Me, Myself, and I: Biopolitical Structures and the Meaning of Identity

The existence of biopolitical structures both within and relying on identifiers like gender, race, and sexuality is well documented, so much so that these expanded theories on power, resistance, and change can often not resemble the earliest versions of Michel Foucault’s ideas. In continuing these discussions, I stray from the more common structures of gender, sexuality, race, etc., and suggest that identity itself exists as a biopolitical themes, isolating two different types of identity for this topic: identity (how we describe ourselves for our own benefit and the way we understand ourselves) and identity (the social construct that incorporates judgement and opinions into how we describe ourselves and how others describe us, usually for the benefit of others though there can also be reconciliation between the two). In the first definition, identity takes on a meaning that combines science (how the brain understands itself) with personal (internal) discourse and boundary drawing, while the second speaks of external validation, purposeful use, and "knowing" an individual. The second, being the social construct, includes Identity Categories, or the tools to biopolitically define identity in modern social, political, and legal structures to perpetuate power hierarchies and control in the modern world. In this way, the same perspectives about other biopolitical mechanisms – that they are socially constructed, tools of policy, structural pieces of power – can then apply to the modern vision of identity. Existing biopolitical literature has looked at themes of power, totalitarianism, the menace of biopolitical decision-making, the continued subjugation of non-normative populations, the space where life and death exist simultaneously, and the (non)place for Michel Foucault’s biopower in an ever evolving "modern world," but less time has been spent on identity itself and its role in the larger discussions. By exploring the history of identity, what it means in the modern world, and how its evolution has progressed (both as a tangible tool and a personal relationship), this paper will attempt to apply Foucault’s historical genealogy to the development of identity, making sense of these two meanings of identity and contextualizing the complexity of their intertwining placement in modern biopolitical structures.