Most people have a list of what they’d like in a relationship. That is the first mistake. If you have a list of twenty different rules you’d like your partner to follow, the relationship becomes a negotiation where you discuss and debate each separate item on your list. Plus, your partner has to remember and keep track of all of them. That is a lot for most people.

A book on BDSM and kink that I read suggested that instead of approaching your relationships with a list of requirements, you should create an identity. Give a name for that role you’d like your partner to play and then begin imbuing that name with qualities and meaning. For example, say you are looking for a “pet.” (This was a book on kink relationships, remember.) Tell your potential partner that you are looking for a pet and then begin describing the role. “Pets are loyal.” “Pets are playful.” “Pets always obey their masters, and masters take care of their pets.” Once they’ve agreed to the role, no rules and requirements will be needed. The identity you’ve created answers all those questions. If your pet asks “master, can I eat dinner with you tonight?” you can answer, “I don’t know. Do pets eat at the table?”

Talking your partner into eating out of a bowl on the floor might be challenging as a negotiation, but presented as a role, it is assumed. The role you chose answers all questions in the relationship. If you were to pick a different role - say, for example, “goddess” - it would answer all those questions very differently. “Do I have to do that?” “I don’t know. Is it ever okay to disobey the goddess?” “Are you sure?” “Is the goddess ever wrong?”

This book was specifically looking at kink relationships, but the principle applies to all relationships and forms of identity. Once you see identity in the extreme form it takes in lifestyle kink relationships, you’ll notice that even most non-sexual forms of identity follow this pattern. “That’s not the American way.” “You’re a student, act like one.” “You will listen to your father.” All of these identities contain meaning that defines behavior better than a list of rules. If the United States passed a law saying we had to obey all of the social constructions contained in the identity “American,” Americans would revolt - because that’s not the American way.

Even mundane descriptions can become defining. For example, “man” or “woman” could simply be a description of someone’s gender, but a “real man” is a defining identity. Entire books have been written on what constitutes a “real man.” A “real man” is much more than merely a biological or social description. Likewise, think about what usually follows the statement “as a woman.” When someone says, “as a woman, I believe” they are claiming an epistemic authority based on their identity and lived experience.

Critical race theory uses this technique in its definitions of race. Instead of prescribing behavior, critical race theory defines identities, like “whiteness” or “blackness,” and then begins filling those identities with meaning. One’s relationship to time,

The reason people rebel against the definitions of critical race theory is that theory enacts these kinks on them without their consent. In a BDSM relationship, people might participate in extreme forms of identity, but all parties have agreed to it. Critical race theory does not ask for consent and instead suggests that you participate in social constructs whether or not you are aware of it. In other words, if you are white, Critical race theory suggests that you participate in “whiteness” by default and that the only escape from this identity is to participate in a new identity they’ve created called “antiracist,” which it itself also imbued with meaning and requires a “lifelong commitment.”

Identity is the most powerful form of persuasion. If you know that you are “Hotep,” and that you descend from Kings, Queens, and the founders of civilization, how would you act? If you are told that you are oppressed and that your ancestors were slaves, how would you act? There is historical truth to support both identities, yet they prescribe very different forms of behavior.

When I interviewed Soraya Mire, who was subjected to the worst form of female genital mutilation as a girl, she told me that she always uses the term “survivor” to describe herself, never “victim.” Although her experience would justify using the word “victim,” the identity of “survivor” is more empowering. Shifting from the identity of “victim” to “survivor” was a part of her healing process and allowed her to reclaim her power. Her testimony is the reason I use the term “survivor” rather than “victim” in all of my own writing about the survivors of genital cutting.

The current culture wars are about identity. They are even described as “identity” politics. If I say that you are a “woman” that is a different identity than “cisgender.” While they both describe the same biology, one contains different cultural meanings and implied rules than the other. When trans activists say that “trans women are women,” they are fighting for inclusion in the social construction of the word “woman,” not debating biology or dictionary definitions. “Woman” here functions for trans women the way “real man” does for some men. If a man were to say he is a “real man,” you would understand he wasn’t just claiming that he had certain genitals or chromosomes, but that he was claiming a certain social identity. That identity might imply that you have to react to him and treat him a certain way. “Real men” deserve our respect. Women do too. How we define those identities will determine who gets that respect, and who doesn’t.

Critical theorists are correct that identity does not exist in isolation. If I define myself as “king,” the identity means nothing unless others recognize my throne. Likewise, if I define myself as a “real man,” that identity will only carry respect if others recognize it. Identities are like currency, they only carry value if others accept them. The current culture wars are over the currency of identity and the implied social status, power, and rules each identity carries.

Currency is devalued when inflated. For those who’ve carved out power through an identity, there is often a fear that sharing power will lessen or change their own. For TERFs, the identity of “woman” carries power and meaning. If “some women have penises,” that changes their own identity, and by extension, their social power. For “patriots,” the identity of “American” carries power. Not everyone is a “real American.” If anyone can move to America and “become an American,” the identity changes. Even identities like what constitutes a “real” artist, author, or academic can be gatekept to ensure a small elite maintains power. If only ideas published in certain academic journals are valid, those journals have greater power than if publishing was democratized. Many academics who would have no problem with the statements “anyone can identify as a woman” or “anyone can become an American” would be incensed if I said, “Hegemon Media is an academic journal.”

