ABSTRACT
Identity as a notion therefore needs some more theorizing and problematizing so that it does not easily become neutralized and universalized as just another chic term (which carries academic capital) in contemporary academic literature. For diff erent subjects (or social actors) located in differential socioeconomic and sociopolitical positions, the notion of identity is double-edged and is a weapon with risks and dangers (and oft en with far greater risks and dangers for subordinated groups). It can be used by both sides to reify diff erent positions for diff erent interests, and very oft en it is the powerful groups who have more resources and capital to construct powerful identities for themselves and dictate the rules of the identity game to subordinated groups. As such, the subordinated groups’ engagement in identity politics seems to be a reaction to or a result of the colonial encounter, and is not necessarily a native form of life or way of being for these groups (i.e., prior to the colonial encounter). It is in this sense that identity is forced upon these groups from the Western tradition of possessive individualism (see Beverley Skeggs’ argument in chapter 2, this volume). Subordinated peoples oft en fi nd that they have to collude in order to resist-they have to learn to play along in this game of identity politics in order to resist and strive to gain recognition, which however might not in the long run work to their benefi t. It is in this sense that “identity” is not innocent and is problematic-it presupposes certain cultural forms of knowing, acting, and orientations towards social relations (e.g., Anglo-European possessive individualism, as argued by Beverley Skeggs in this volume). It is, in short, not necessarily a universal form of life prior to the colonial or oppressive encounter.
