But I am assured that I’m on track with my views. I think any society which has internalized as normal a rather extreme condition of mind-body dualism will demand that somebody name their identity before they speak. Thus their speech can then be interpreted retroactively into the identity that is already at least to some degree “known” or much more often presumed, merely, to be known. (The mirror stage of Lacan’s psychoanalysis gives us the capacity to make such presumptions. Yet mirror stage presumptions are qualitatively different from the long and hard process of actually ‘getting to know you’. The latter is empirical rather than ideological — hence my reference to the value of studying history, earlier.)
Perhaps the animism of more primitive societies has more psychological acuity to it than identity politics (engendered by late Modernism). In my view, identity politics puts the cart before the horse and demands that someone prove the merit of their worth as a human being by engaging in dialectical politics. By contrast, animistic thinking and empirical thinking take Being for granted and analyse what is presented by someone’s actions, in a way that can bypass the demand to make artificial or formal claims about identity.