The Spook of Identity
When you type the word "gender" into Google, what’s the first thing you see? Articles and think pieces about the politics of identity—debates raging over equality, rights, and who gets to define whom. In today’s world, identity politics doesn’t just focus on who we are; it’s about how these personal and collective identities shape our entire social and political landscape. And this sparks big questions: should equality center around universal rights, or do we need specific group rights to really level the playing field?
On one side, you’ve got the push for individuality—people saying that self-definition should be free of group labels. And then, there’s the call for collective identity, where group solidarity is key to fighting discrimination. But that’s just the beginning. Take the authenticity debate: who has the "right" to represent certain identities? This is where the arguments around cultural appropriation and the boundaries of cultural exchange come into play. Then there’s intersectionality, which shows us how identities like race, gender, and class intersect to shape our unique experiences. But some argue it can also create a hierarchy of oppression—one that might divide rather than unite.
And of course, there’s the classic clash: identity versus class. Some say that focusing too much on identity fragments the unity needed for real socioeconomic change. So, where do we even start to unravel all of this? Here’s a thought: what if identity itself is a spook—a construct imposed on us to maintain control?
In this essay, I am diving into what identity really is, why we want an identity in the first place, how that can and will try to lead us astray, and how to change our perspective on it and find a new way to look at ourselves and others.
Who Are You?
So, have you ever thought about what really makes you who you are? What defines you? When you look in the mirror, what do you see? I just want you to take a minute and really think about it. Not the obvious things like your name, your gender, or where you’re from—but deeper than that.
Imagine for a moment that you wake up one day in a world where no one knows who you are. Your past, your culture, your gender—none of it is recognized or even acknowledged by anyone. Like if you met aliens and they really had no clue what the hell a man or a woman is. Or your cultural community. They don’t know what any of it means. You could be anyone. Nothing is assumed about you, no expectations, no labels. In this world, your identity isn't something that matters to anyone but yourself. What does that mean?
Would you still cling to the things you once thought defined you? Or would you start to see them as mere spooks—illusions of who you thought you were, but not who you truly are?
Imagine that in this new alien world, the people around you don’t give themselves names, nor do have categories for understanding differences. It is all kind of seen as a continuous choice. In this world, the only thing that defines you is what you decide in each moment?
If no one else cares about your identity—if the world around you doesn't assign meaning to it—how do you choose to define yourself? Who are you then?
In this video, we’re going to look at how gender and cultural identity, those things that feel so personal and innate, are actually shaped by external forces—by social structures, power, and ideology and allowed to define you by your lack of protection of your own sovereignty! That’s the first layer. Then we will look into the second layer of this discussion of your identity which will show that because of how deep we are into identity formation the rebellion against external authority itself can then become a spook.
The First Layer: Gender and Cultural Identity as Social Constructs
Let’s start by talking about the first layer of identity formation development and untangle the lies we are taught to believe. Let’s look at the spook of identity, i.e. how these identities are constructed through power relations.
For centuries, thinkers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler have argued that gender and culture are not fixed, natural categories but rather social constructs. In their view, gender isn’t something you are but something you perform—a set of repeated behaviors, shaped by the norms and expectations society places on you.
Cultural identity works similarly. We inherit a sense of belonging to certain groups through shared language, traditions, and norms. But these identities are also constructed by larger social and historical forces. The categories of 'male,' 'female,' 'American,' 'Mexican,' 'Black,' or 'White' are all constructed by power dynamics that tell us how to behave and where we belong.
To break this down in more detail, let’s first explore how identity formation begins and the ways we are led to believe certain things about ourselves. From the moment we are born, we are placed within a system of labels and categories. These categories—such as gender and cultural identity—are presented to us as fixed, natural facts about who we are. But these identities are not inherent or essential; they are constructed through social, historical, and power relations.
How Power Constructs Our Identities
Max Stirner’s concept of the “spook” refers to ideas or constructs that control our thoughts and actions but have no real existence beyond the power they hold over us. Identity, particularly in the forms of gender and cultural identity, is a prime example of such a spook. These identities seem real and absolute because they are so deeply ingrained in society, but they are, in fact, constructed through power relations that shape and limit how we think about ourselves.
