Identity

Identity Plot Summary

Introduction

Modern politics revolves increasingly around identity - a concept that connects an individual's innermost self with their public recognition by the surrounding society. This profound shift has transformed political debates from traditional economic issues toward questions of dignity, respect, and acknowledgment of one's authentic self. At the core of this transformation lies thymos - the part of the soul that craves recognition - which classical philosophers like Plato understood as distinct from reason and desire. When individuals or groups feel their dignity has been disrespected or overlooked, they experience resentment that fuels political movements demanding recognition. The rise of identity politics on both left and right presents one of the central challenges to liberal democratic societies. While marginalized groups legitimately seek respect and inclusion, the fragmentation into ever-smaller identity groups undermines the possibility of common dialogue and shared citizenship. From nationalism to religious extremism to campus activism, the same underlying psychology of dignity and recognition operates. By understanding the historical development of identity as a concept and its connection to universal human psychology, we gain insight into how modern societies might balance the legitimate demands for recognition with the need for shared democratic values.

Chapter 1: Thymos: The Third Part of the Soul and Recognition

Ancient Greek philosophy, particularly through Plato's dialogues, recognized a critical aspect of human psychology that modern economic and political theories often overlook. In Book IV of the Republic, Socrates introduces a tripartite model of the soul: beyond reason and desire exists thymos, the part that craves recognition and responds emotionally to judgments about one's worth. This insight is illustrated through the story of Leontius, who feels anger and shame at his own desire to view corpses - an inner conflict between different parts of his psyche. Thymos explains political behaviors that purely economic models cannot account for. When protesters risk their lives against dictatorial regimes, when women demand equal pay despite already enjoying high incomes, or when religious believers feel their faith has been insulted, they are not responding primarily to material self-interest but to perceived disrespect of their dignity. This thymotic drive takes two forms: isothymia - the demand to be recognized as equal to others - and megalothymia - the desire to be recognized as superior. The political tension between these forms of thymos shapes modern societies. Democratic revolutions express isothymia - the demand that all citizens receive equal respect regardless of class, race, gender, or religion. Yet megalothymia persists in the ambitions of entrepreneurs, artists, and politicians who seek distinction. Liberal democracy attempts to satisfy both impulses by granting equal rights while providing outlets for exceptional achievement through market competition, arts, and sports. Modern identity politics emerges directly from thymos. When individuals feel their authentic selves are invisible or disrespected, they experience a thymotic resentment that can unite groups sharing similar experiences of marginalization. The gay rights movement sought not merely legal protections but dignity and recognition; the Black Lives Matter movement demands acknowledgment of lived experiences of discrimination; nationalist movements in Europe and elsewhere appeal to groups feeling culturally disregarded. Understanding thymos reveals why identity-based conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve through economic concessions alone. When dignity is at stake, compromise feels like surrender of one's core self. This explains why identity politics can override economic self-interest, as when working-class voters support nationalist movements even against their material interests. Thymos demands a kind of recognition that material redistribution alone cannot satisfy.

Chapter 2: The Evolution of Identity from Religious to Secular Foundations

The modern concept of identity emerged through a profound historical transformation that began during the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther introduced a revolutionary distinction between the inner spiritual self and the outer social being, arguing that only faith - an internal spiritual state - could justify man before God. External actions, rituals, and social roles became secondary to this authentic inner reality. This insight fundamentally challenged medieval society's understanding of personhood, where identity was primarily defined by one's fixed place in the social hierarchy. Jean-Jacques Rousseau further developed this inner/outer distinction in the eighteenth century, but with a crucial difference. Where Luther saw the inner self as sinful and needing God's grace, Rousseau portrayed the inner self as naturally good but corrupted by society. In his view, authentic human nature was being suppressed by artificial social conventions and hierarchies. Rousseau's writings, from the Discourse on Inequality to his Reveries of a Solitary Walker, celebrated what he called the sentiment de l'existence - the authentic feeling of being that constitutes one's true self. This sentiment, Rousseau believed, was more readily accessible to those less constrained by society's artificial demands. The philosophical foundation of modern identity was further expanded by Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel. Kant secularized the concept of human dignity by grounding it in moral autonomy rather than divine grace. For Kant, human dignity derived from our capacity for moral choice and rational self-determination. Hegel contributed the crucial insight that recognition of this dignity by others was essential to human fulfillment. His famous analysis of the master-slave relationship demonstrated that genuine recognition could only come from equals - an insight that would later inspire democratic movements worldwide. This evolution coincided with profound social changes as Europe modernized. Traditional agrarian societies offered few choices about occupation, residence, or social relationships. Urbanization, commercial expansion, and technological change disrupted these fixed social arrangements. Individuals could suddenly pursue different paths in life, move to new locations, and form new social bonds. The resulting social mobility created both opportunities and anxieties. The question "Who am I?" became meaningful precisely because identity was no longer automatically provided by one's birth and station. By the nineteenth century, the core elements of modern identity had emerged: the distinction between inner and outer selves, the valorization of authenticity, the understanding of dignity as rooted in moral agency, and the demand for public recognition of one's worth. Together, these ideas formed a powerful new understanding of the self that would transform politics in the coming centuries, giving rise to movements for both individual rights and collective identity.

