Whence comes the habit of defining a person in terms of their relationship to some other person or group? Individuals used ti be defined, at least in the Anglo languages, by their talents or trades or native origins. Scandinavians identified individuals as someone’s daughter (doter) or son. That is still a functional/organic basis. Trumpist or National Socialist or Rotarian seeks to identify a person not as a self-contained organism, but as part of a group. Groupism. Where does it come from?
Is groupism essentially a male thing, responding to an impulse to be reconnected, to reverse the disconnect that occurred at birth. Connecting for psychological, rather than practical reasons. Is it only something impractical individuals are concerned about?
Trump’s vaunted raport with the working class is likely mistaken. They thought he was a builder. But only because nobody bothered to lay out the truth—that developers destroy so somebody else builds something new.
Now they know, or they should. Trump’s a wrecker and an instigator. He creates nothing.
But that does not answer the question about how persons are defined. Is citing relationships and affiliations just another example of laziness? People who can’t be bothered with what other people do.