTHER STUFF TOO” to those people. Because identities are complicated.

As for how one sees oneself, knowing who you are – understanding your own identity – can give a certain level of confidence, presence and power. There is power in self-assuredness and weakness in uncertainty, especially in taking on new challenges and life stages. I see a strong correlation between knowing oneself and knowing what one wants. Knowing yourself well allows you to know what your next steps should be because you know your strengths and weaknesses. When you don’t know yourself, don’t have a good sense of your identity, you might be more likely to focus only on one or the other. Focus only on weaknesses, and you might not even go for the next challenge. Focus only on strengths, and you won’t know where you need to grow or improve.

It takes a lot of confidence to be undefined. To not need to be labeled is to be in your own category and to not care that others can’t categorize you. It’s probably also a thing of privilege, to occupy one’s own category. It would be a difficult thing for a working class mom to pull off, for example, since I just defined the identity of this unnamed person in 3 words. It’s also human nature to try to understand people by putting them in clean, distinct boxes.

So why am I writing about this? I started this blog because I resented the associations with the “mom” label. I also resented and continue to resent the judgment of moms that seems to be rampant on the internet. I’ve always been a person with many interests and didn’t want to fit easily into any box. I was in marching band and on the soccer team in the same season in high school, band nerd and athlete at the same time. I’m not trying to say I’m special. Other kids straddled lines and occupied multiple sub-worlds too. I’m trying to illustrate that no one fits neatly into any box unless they choose to do so. To be non-judgmental is to be empathetic, and using broad, sweeping terms for identity is essentially judging someone without empathy. It’s easy to judge, since we’re separated from most people these days by screens and wires. The question really is, can we stop forcing people into boxes? Can we just let people be who they choose to be?