Gender
Let’s take gender as the first example. Thinkers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler have shown that gender is not a biological fact but a social construct—something we are taught to "perform" based on the norms and expectations of society. According to Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity, we are not inherently "male" or "female." Instead, we become gendered through repeated behaviors, actions, and roles that conform to the expectations society places on us.
For example, if you are assigned female at birth, you are expected to perform femininity: wear dresses, behave in ways that are nurturing or passive, and be emotional or empathetic. Over time, you internalize these behaviors as "natural," but they are not—they are part of a social script that you’ve been handed, reinforced by cultural norms, media, and institutions like family, education, and religion.
Cultural Identity
Now let’s consider cultural identity. Similar to gender, cultural identity is often thought of as something we are born into: being "American," "Mexican," "Black," or "White" is seen as an inherent part of who we are. But these categories, too, are social constructs created through historical and political power dynamics.
For instance, take the concept of national or racial identity. Being “American” or “Mexican” carries a set of expectations about how to behave, how to dress, how to speak, and even what kind of values you should hold. These identities give us a sense of belonging, but they also serve a larger purpose: they are constructed by powerful social institutions—such as governments, media, and the education system—that want to maintain certain social orders. The way you identify with a certain race or nationality isn’t just a neutral fact about who you are; it’s shaped by centuries of colonization, migration, and political policies that determine how we define and divide ourselves.
Power, in this context, doesn’t necessarily mean direct force or coercion, though that’s sometimes part of the equation. Power operates in more subtle ways, through social norms, language, and symbols that dictate what is acceptable or "normal." As Foucault argued, power is everywhere—it’s in the institutions that define what knowledge is valuable, the systems that regulate our behaviors, and even the way we think about ourselves.
In the case of gender, for example, the idea that there are only two genders—male and female—is a powerful norm that has been reinforced for centuries. But this binary division is not natural or inevitable; it’s a social construct designed to keep people within certain boundaries. People who don’t fit neatly into these categories, such as non-binary or transgender individuals, challenge the very idea that gender is a fixed, natural identity. Their existence exposes gender as a spook—a social construct that has no real substance but exerts immense power over how we live our lives.
The same applies to cultural or racial identity. Categories like "Black" or "White" are not neutral descriptions of skin color or heritage—they are socially and historically constructed through systems of power, particularly colonialism and racism, that sought to divide people into hierarchies. These categories dictate not only how others perceive us but also how we perceive ourselves, often limiting our ability to define our identity outside of these imposed labels.
The Historical Burden
But the historical and cultural burden of these definitions is still relevant. Do you remember when Rachel Dolezal was pretending to be black just to get out of her own shame and self-hatred of being white? What about Caitlyn Jenner receiving an award for Woman of the Year without ever having given birth or having had a period? From a perspective of critical race theory or queer theory, identity categories are understood as social fabrications born out of colonialism, slavery, and systemic oppression. These identities were never neutral or descriptive, they were tools to delineate power, privilege, and subjugation.
From a Marxist analysis, identity is a mechanism through which the ruling class maintains control over the working class by keeping people divided along lines of race, gender, and nationality. By creating identities that people feel attached to, capitalism encourages competition rather than unity among the working class, which preserves social and economic hierarchies. These identities become commodities that are marketed as forms of self-expression but ultimately constructed and manipulated to keep people consuming and invested in capitalism's myths. So…In Marxist terms, the spook of identity serves as a false consciousness—an illusion that conceals the material conditions shaping our lives and prevents genuine class solidarity.
I feel like much of the current political polarization is rooted in a false depiction of postmodern thought to basically mobilize radical people who genuinely see that there is something wrong, on the left and right, to believe they're being led further into their favorite direction without noticing how they're being turned into conformists instead. They often end up voting for the “greater good” just because of the genuine fear, shame and guilt that they are confronted with through political rhetoric. So what people don’t understand here is that this theory is not trying to be divisive.
Stirner’s spook concept is basically a forerunner to postmodern critique in that it calls bullshit on social constructs and highlights the importance of the destruction of the self as identity. And in my opinion, it also highlights the creative freedom of building on that essential nothingness of identity.
The Second Layer: Stirner’s 'Spook' of Identity Through a Lacanian Lens
So, essentially Butler and Foucault are deconstructing what Stirner would call a spook. A spook is any idea that takes control of us, making us believe that we must live by it. Gender and cultural identity are prime examples. We grow up thinking these are essential parts of ourselves because of the way they affect us in society and the way we are shaped by the power dynamics at play.
