National identity
Bernard-Henri Lévy has an interesting post bemoaning the debate over “national identity” in France.
…the word “identity” applies to subjects, not to communities; it can be used in the plural, never in the singular. To forget that, to reduce a nation either to this collection of things in common or to this ossified catalogue of traits that are the two possible names of its supposed identity is to impoverish it, to kill it, all the while pretending to give it faith in its future.
Here Lévy uses the best liberal defense against both nationalism and relativism / multiculturalism, ironically. The easy riposte to the overeager nationalist is to say “We are a nation of many communities, ideologies, and faiths.” But the multiculturalist merely replaces one homogeneous culture with many. No one group can claim a monopoly on “identity” – the buck doesn’t stop anywhere.
So shouldn’t we just leave identity (whether religious, political, or cultural) up to individuals? I can hear Michael Sandel and the communitarians squirming already! Of course it’s not that simple; we aren’t born with fully-fledged self-concepts and we don’t just reason our way to them in a vacuum. We can, however, take care not to rigidify identity within groups, especially at the behest of their leaders. If there’s any common value worth having, it’s internal debate!
-Colin
Related posts:
- The politics of identity
- National vs. state standards for education and why it matters
- Education back on the table
- No country for identity politics
- National journal poll released
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
