There is nothing inherently wrong with identity groups or identity politics — it all depends upon the basic political values those groups promote. When an identity group promotes general values of tolerance, freedom, justice, and equality, then it can benefit a liberal democratic society. On the other hand, when an identity group fosters exclusion, discrimination, and injustice, then its presence can be harmful.
This latter sort is the type of identity group which Gilbert focuses upon. His generalizations of identity groups are clearly mistaken, but if we imagine that he were only talking about some identity groups, then he has very valid criticisms to make. He in particular focuses upon the claims made by some groups to completely independent political self-determination.
There is a feeling among some that the only “legitimate” state is one which is constructed solely around a particular cultural group. Thus, the physical and geographical boundaries of a state must conform to the more amorphous boundaries of a culture, a language, a race, a religion, or all of the above. This is patently nonsense and, even worse, a physical impossibility unless we engage in large-scale “ethnic cleansing” in order to move people around to “appropriate” geographic locations. And then what about those individuals or families who include multiple identities?
Gilbert is wrong to suggest that culture and identity are not relevant to politics, but he is right that they aren’t so relevant that they should be the only political consideration. I think it would be fair to say that while a person’s various identity affiliations are very important when it comes to who they are as an individual, those affiliations and groups are never more important than the whole individual.
As a consequence of his flawed understanding of identity politics, Gilbert’s proposed solutions to the excesses of identity politics are flawed. He would have us toss aside “identity politics” completely and act as though social and cultural identities were completely irrelevant to our political actions. In large part this may be appropriate when it comes to elected representatives who are expected to represent a wide variety of people. It would also be appropriate when it comes to how states interact with each other. It is not, however, either appropriate or realistic when it comes to the average citizen.
It is true that a person’s cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious identity should not be more important than their role and status as a citizen in a larger democratic society. Yet it is not true that a person’s identity can or should play no role in how they understand their role of citizen should be and what their relationship with other citizens should be. Gilbert has some interesting insights on the nature and ethics of warfare, but this wouldn’t be the first book I would reach to when looking for more information on warfare in modernity
« Back...