The most exclusive identity is marriage. In most Western countries, you can only marry one person. If your partner came home and said “I love my friends so much that we’re all getting married,” and you became one of twenty other spouses, most people would feel that power in the relationship had shifted dramatically. While polyamory, polygamy, and monogamy are all styles of relationship, they are also forms of identity. Even people who want multiple partners will demand an exclusive definition of the word polyamory, by suggesting that certain styles of multiple-partner relationships aren’t “real” polyamory.

Fandoms become toxic when enjoying certain media becomes a defining identity. Creators want as many people as possible to enjoy their art. That is how they make their money. Those who define their identity by enjoying that media have an interest in limiting the identity of fan. If someone who obsesses over a show and someone who watched it once is both “fans,” obsession carries no added social status. By defining what a “real” fan is or suggesting that there is only one “right” way to enjoy certain media, fans can gatekeep the identity of fan and preserve social status. Since creators also profit from obsession, most lasting fandoms will find a way to reward obsession while allowing newcomers to adopt the identity of “fan.”

The innovation of critical race theory is the ability to define other people’s identities. Previous social justice movements - civil rights, feminism, gay rights, etc. - were about a group defining their own identity. Modern social justice movements, like racial justice or gender theory, define the other. You see this shift in the language, from “gay pride” to “cisgender” or “civil rights” to “white privilege.” The first defines their identity. The latter defines others.

Identity is powerful. If you can define someone’s identity, you have power over them. The discourse of critical race kink allows for greater power. In order to make sure all identities are defined correctly, critical movements must seize power over all meaning-making institutions. Power over culture is known as cultural hegemony. Critical theory is designed to seize hegemony. There is a reason this publication is called Hegemon Media. (By the way, how would the identity of this publication be different if I called it The Underground or The Outsider? What identity does Hegemon create?)

Kink is all about consensual power exchange. There is a word for non-consensual sexual power exchange: rape. Most power exchange in society is not sexual. However, it is also not consensual. While we can visibly see when someone seizes physical power over another person, seizing epistemic power over another or over their identity is often less visible. When someone begins applying names and identities to another that they never consented to, most people become uncomfortable, but few can articulate the shift in power taking place. Whereas a physical rape can be resisted through violence, epistemic self-defense requires cultural power created through language rather than force.

Barring a world of total equity, there will always be power imbalances. Power is all around us. We just call it by other names: culture, identity, language, etc. When someone begins to take ownership of their own identity, we call them empowered. When someone loses control of their own voice, identity, or ability to create meaning for themselves, they are disempowered. While this language reveals the state of the individual, less explored is who holds that power when an individual does not hold it over themselves.

There are many meaning-making institutions that would love to define your identity for you. Some people willingly enter consensual power exchange with such institutions. For example, conversion to religion allows the institution of that religion to redefine a person’s identity. This gives religion power over the individual, but if the person chooses conversion, that power is consensually exchanged in return for the role that religion provides. However, many ideologies do not believe in consent and are more than willing to convert at the point of a blade.

When someone is raped, they often have to go through a process to reclaim their power. That process usually involves re-establishing domain over what was taken from them. In a physical rape, this might include domain over the body. Yet rape always includes a psychological element. Survivors must also reclaim their sense of safety, their ability to say no, and other psychological elements that were taken from them. In the wake of the epistemic violence of culture war, the survivor might need to reclaim the identity which was taken from them without their consent.

The healing process can be messy. Survivors usually go through stages of grief, ranging from denial to rage. They might overreact and hate everyone in the same class as their abuser. They might become meek and fearful around situations that remind them of their abuse. They might never fully recover. If they do, it will be because their feelings were seen, heard, and understood, even if only by themselves.

We are all culture war survivors. In my own life, I’ve endured a lot of identity violence. The nature of my body, background, and work means that there are a lot of forces trying to define my identity in intentionally negative ways that I don’t consent to. Some attacks are more successful than others. After years of experience, I have come to accept epistemic conflict as a regular part of life.

There is a trope where rape survivors train in martial arts to reclaim their power. Survivors want to know that they could defend themselves if they find themselves in the same situation they were disempowered in the past. As a survivor of epistemic violence, I’ve trained in the art of epistemic conflict. I want to ensure that I define the cultural meaning of who I am, rather than others.

To a certain degree, our social identities are not our own. They are co-created through social constructions. Reclaiming epistemic power over oneself must include seizing or deconstructing the systems and institutions that would define your identity for you. If we claim ourselves, but not the hegemony, our identities have no value. We cannot enforce the boundaries of our identity if there is a greater power pushing past those boundaries. In order to claim our power, we must seize the hegemony. Can you claim your own identity? I don’t know. Do pets eat at the table?