All of the above and more?
I'm an Animist, who seeks to let the reader experience many of the things that's formed my life. I explore dark, but human, themes (often ones that I, or friends of mine, have experienced personally) in that people can be touched by. I include raw, primal, emotional scenes because that's a significant portion of the human experience. Why read- let alone write- fiction if you don't want to *feel*? That's what textbooks are for.
I'm a Classicist. I believe that storytelling is art, and should be nurtured and sculpted. There are objective goals- strong character development, internal consistency, clear language- and failing to meet those goals is failing to do your role correctly.
I am an Iconoclast. I take, if not political then at least philosophical stances. I believe, in the end, that all human beings are set on the same pedestal. To quote Shakespear: "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" and express that belief in my writing. An expression that has, in fact, resulted in death threats and accusations of being racist and sexist. For believing in *equality*.
And I am most certainly a Formalist. I've said it before, I'll say it again: "Give yourself permission to fail". I take risks, experiment, test and stress my limits as a writer and the limits of text and language as storytelling medium. Knowing full well that doing so can and will cost me time and effort on projects that won't succeed, and readers who don't "get it".
Frankly, this whole categorization thing reminds me of the same mumbo-jumbo as horoscopes. And the human psychological tendency to pigeonhole other people for ease of reference, instead of taking the time to understand individuals on the individual level.