But Stirner’s philosophy tells us that these are spooks and if we want to live freely, we have to take those spooks, dismantle them, and take back agency and control of our own definitions. But here's the catch, and also the second layer—this often gets us caught up in a psychological realm, where we confuse self-definition with rebellion which can - itself - become a spook. And maybe even a more dangerous one. When we define ourselves by opposing the very norms we’re trying to escape, we’re still trapped. We start to rebel for the sake of rebellion itself, and that becomes another spook haunting us.
Why do we do this?
From a psychoanalytic perspective, especially if we apply Lacan’s ideas, this dynamic can be understood as part of our ongoing struggle with the Other—the symbolic order, the societal norms that shape our identity. Lacan would argue that our rebellion is still oriented toward the Other. When we rebel, we are not simply asserting our own individuality; we are still reacting to, and thus remaining defined by, the norms we wish to escape. We might think we are creating a new sense of self, but really, we are still tethered to the old structures we oppose.
This rebellion becomes a new form of self-deception, a new spook haunting us. Why? Because in Lacan’s framework, we are always caught in a tension between our desires and the demands of the Other. The norms, expectations, and rules imposed by society are what shape our desires in the first place. So, even when we think we are resisting them, we are still bound by them. In trying to define ourselves in opposition to these norms, we reinforce their hold on us, because our identity becomes defined by what we are not, rather than by what we are.
So, why do we do this? It’s because, on a psychological level, we are trapped in a constant search for completeness—a search that, according to Lacan, can never be fulfilled. We long for a stable, coherent identity, something that gives us a sense of wholeness. But the truth is, that wholeness is an illusion. Our identity is always fragmented, always in flux, mediated by the norms and power relations we are trying to escape. In this context, rebellion can feel like a way to reclaim our sense of self, but in reality, it’s just another mask.
This is where Stirner’s critique becomes so relevant. He warns us not to fall into the trap of rebellion for rebellion’s sake. True freedom doesn’t come from opposing societal norms—it comes from stepping outside of them altogether. But this is easier said than done.
The psychoanalytic lens deepens Stirner’s warning. Lacan shows us that we are always caught in the tension between desire and the demands of the Other. And Stirner would say that the only way out is through ownness—embracing the fluidity of our own identity and refusing to let any external norm, label, or rebellion define who we are. But to do this requires an understanding that even our deepest attempts at self-definition can turn into spooks if we are not careful.
Think about it—when people challenge traditional gender norms, for instance, they might feel like they’re breaking free, right? They reject the binary, assert their own gender fluidity. But what happens next? They still encounter the material realities of a world built on binary gender categories—laws, healthcare, and even social interactions that force them into boxes. The rebellion might feel liberating, but they’re still living within a system that doesn’t fully accept that rejection.
And what about cultural identity? It’s a similar story. People might want to break out of the cultural box they were born into, to adopt new practices or even reject culture altogether. But cultural identity is often rooted in shared history, collective oppression, and privilege. Can someone simply become another ethnicity or culture, even if they rebel against their assigned identity? Society pushes back because of the weight of collective experiences—especially when it comes to race.
Here’s where rebellion itself becomes dangerous. When we start to define ourselves entirely through rejection—rejecting gender norms, rejecting cultural categories—we risk turning that rejection into our new identity.
It’s the paradox of rebellion: the more you fight against something, the more you’re shaped by what you oppose.
The Spook of Truth as the Foundation of the Spook of Identity
Now, not everyone agrees with this perspective. There are many who argue that gender and cultural identity are rooted in biological or essential truths. People like Jordan Peterson claim that gender is based on biological differences that can’t be changed, and that rejecting these natural roles leads to confusion and social chaos.
On the cultural side, some argue that your culture is tied to your roots, your heritage, and that these identities are not fluid but fixed—passed down through generations. In their view, trying to change your culture is not only impossible but potentially harmful.
These arguments rest on the idea of objective truth—that our identities are not just socially constructed, but grounded in some kind of unchanging reality. But as Lacan and Stirner would argue, this 'truth' is itself a fiction, constructed by society and its norms.
