Does anger have the strongest pull in determining identity ? or at least the one that drives us the best ? The one which unifies the best. Why does polarisation work better than purpose? The centuries long debate of us vs them seems to have collectively made more progress than 'I or we' as a concept. The delta or edge that extremists and politicians force you to think you have over others without fail seems to have more intrinsic gravity than self-awareness and self-purpose.
Us vs Them Hindus vs Muslins Upper vs Lower Caste Rich vs Poor East vs West Right vs Left
More often than not, people identifying at either end of the spectrum don't even know what that point in space means but they have just been taught to think about identity in terms of how near or distant they are to various others that fall somewhere on the line. Physics taught this to us as frame of reference. Relative velocity. Only been able to compare two points in spacetime. They do not have a thorough and deep understanding of their own identity and principles yet have been taught to be angry at whatever is 'not them'
Funny. Makes me think how did we come to associate something as internal as identity to something as external as the 'other party' or that which is outside you. That which you are not.
One thing I am very drawn to often in the spiritual way of life is identifying what you truly are. Those who are able to sit with identity crisis for long enough can only reach to a state where they can get the answer. Or at least know the right question to ask. Being emotionally driven or angry at that which you are not aka 'them' and using that as fuel to deepen your sense of identity or purpose is lazy type 1 thinking at best. Kahneman taught us to know better.
True effort entails looking inward first and being yourself as a service to your own being. Rather than worrying too much about whoever doesn't follow through. It is the discomfort of peeling layers till you discover your true identity yourself and discard all that you feel you are not. But how most people seem to 'identify' with themselves is often through a very superficial approach. Engaging in excessive anger and mindshare with what they do not resonate with. Using anger as a self-signalling mechanism to understand themselves better. For eg -This thing makes me angry hence I must not identify with it. Hence I must not be it. And thus I must be better than it. Without any understanding of the much coveted 'Who am I beyond these meta tags'
A rational way to approach the next steps must be to move on from such an altercation. But anger is such an alluring emotion we often tie ourselves with what enrages us even when it solves no purpose. We then tend to start spending more and more time with what we don't resonate with instead of turning towards your true north. Instead of deepening the search for yourself.
Which is why I think anger is such a great unifier - it seems to have so much power as it provides an identity. But it is a mistaken identity. A lot less effort than sitting through the discomfort of seeking, finding and defining yourself. Doing a geospatial assessment of this entire world and figuring out what do you occupy and where does your boundary lie. That's a trickier question to answer.
Monks, spirituals, esoterics and sadhus etc - who seem to be more enlightened and hence must be closer to an absolute understanding of truth do not associate themselves strongly with the world outside. If anything, they must have more conviction in their beliefs and must be a lot more pushy with their ideals but they are not. Cause they are seeking the ultimate truth.
Tat tvam asi
They are finding what it means. Often by stepping away from whatever they are not.