Chapter 3: Nationalism and Religion as Collective Identity Forms

The nineteenth century witnessed the emergence of nationalism as a powerful form of collective identity that would reshape the political landscape of Europe and eventually the world. While the French Revolution had promoted universal principles of human rights, it simultaneously unleashed a passionate attachment to national community. This dual character of modern politics - universal rights versus particular identities - continues to define our political landscape today. Nationalism emerged partly in response to the psychological dislocations of modernization. The German social theorist Ferdinand Tönnies described this as the shift from Gemeinschaft (close-knit community) to Gesellschaft (impersonal society). As peasants moved to cities and traditional social bonds weakened, many experienced a profound sense of alienation. Nationalism offered a remedy - a sense of belonging to a larger whole based on shared language, culture, and historical memory. The German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder argued that each people (Volk) possessed a unique cultural genius that deserved respect and preservation. Unlike later ethno-nationalists, Herder celebrated cultural diversity rather than hierarchy, but his ideas would later be distorted by more aggressive nationalists. Early nationalist intellectuals like Paul de Lagarde in Germany diagnosed their societies as suffering from moral decay. They blamed this decline on various factors: cosmopolitanism, materialism, liberal individualism, and often Jews as the perceived carriers of these corrosive influences. They promised a return to an imagined past of cultural unity and moral clarity. These intellectuals gave voice to anxieties felt by millions undergoing the transition to modern society, transforming personal confusion into political grievance. By telling disoriented individuals they were part of a proud people whose dignity had been violated, they created a powerful narrative of collective victimhood and redemption. Religious identity has followed a similar trajectory in the contemporary Muslim world. The social anthropologist Ernest Gellner observed that Islamism functions much like nationalism, providing cultural coherence amid the disorienting effects of modernization. Young Muslims in both Muslim-majority countries and Western immigrant communities often face an identity crisis: traditional village Islam seems outdated, while Western secularism feels alien. Islamist movements offer a solution - a modernized religious identity that provides both dignity and community. Like nationalism, political Islam frames collective identity around narratives of past glory, present humiliation, and future redemption. The extremist manifestations of both nationalism and religious identity share crucial features. As the French scholar Olivier Roy argues, many jihadists are not deeply religious initially but are seeking an identity that provides meaning and status. Similarly, many recruits to far-right nationalist movements are primarily motivated by a sense of cultural displacement rather than economic grievance. Both movements attract individuals experiencing what sociologists call "identity confusion" - the painful uncertainty about one's place in a rapidly changing world - and both offer clear answers to the question "Who am I?" Understanding nationalism and religious identity as responses to modernization helps explain their persistent appeal despite the material benefits of globalization and technological progress. Economic theories of human motivation fail to capture how deeply people crave the recognition and belonging that these collective identities provide. As long as modernization continues to disrupt traditional communities and create feelings of dislocation, the appeal to collective identities will remain a powerful political force.