To go as deep as possible, I would like to show you guys a quote by Jacques Lacan which I find deeply relevant to the psychoanalytic and egoist discussion of all other spooks:
“[W]hat the 'I think' is directed towards, in so far as it lurches into the 'I am', is a real. But 'the true' remains so much outside that Descartes then has to re-assure himself—of what, if not of an Other that is not deceptive, and which shall, into the bargain, guarantee by its very existence the bases of truth, guarantee him that there are in his own objective reason the necessary foundations for the very real, about whose existence he has just re-assured himself, to find the dimension of truth. I can do no more than suggest the extraordinary consequences that have stemmed from this handing back of truth into the hands of the Other […]” (36)
This quote from Lacan delves into the complex relationship between the self ("I think") and the Other, highlighting the tension between subjective experience and the symbolic structures that govern our understanding of reality.
Lacan suggests that when one moves from the cognitive assertion "I think" to the existential claim "I am," there is a fundamental shift in perception. The "I think" represents a subjective, introspective state, whereas "I am" indicates a more fixed identity that is influenced by external factors. This transition underscores the fragility of self-perception and its dependence on societal and linguistic structures.
The reference to a "real" realm of perception being "destroyed" upon entry into the symbolic realm implies that genuine experience is compromised by the dualistic nature of language and societal constructs. The symbolic realm, governed by language, separates the self from the other, leading to a fragmented understanding of existence. This fragmentation suggests that our true experiences and perceptions are often distorted or overlooked due to the constraints imposed by language.
Lacan critiques Descartes' search for certainty, noting that Descartes reassures himself of an "Other" that is not deceptive. This Other serves as a foundation for truth—an external validation of the self's existence. Lacan emphasizes that Descartes' reliance on an objective Other to guarantee truth reveals a deep-seated anxiety about the nature of knowledge and reality. This dependence illustrates the philosophical dilemma of seeking certainty in an inherently uncertain world.
The phrase "handing back of truth into the hands of the Other" points to the consequences of this dependency. By entrusting truth to the Other, individuals risk losing their autonomy and subjective authority. The truth becomes contingent upon external validation rather than internal coherence. This dynamic can lead to a myriad of psychological and social implications, as individuals may find themselves at the mercy of the perceptions and judgments of others, ultimately questioning their own reality and truth.
Moving Beyond Rebellion
So, where does that leave us? Gender and cultural identity are spooks linked to the fundamental spook of truth, yes—but Stirner reminds us that even rebellion can become a spook. If we define ourselves purely by what we reject, we’re not truly free. So, now what? What is left?
Well…I think what Stirner was telling us was that when we stop viewing identity as a fixed point or something we must constantly battle against, we open ourselves up to the fluidity of existence and autonomy—a state where we can embrace our complexity without being haunted by spooks.
I think it makes total sense to shift the conversation from external definitions to personal expression and subjective experience. And this doesn't mean ignoring the identity based determinants that shapes our material reality. It also doesn't mean to abolish all moral codes or interpersonal ethics. It just means we set them for ourselves based on desire and accountability for desire, and we accept the consequences. I think this is what Stirner means when he talks about might.
But for this we have to understand what it means to be truly accountable for who we are.
And this is where I would like to add something which hasn’t been discussed frequently:
The Tension between Agency and the Unconscious
I believe that neoliberal societies claim to promote agency through the mixture of individualism and democracy, while also expecting a certain degree of conformity and functionality to a predetermined and “pushed as ethical” system.
This relates to the development of modern psychology away from psychoanalytic approaches - that view the human unconscious as the space where socialization, repressed drives, sublimations and traumatic experiences occur - toward a more functionality-focused and rehabilitation-driven approach, which highlights individual accountability and responsibility, and offers a blueprint for expected conduct.
Starting with the assumptions of Freudian psychoanalysis, let's ask the following questions:
What does the unconscious want? How does it get what it wants? Is it actually possible to attain a state of accountability and agency within an individualist and anarchist framework? And how can we ACTUALLY integrate the unconscious with agency?
The superego wants you (ego) to think that being accountable for mistakes takes away your power, because it is constantly concerned with keeping up appearances or remaining functional. This is made worse by the damage that is done to us by means of socialization, social hierarchies, identity politics, and whatever else is easily used to keep you focused on self-improvement rather than self-acceptance.
