Role of Identity in Cultural/Spiritual Evolution

The times are fraught with difficulties for the human race and for all the creatures of this planet. We must be asking ourselves: who are we that we have come to this place? We have built cities of cement and tarmac that contain masses of people running about like ants. We cut down our forests, where most of our oxygen originates. We pollute our planet's air and waters. We are killing ourselves and our planet. Who are we? And will we find a way to move reverse the damage we have done and grow back into environmentally sustainable lives? Is "civilization" really a manifestation of "advancement"? Are we really more advanced than those who built Stonehenge -- or those who left no footprint behind? Or do we really have to move backwards to evolve into something better?

These questions go to the core of who and what we are, because we can only act consistent with our identity. If we see ourselves as a good people, but the results of our goodness is harm to the environment or harm to other peoples, we are unlikely to be able to change ourselves or our actions.

One may hope that spiritual evolution involves the deep process in each human being toward becoming a more enlightened and better person. One may hope that spiritual evolution means we become more aware of each other, more loving, more respectful, more tolerant and accepting

Identity has different meanings to different people and different cultures. It is both personal and cultural. On a personal level, we "identify" ourselves with some internalized image or template. We see ourselves as "a good person" (or not), as moral or ambitious or kind or goal-oriented, strong or weak, vocal or reserved, blunt or diplomatic, and so on. We define ourselves to ourselves. That is who we are. That self is seen by us as relatively unchanging. "People don't change" is a common view among those who have static views of themselves.

More specifically, we often see ourselves as "like my mother" (or father, or grandmother, or uncle), or as some composite of parents or relatives. This, too, may result in an unchanging, stationary self-concept. You are there, in a sense, to fulfill your role -- however you have accepted it. If you have accepted that you are like your mother in your pragmatism and like your father in your stubbornness, you are likely to act out those roles throughout your life, never permitting yourself to grow beyond them, to evolve.

In some cultures, persons see themselves as part of their ancestral heritage. One young Kenyan man said to me with great earnestness and pride, "I know who I am. Most Americans don't know who their ancestors are. I do!" Knowing one's ancesters is equivalent to knowing one's origins which, in turn, is seen as the same as knowing oneself.  Identity in such a context -- that is, based on ancestral lineage --, while it furthers cultural coherence and identification, can also limit cultural and spiritual evolution because evolution requires change, the ability to absorb new elements or templates in order to evolve from what we were to what we can become. And if we see ourselves as the result of our ancestral lineage -- just as, if we see ourselves as being good or strong, or like or mother or father -- that is something we cannot change. It is static and, therefore, in certain respects, so are we.

So, what enables cultural or spiritual evolution? And how is cultural evolution connected, if at all, with spiritual evolution? What does spiritual evolution mean anyway?

One may hope that spiritual evolution involves the deep process in each human being toward becoming a more enlightened and better person. One may hope that spiritual evolution means we become more aware of each other, more loving, more respectful, more tolerant and accepting. We hope that it means we develop a greater understanding of both ourselves and others, as well as of all those factors and conditions that make things happen the way they do, that make people behave how they behave. We hope it also means that we become not only (and perhaps most importantly) our own spiritual guides but a guide to others who are struggling to find their own way to develop spiritually. Genuine spiritual evolution involves a deep experience of the self and of others.

Spiritual development is not equivalent to religious conviction. While religion may bring about spiritual development, the two are not synonymous.

Spiritual development also does not mean becoming a "spiritual believer" in something. It does not mean we have developed any particular set of spiritual beliefs about how the world or the universe works.

Identity has different meanings to different   people and different cultures. It is both personal and cultural. On a personal level, we "identify" ourselves with some internalized image or template. We see ourselves as "a good person" (or not), as moral or ambitious or kind or goal-oriented, strong or weak, vocal or reserved, blunt or diplomatic, and so on. We define ourselves to ourselves

Nor does being a spiritual person have any necessary connection with spiritual evolution. We can be spiritual without being evolved spiritually. A friend of mine told me some years ago that he (a former Catholic) had “become spiritual.” He read many books about the power of spiritual belief in oneself. He believed in past lives and reincarnation. But he told me that he felt he had not been around that long; he was relatively new to the process of spiritual evolution; he was not that “evolved.”

If one has a static sense of identity, either individually or culturally, how does one evolve?

The answer is that the static sense of identity must change. Paradoxically, this means that in order to evolve, our static sense of self must cease to exist.

Think about that for a moment.

Does that mean we must spiritually die and be reborn?

No. But for many people, change does feel like that. Perhaps that is why the religious rebirthing phenomena has been "reborn." What other way for people to change who have no way to change but experiencing a sense of death and rebirth?

But the truth is that it is only the static sense of self, not the self itself, that dies. This is a distinction that is impossible to make for most people -- particularly those who know nothing more than the static sense of identity they know. People with a static sense of self see themselves in only one way. If that view of themselves is taken away, they have nothing left; they have no way to find themselves but through their personal and cultural habits. They will only question their sense of who they are if that self fails in some core way. Even then, most people and most cultures will do anything to retain the illusion of the sense of identity it has held, even in the face of failure. So with the bank failures that are happening now: instead of facing the failure, we bail them out with taxpayer money.

We have some hard times ahead of us, not because of foolish policies or practices, but because of this truth that a cultural sense of self that rests on a single worldview (that is unchanging, static, in other words) cannot change or evolve without that sense of self changing, which means without massive failure and upheaval.