Chapter 4: From Individual to Group Identity in Liberal Democracies

The 1960s witnessed an explosion of social movements across liberal democracies that transformed the political landscape. The civil rights movement in the United States, feminist movements, gay rights activism, and other identity-based causes emerged as powerful forces. These movements shared a common feature: they demanded recognition not just of universal rights but of the specific identities and experiences of marginalized groups. They argued that formal legal equality was insufficient without acknowledgment of the particular forms of disrespect and invisibility they had suffered. These identity movements evolved significantly over time. Initially, many sought simple inclusion in the existing social order. Martin Luther King Jr.'s early civil rights advocacy emphasized common humanity and equal treatment under the law. However, later movements increasingly asserted the distinctiveness of group experience. Organizations like the Black Panthers argued that African Americans possessed a unique consciousness shaped by historical oppression that white Americans could not fully comprehend. Similarly, feminist theorists like Simone de Beauvoir contended that women's lived experiences created perspectives inaccessible to men. The concept of "lived experience" became central to this transformation. Derived from the distinction between the German terms Erfahrung (shareable experience) and Erlebnis (subjective experience), it emphasized the uniqueness of each group's perspective. This subjectivity was seen as valuable precisely because it challenged dominant narratives. African American writers described experiences of racism that contradicted official claims of equality; women articulated experiences of sexism that male-dominated institutions had rendered invisible. The personal became political as these subjective experiences were mobilized to demand structural changes. Several factors facilitated this shift toward identity politics. Universities and other institutions had embraced a therapeutic ethos focused on psychological well-being and self-esteem. The California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem, established in 1986, exemplified this trend, arguing that each person possessed inherent worth deserving recognition. Meanwhile, traditional left-wing politics focused on economic redistribution was encountering limitations. The collapse of communism, fiscal constraints on welfare states, and persistent inequality despite redistributive efforts left progressives searching for new strategies. Identity politics offered a compelling alternative. Rather than focusing primarily on material resources, it emphasized cultural recognition and the psychological dimensions of oppression. University curricula were reformed to include previously marginalized voices; speech codes were developed to prevent expressions that might damage self-esteem; new therapeutic services were established to support group-specific needs. These changes reflected a genuine concern for dignity but also shifted attention from broad economic coalitions toward increasingly specific identity groups. The rise of identity politics on the left eventually provoked a reaction on the right. Many conservatives felt their own identities - as religious believers, rural Americans, or patriots - were being denigrated by progressive elites. Donald Trump's political success partly stemmed from his willingness to challenge "political correctness" and appeal to those feeling culturally disrespected. Identity politics thus spread across the political spectrum, transforming debates about policy into contests over dignity and recognition.

Chapter 5: Economic Inequality Versus Recognition as Political Motivators

The global economy has witnessed increasing inequality over the past three decades, with wealth concentrating dramatically at the top. According to economist Thomas Piketty, the share of income going to the top 1 percent in the United States rose from 9 percent of GDP in 1974 to 24 percent by 2008. Branko Milanovic's famous "elephant graph" shows that while globalization has benefited the middle classes of developing countries and the very rich globally, it has left behind working classes in developed nations. This economic stagnation has coincided with social breakdown in many communities - rising rates of drug addiction, family instability, and declining life expectancy. Logically, this situation should have fueled a resurgence of left-wing economic populism. Instead, right-wing nationalist populism has dominated political responses in many countries. Donald Trump's victory, Brexit, and the rise of nationalist parties across Europe all mobilized support primarily around cultural grievances rather than economic redistribution. This puzzling outcome - what Ernest Gellner called nationalism's "wrong address" problem - reveals something crucial about human motivation: economic interests alone cannot explain political behavior. Economic distress is often experienced as a loss of dignity rather than mere material deprivation. As Adam Smith observed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the poor suffer not simply from lack of resources but from invisibility - from being "out of sight of mankind." The opioid epidemic affecting rural white communities, the collapse of manufacturing jobs, and the decline of traditional lifestyles are experienced as cultural disrespect. When political elites appear indifferent to this suffering or even contemptuous of traditional values, economic grievances transform into cultural resentment. Research on populist voters in Wisconsin by Katherine Cramer and in Louisiana by Arlie Hochschild reveals a consistent narrative: middle-class people feel they have played by the rules, worked hard, and yet find themselves slipping backward while elites ignore their plight and favor other groups. Hochschild describes this using the metaphor of people patiently waiting in line for the American Dream, only to see others - minorities, immigrants, women - cutting ahead with the help of government programs and cultural elites. These voters describe feeling "strangers in their own land." Recognition and material interest interact in complex ways. High-status groups experiencing economic decline feel a particularly acute sense of resentment because they perceive both material loss and status degradation. This explains why the most politically destabilizing group is often not the desperately poor but the anxious middle class. As Samuel Huntington noted, following Tocqueville, revolutions typically arise not from the most deprived but from those experiencing relative status decline after periods of improvement. Nationalist and religious narratives prove particularly effective at addressing this form of grievance. They tell disaffected citizens: "Your country is no longer your own" or "Your faith is being disrespected." These narratives transform economic anxiety into moral indignation and offer dignity through group membership. By contrast, traditional left-wing economic messaging often fails to address the cultural dimensions of discontent or even exacerbates them through perceived condescension toward traditional values. The intertwining of economic and cultural grievances poses a significant challenge for liberal democracies. Addressing material inequality alone will not resolve the deeper crisis of recognition that fuels political resentment. Effective responses must address both dimensions: providing economic opportunity while restoring a sense of dignity and cultural respect.

