In Defence of Fluidity

I have always struggled with the concept of definitions. A few years ago, in the middle of the night, I wrote in my notes app: “To define is to limit, because definitions create boundaries, which is why fluidity is beautiful.” This thought has stayed with me through the years, constantly evolving as I engage with philosophy, gender theory, and metaphysical traditions.

On the one hand, I love definitions. I appreciate boundaries, structure, and clarity it brings when it comes to interactions, objects, and systems. But when it comes to human identity, the self, and human nature, I can't help but question the idea of fixed definitions. The world is constantly changing, experiences shape and reshape our understanding of ourselves, the world and each other. Thus, I question: can we truly define something that is always evolving?

I understand the desire for fixed identities. Certainty provides comfort - especially in moral frameworks, social roles, and personal self-conception. Studying philosophy challenged the concept of certainty for me. At one point, it made me feel deeply uncomfortable because everything felt up for debate and much like Chidi from The Good Place, I was truly in love with the idea of certainty. This led me to have an interesting and insightful conversation with my Indian Philosophy tutor, who pointed out that certainty belongs to the realm of religion, while philosophy thrives in the space between certainty and uncertainty. This made me reconsider my discomfort with ambiguity and made it dawn on me that that is what faith is (but that's a conversation for another day) But, below I will share my defence of fluidity and arenas where this may apply.

The Illusion of Fixed Identity

As hinted at above, with knowledge comes an expansion of definitions. This leads me to Nietzche's theory of genealogy. The concept of genealogies was coined by Nietzsche to accurately get across how concepts change over time, he stated ‘only that which has no history is definable’. It acknowledges that concepts can mean different things to different participants in the genealogical lineage (Rewane, 2022)

For instance, take the concept of a woman - there is such variety that comes with the feminine experience. So much so that Judith Butler borrows the Nietzchean idea of genealogy and applies it to gender, arguing that gender cannot be captured in a single, fixed definition. Instead, Butler views gender as a a historical and performative process, shaped by changing power structures and social contexts. As Butler implies, gender is a verb, an act, rather than a static category. Alison Stone furthers this by proposing that women are a ‘distinct social group’ with a genealogy - a history shaped by multiple, sometimes conflicting, sources. Unlike gender essentialism, which marginalises diverse experiences, this genealogical perspective acknowledges that identity is open-ended, fluid, and subject to transformation. This is one arena, where fluid definitions truly help.

Fluidity Through the Lens of Sankhyan Dualism

This tension between definition and fluidity reminds me of the Sankhyan perspective on duality. Sankhyan philosophy divides reality into two fundamental entities: Purusha (the Self, pure consciousness) and Prakriti (Nature, the material world). The self, according to Sankhya, is merely a ‘witness’ to the ever-changing world of nature. As the Bhagavad Gita states, “the soul passes in this body through childhood, youth, and age...” suggesting that while the body and mind transform, the self remains a detached observer. This aligns with the intuitive feeling that there is a part of us that watches, listens, and experiences change without itself being subject to it.

At first glance, this may seem to contradict my argument for fluidity. However, the key insight from Sankhya is that our experiences and identities belong to Prakriti—nature, the realm of change. The mind, emotions, and personality are part of this evolving material reality. Even though Sankhya insists on a distinction between the unchanging witness (Purusha) and changing nature (Prakriti), it indirectly affirms that everything we identify with - our sense of self, our beliefs, our roles - exists within this fluid domain of change. If everything we think of as ‘self’ is part of Prakriti, then our identities, by nature, are not fixed but dynamic.

This aligns with Eckhart Tolle’s realization: “I cannot live with myself any longer.” This led him to ask: “Am I one or am I two?”—suggesting that what we consider the ‘self’ is split between the changing nature of our thoughts and a deeper, more detached awareness. Rather than proving the existence of a singular, unchanging self, this realisation illustrates the multiplicity of identity - the fact that who we are is never just a singular thing.

The Jain Principle of Non-One-Sidedness

If we take this even further, Jainism offers one of my favourite perspectives: anekantavada, or the doctrine of non-one-sidedness. Jain philosophy argues that reality is so multifaceted that any attempt to understand it from a singular, absolute perspective is bound to fail. Every perspective carries some truth, but no single view can claim to be the truth.

This principle resonates deeply with my belief in the fluidity of identity. Just as reality itself cannot be captured by one definitive viewpoint, neither can the self. Different aspects of our identity emerge in different contexts. For example, one can be a daughter, a friend, an artist, and a scholar simultaneously, yet no single label fully captures who they are. The Jains illustrate this through the famous metaphor of the blind men and the elephant: each person touches a different part of the elephant (the trunk, the tail, the tusk) and describes it differently, yet they are all touching the same entity. This reflects how identity operates - not as a fixed essence but as a mixture of perspectives and experiences.

The Jain approach also provides a compelling counter to critiques that fluidity undermines meaning. Some argue that without fixed definitions, truth becomes meaningless. But Jainism refutes this by emphasizing qualified predication! This is the idea that statements about reality must always acknowledge context. For example, the statement “Is this person here?” can be both true and false, depending on what aspect of their existence one focuses on (their physical presence vs. their mental engagement). Similarly, a person can be ‘one thing’ in one moment and ‘something else’ in another without contradiction.

This perspective mirrors the debate between eternalism and momentariness in philosophy. Is the world permanent, or is it constantly changing? Jainism responds: both. From one standpoint, the world appears stable; from another, it is in constant flux. The same is true of identity - while we may have a sense of continuity, the details of who we are are always shifting. As Jains argue, “modifications cannot exist without an abiding or eternal something.” In other words, change and continuity are not opposites but interdependent.

Embracing Fluidity

Ultimately, I believe that definitions serve a purpose, but they should not be mistaken for absolute truths. They are tools, useful in structuring our understanding of the world, but they become oppressive when treated as rigid constraints. Identity, like reality, is non-one-sided - there is no single way to define who we are, nor should there be, in my opinion.

Sankhya’s concept of the witnessing self, Jainism’s rejection of absolute perspectives, and Butler’s genealogy of gender all point toward the same truth: fluidity is not a flaw—it is a core aspect of existence. Ultimately to be human is to be constantly changing and moving between roles, evolving with experience.

So rather than seeking certainty in rigid definitions, perhaps it might be useful to find comfort in the ever-changing nature of being. After all, if change is inevitable, then to embrace fluidity is not to lose one's self but to experience the fullness of all life can be.

Please let me know what you think!

Are you a fan of definitions? Do you think there is a way to marry definition whilst also leaving room for growth? Open to hearing all perspectives!