This is why you struggle with things like guilt and shame. It's a power move designed to keep you in a state of cognitive dissonance.
All the superego cares about is control. And it almost seems like it means well. It just wants to protect you from things like ostracization and alienation. To protect you from pain. Right?
False (as Dwight from The Office might say).
It does it because pain will solidify your ego. And it does not want you to be conscious, aware, or accountable. It wants you to be small and listen to the world telling you youre not good enough.
If you look at superego’s method from a standpoint of logic you also see, however, that it is irrational and creates its own losses. Because if the superego fails at protecting you from a difficult truth, then we got the next asshole in line wanting you all for itself:
The id.
Id takes over when superego falls asleep or is too weak to keep up appearances. It produces fantasies to help out. It’s like that guy who always tries to convince people at parties to do coke with him in the bathroom. It’s very sneaky. Very seductive. It knows what you want and it puts in right in front of your nose. But as part of this avoidance process, it disconnects you from reality and hurls you into a land of grandiose and hyperbolized thinking and feeling.
The superego runs its empire on the reality principle, meaning it constantly tries to ground you in hierarchical structures which force you to look only above and below.
The id runs its empire on the pleasure principle, meaning it tries to distract with gratification mechanisms.
These two are constantly at odds with one another. They want to control you so badly, they end up fighting a war while you're just sitting in some basement, hiding - detached.
So it seems like the way out would be to starve yourself of gratification and hierarchies. But this is not that easy. Because as soon as you try to control the psychic forces by means of avoidance, they hurl you into a land of sensation, indulgence and excess, which becomes more and more difficult to resist.
I believe that an amoral and desire embracing attitude is a way to confuse them, and distract them, to then sneak by them and make their weapons useless by dismantling them through deconstruction.
And what are their weapons?
Guilt and shame (superego). And the escapism cycle it comes with (id). Those acts are hailed as righteous in our world. Celebrated as necessary for communal life. But let me tell you what they really are…They are the self-indulgent acts of regurgitating a mistake or behavior in your mind in a desperate attempt to find a way to return to a state of gratification (id) or hierarchy (superego) rather than accepting that it happened and moving on.
And this is how we are controlled.
This is how a society which calls itself individualistic, diverse, inclusive, moral and well-organized collective based on democracy and common good, eats you up and shits you out as just another copy of a copy.
So...how do you dismantle guilt and shame and the escapism cycle?
Many psychoanalysts would refer back to childhood, as a time when you internalized rules about life and how to conduct yourself in the presence of others. And they would tell you to then re-evaluate those structures you were taught. But all this does is it lands you in the territory of the id.
Often, what happens here is that people who lived a rigid and strict hierarchy based lifestyle end up re-living a "better childhood" in rebellion to their parental guidance structures.
And this is EXACTLY where egoist criticism is necessary.
Egoism doesn't just attack forms of conformity or collectivism…it also attacks REBELLION. It attacks the next thing this world has hijacked to become an identity commodity. Because rebellion is just as much rooted in the psychic forces you're trying to defeat as any other coping mechanism, even if it feels more self-determined. You have to remember that the id had you first, then superego swooped in and claimed a lot of territory. So eliminating hierarchies will only end in id. and this begins a cycle. Don't worry about the damn hierarchies.
So then how can we affect the ego/self and reject superego and id's power over it without falling into those traps?
Well this sounds cheesy but you kinda have to see that the ego IS superego and id. You are not you without them.
But that does not mean you have to let them control you.
So instead of rejecting them through things that feel like agency such as ethical systems, aesthetics, identity, and belief structures...just reject the whole concept of self. Because if there's no separate self, or ego, then there's only the dynamics and interplay of an observer with the outside world.
Although Stirner never directly discussed this, it is what I got out of what he was presenting in The Ego and its Own (or The Unique and its Property). Stirner is often accused of not offering alternatives or constructive thought, but I call bullshit on that. Stirner simply knew that adding any kind of constructive thought to the universe would turn his entire philosophy into another spook. So he didn’t do it. He just wrote it, as he clearly states, for himself! And coincidentally left it there for anyone who understands the intersubjectivity, ambiguity, and amorality of the universe, and who has the courage to figure their own shit out for themselves.