Chapter 6: National Identity: The Balance Between Diversity and Unity

The concept of national identity stands at the center of contemporary political conflicts. Civil wars in Syria, Libya, and Yemen demonstrate the catastrophic consequences when national identity collapses entirely. Yet the rigid ethno-nationalist conceptions of identity that dominated early twentieth-century Europe produced their own horrors. Liberal democracies must therefore navigate between two dangers: excessive fragmentation into competing identity groups and oppressive homogeneity that denies legitimate diversity. National identity serves several crucial functions in modern societies. First, it provides physical security by creating large, cohesive political units capable of self-defense. Second, it promotes good governance by encouraging officials to serve the public interest rather than narrow ethnic or regional constituencies. Third, it facilitates economic development by extending the radius of trust beyond immediate family or clan networks. Fourth, it enables social solidarity and welfare systems by fostering a sense of mutual obligation among citizens who may otherwise have little in common. Finally, it makes liberal democracy itself possible by creating a shared framework within which pluralistic debate can occur. The question is not whether national identity matters, but what kind of national identity best serves these functions while respecting diversity. Historically, nations have formed through four main processes: population transfers (sometimes involving ethnic cleansing), border adjustments to match linguistic populations, assimilation of minorities into dominant cultures, or the deliberate construction of inclusive national narratives that accommodate diversity. In today's diverse societies, the latter two approaches - assimilation and inclusive identity construction - represent the viable paths forward. The European Union represents a bold experiment in creating postnational identity, deliberately weakening national attachments in favor of broader European consciousness. While successful in preventing war between member states, this project has encountered significant limitations. The EU failed to develop democratic legitimacy comparable to national governments, and its institutions remained remote from ordinary citizens. The euro crisis revealed deep tensions between northern and southern member states, while the refugee crisis exposed profound disagreements about borders and cultural integration. Brexit and the rise of nationalist parties across Europe reflect these unresolved tensions. The United States offers a different model, having developed what political scientist Rogers Smith calls a "creedal" national identity based on shared political principles rather than ethnic or religious homogeneity. This identity emerged through historical struggle, particularly the Civil War, which rejected the South's ethno-racial definition of American nationhood in favor of Lincoln's universal principles of equality. As John Jay's narrow definition of Americans as Protestant descendants of English settlers became untenable amid growing diversity, the country gradually embraced a conception of identity centered on constitutional principles and shared civic culture. Neither pure multiculturalism nor ethno-nationalism provides a sustainable basis for national identity in diverse societies. Multiculturalism that emphasizes difference without commonality risks fragmenting society into competing groups without shared purpose. Ethno-nationalism that excludes minorities undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions and can lead to violence. The challenge is developing what political philosopher Pierre Manent calls "the community of citizens" - a framework that acknowledges cultural differences while maintaining sufficient unity for collective action. Successful national identity in diverse societies requires both institutional arrangements that promote integration and symbolic narratives that foster belonging. Countries need citizenship laws that enable newcomers to become full members of society, educational systems that teach shared civic values, and public symbols that represent the experiences of all citizens. They also need narratives of national identity capacious enough to incorporate diverse experiences while maintaining coherence.

