I have two main issues with this essay. First, you treat all identities as being equal in your analysis. Second, you suppose that moral judgments come from identitarian doctrines and so liberal societies need identitarianism in order to fuel rational debate.
For the first issue, national identities are unique because they perfectly fit a democracy. Every citizen is included, and every non-citizen is excluded. A democratic government exists to protect the rights and ensure the prosperity of all citizens. Identifying primarily as a citizen then is best for validating the justification of a democratic government. All other identities (whether narrower or wider) undermine that democratic goal.
The second issue is really about the notion of liberalism itself. Coming up with answers to political questions, for any pro-Enlightenment thinker, is to be done through rational analysis freed from the chains of traditional and religious dogma. According to you, however, everyone is chained to dogma that is linked to a particular identity. And so multiple competing identities are necessary in order to dilute the influence of any particular dogma.
This latter point amounts to a rejection of liberalism - you've conceded that not all people are capable of rational analysis from first principles, because their identities are the source of their moral convictions. These identities include immutable characteristic like sex, genealogy and place of birth.
Thank you for comment which highlight an interesting challenge. Just to be clear, I don't contend that individuals are necessarily trapped in their identity/identities, but that these identities matter from people's perspectives and also to understand and address people's views.
Now, you're framing of liberalism as an Enlightenment project is interesting because I think this is the core of the discussion. If liberalism is conceived as such, then I agree that the only normative position available is that, in the public space at least, people should primarily identify as citizen and that all viewpoints based on other identity-related considerations should be excluded. This is the essence of Millian, Popperian, and, to some extent, Rawlsian liberalism. For reasons I have articulated at length on this newsletter, I am skeptical about this approach.
The alternative is to conceive liberalism as a post-Enlightenment project, skeptical about the possibility of a social order which politics is fully separated from identities other than citizenship. The constraint is then to build a case for liberalism while acknowledging that individuals don't leave their identity at home when they enter the public space. So, I understand your point and up to a point I agree with it, but I'm also skeptical that this view (which is more than two centuries old) is the right approach to defend liberalism nowadays.
Great essay on making identity politics—which can't and shouldn't be completely removed—better in liberal democracies by making identities broader, more numerous, and non-exclusive.
I've been thinking a lot about this regarding nationalism too. National identity is probably the most consequential case of the narrow vs. broad identity distinction. A broad national identity that coexists with other local and professional affiliations can be a powerful source of solidarity and cooperation. But when national identity narrows into the only identity that matters politically, it crowds out exactly the kind of overlapping memberships that make pluralism work. The question is how to make nationalism more productive systematically.
Idpol is a consequence of Liberalism. The political system (in the US) is based on competition between special interest groups seeking government resources. Just like any sporting event. Football teams by definition are identities. Corporate brands in the market are identities. Different religious groups are identities. People complaining about Idpol have no clue what liberalism even is.
Please have a look, you might enjoy:
1. Intuitive new language that invents new ideas.
2. Creates new non-market economics.
3. Shows old market economics better than anyone.
4. Proves the case for universal healthcare.
5. Starts a new politics.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT-vY3f9uw3Dkgnj72Ydks7ExEiUrPcMD
I have two main issues with this essay. First, you treat all identities as being equal in your analysis. Second, you suppose that moral judgments come from identitarian doctrines and so liberal societies need identitarianism in order to fuel rational debate.
For the first issue, national identities are unique because they perfectly fit a democracy. Every citizen is included, and every non-citizen is excluded. A democratic government exists to protect the rights and ensure the prosperity of all citizens. Identifying primarily as a citizen then is best for validating the justification of a democratic government. All other identities (whether narrower or wider) undermine that democratic goal.
The second issue is really about the notion of liberalism itself. Coming up with answers to political questions, for any pro-Enlightenment thinker, is to be done through rational analysis freed from the chains of traditional and religious dogma. According to you, however, everyone is chained to dogma that is linked to a particular identity. And so multiple competing identities are necessary in order to dilute the influence of any particular dogma.
This latter point amounts to a rejection of liberalism - you've conceded that not all people are capable of rational analysis from first principles, because their identities are the source of their moral convictions. These identities include immutable characteristic like sex, genealogy and place of birth.
Thank you for comment which highlight an interesting challenge. Just to be clear, I don't contend that individuals are necessarily trapped in their identity/identities, but that these identities matter from people's perspectives and also to understand and address people's views.
Now, you're framing of liberalism as an Enlightenment project is interesting because I think this is the core of the discussion. If liberalism is conceived as such, then I agree that the only normative position available is that, in the public space at least, people should primarily identify as citizen and that all viewpoints based on other identity-related considerations should be excluded. This is the essence of Millian, Popperian, and, to some extent, Rawlsian liberalism. For reasons I have articulated at length on this newsletter, I am skeptical about this approach.
The alternative is to conceive liberalism as a post-Enlightenment project, skeptical about the possibility of a social order which politics is fully separated from identities other than citizenship. The constraint is then to build a case for liberalism while acknowledging that individuals don't leave their identity at home when they enter the public space. So, I understand your point and up to a point I agree with it, but I'm also skeptical that this view (which is more than two centuries old) is the right approach to defend liberalism nowadays.
Great essay on making identity politics—which can't and shouldn't be completely removed—better in liberal democracies by making identities broader, more numerous, and non-exclusive.
I've been thinking a lot about this regarding nationalism too. National identity is probably the most consequential case of the narrow vs. broad identity distinction. A broad national identity that coexists with other local and professional affiliations can be a powerful source of solidarity and cooperation. But when national identity narrows into the only identity that matters politically, it crowds out exactly the kind of overlapping memberships that make pluralism work. The question is how to make nationalism more productive systematically.
Identities by definition are exclusionary and competition makes them adversarial.
Pluralism obviously does not work. That is why there are so many laws regulating identity groups.
Nationalism is unjustifiable. Its expansionary and leads to war and arbitrary assimilation.
We should be moving toward a world based on commonality. Not groups or nations that try to withdraw and differentiate themselves from everyone else.
Idpol is a consequence of Liberalism. The political system (in the US) is based on competition between special interest groups seeking government resources. Just like any sporting event. Football teams by definition are identities. Corporate brands in the market are identities. Different religious groups are identities. People complaining about Idpol have no clue what liberalism even is.