Chapter 7: Assimilation and Immigration in the Modern Nation-State

Immigration has become the most contentious political issue across liberal democracies, driving the rise of populist movements from the United States to Europe. The percentage of foreign-born residents has reached historic highs in many countries: 13.7% in the United States, 13.4% in Germany, and 14.1% in the United Kingdom. These demographic changes raise fundamental questions about national identity and the integration of newcomers into host societies. Assimilation - the process by which immigrants adapt to their new societies - has become politically controversial. Progressive multiculturalists often reject the term entirely, seeing it as imposing dominant cultural norms on minorities. Conservatives, meanwhile, fear that traditional assimilation is failing, creating parallel societies with divergent values. Both perspectives contain partial truths while missing the complexity of successful integration. Citizenship laws represent a crucial framework for assimilation. Countries traditionally follow either jus soli (citizenship based on birth in the territory) or jus sanguinis (citizenship based on descent). The United States, Canada, and traditionally France have followed more inclusive approaches, while Germany, Japan, and many Eastern European countries have maintained more restrictive, ethnically-based citizenship. These legal frameworks powerfully shape immigrants' sense of belonging. When second or third-generation residents cannot become citizens despite speaking the national language and sharing in the national culture, integration inevitably suffers. Beyond legal frameworks, successful assimilation requires mutual accommodation. Immigrants must learn the national language, understand the country's political institutions, and accept certain foundational values such as gender equality and religious tolerance. Host societies must create genuine opportunities for newcomers, combat discrimination, and recognize that national identity will inevitably evolve as new groups are incorporated. Countries like France have struggled with this balance - promoting a republican conception of citizenship while failing to address persistent discrimination against Muslims in housing and employment. The debate over assimilation reflects deeper questions about what constitutes a nation. Is it primarily a political community defined by shared principles, or a cultural community defined by shared traditions? Liberal democracies need to articulate what political philosopher Bassam Tibi called Leitkultur - a "leading culture" based on democratic values that can serve as the foundation for integration. This must be distinguished from mere cultural preferences or traditions that immigrants might reasonably maintain or modify. Policy approaches to immigration and assimilation vary significantly across countries. Some nations maintain multicultural education systems that separate students according to background, while others emphasize common schooling. Some provide extensive language training and civic education for newcomers, while others leave integration largely to market forces. Evidence suggests that countries with clear pathways to citizenship, robust language training, and enforcement of core liberal values achieve better integration outcomes. The immigration debate is complicated by questions of numbers and pace. Even societies committed to integration have absorption capacities. Rapid demographic change can overwhelm educational systems, housing markets, and the social trust necessary for cooperation. Liberal democracies have both the right and responsibility to control their borders while fulfilling humanitarian obligations to refugees. A balanced approach recognizes legitimate concerns about integration capacity while rejecting ethno-nationalist visions that exclude minorities permanently. Building successful diverse societies requires moving beyond both unrestricted multiculturalism and reactionary nationalism. It demands citizenship laws that enable integration, educational systems that teach shared values, economic opportunities that prevent marginalization, and inclusive national narratives that acknowledge both commonality and difference. Countries that achieve this balance can harness the creative potential of diversity while maintaining the social cohesion necessary for democratic governance.

Summary

The politics of identity has become the defining feature of our age. From nationalist movements to religious extremism, from campus activism to populist uprisings, the demand for recognition of one's dignity drives political behavior in ways that purely economic models cannot explain. This phenomenon reflects both universal human psychology - our thymotic desire for respect - and specific historical developments that have transformed how we understand selfhood. The modern concept of identity, with its distinction between authentic inner selves and potentially oppressive social norms, emerged through centuries of philosophical and social evolution from Luther to Rousseau to contemporary therapeutic culture. The challenge facing liberal democracies is not to eliminate identity politics, which would be both impossible and undesirable, but to channel it toward more inclusive forms. This requires developing national identities that balance unity and diversity - creedal narratives based on shared political principles rather than ethnicity or religion, coupled with practical policies that facilitate integration. As societies become increasingly diverse through immigration and cultural change, they must resist both the fragmentation into ever-smaller identity groups and the regression toward exclusionary nationalism. By understanding the psychological depths from which identity politics springs, we can better navigate the tension between our need for recognition of our particular identities and our need for common citizenship in a democratic society.

About Author

Loading...

Francis Fukuyama

Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born 27 October 1952) is an American philosopher, political economist, and author.Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese-American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church and received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago. His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka Municipal University in Osaka. Fukuyama's childhood years were spent in New York City. In 1967 his family moved to State College, Pennsylvania, where he attended high school.Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom. He earned his Ph.D. in government from Harvard University, studying with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey C. Mansfield, among others. Fukuyama has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an educational enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg and Paul Wolfowitz.Fukuyama is currently the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, located in Washington, DC.Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism.What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.He has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original 'end of history' thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk. One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a highly desirable goal.The current revolution in biological sciences leads him to theorize that in an environment where science and technology are by no means at an end, but rather opening new horizons, history itself cannot therefore be said to be, as he once thought, at an end.In another work The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, he explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules.

Read more

Related Books by Francis Fukuyama

Loading...

Political Order and Political Decay

Francis Fukuyama

From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy

★★★★☆4.3