8/10/2019 Identity and Democracy

1/3

TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA 14.04.2014

MCP I

I denti ty and Democracy: A Synthetic Perspective

By Amy Gutmann

In this article, the author analysis the role that the identity groups play in democratic

politics, by contrasting two opposite views, that of the school of culture and that of the

school of choice. The first view emphasizes the essential contribution that cultural groups

make to the lives of individuals in providing a sense of secure belonging and a set of scripts

that give meaning to the individual lives and warns against treating the ideal of the free and

equal person as if actual individuals could be conceived independently of any and all cultural

contexts. By contrast, the second view emphasizes the value of individual freedom from

involuntary groups, the freedom to criticize and revise culturally given identities and a

correlative right of free association. This means that the school of choice underlines the fact

that cultural groups should not be treated as being primordial or sovereign over individuals,

who are free and equal people in democratic societies.

In order to offer a clear understanding of the role of the interest groups in democratic

contexts, Gutmann divided the paper in four sections.

The first section of the article asks what identity groups are and which is the

relationship between identity and interest group politics, starting from an important question:

can identity group politics be reduced to interest group politics?An identity group is bound up with who people are and not with what they want. The

distinctive feature of the identity group is the identification of its members as a certain kind of

person. When a group of people who mutually identify around a social category act in politics

on the basis of a group identity, furthering the interests of the group or its recognition, they

are part of identity group politics.

So, identity groups are socially constructed. However, many people change their

ascriptive identities over time and to account for such change, political scientist elaborated a

rational-choice theory about the social construction of identity, suggesting that people retain

or change their social identities according to what best satisfies their interests. This does not

mean that identity politics is reducible to interest politics, but it means that identities and

interests interact.

Peoples identification with one another influences their sense of what they want and

individuals who identify with others are better able to organize politically. Organized groups

can be far more politically effective than an equal number of unallied citizens, thats why

group identity matters so much in democratic politics.

8/10/2019 Identity and Democracy

2/3

TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA 14.04.2014

MCP I

The second section of the article presents the view of the school of culture on the role

of group identity in democratic politics. The social cultures of modern societies not only

inform and structure peoples choices, but they also shape peoples desires and needs for

social recognition, which represents the need for individual identities to be politically

recognized. People reasonably want to be reciprocally recognized in their cultural

particularity and not only as human beings. Starting from this idea, an important question is

raised: how can a societal culture unfairly advantage or diadvantage different groups?

In a democratic society, there are many subordinate identity groups whose members

are identified with a different culture from the dominant one. Because the dominant culture is

public, it affects the life of everyone who inhabits society. Government conducts its business,

public school teach and the mass media broadcast in the dominant language, creating a

disadvantage for the other groups. The school of culture defends some special rights for

members of otherwise disadvantaged cultural groups, a fact which becomes problematic for a

democracy.

Another important idea is that, taken at its strongest, the school of culture recognizes

that there is no group right to subordinate individuals to societal culture by violating their

basic rights. At its weakest, it raises indefensible obstacles to vindicating the basic rights of

members and nonmembers of cultural groups.

The cultural groups must be able to interact politically and economically with people

outside their groups and people outside the groups with them. However, this interaction

affects the liberty, opportunity and civic standing of both ousiders and insiders to these

groups, since each depends on the other to ensure the equal protection of rights.

The third section of the article presents the view of the school of choice on the role of

group identity in democratic politics. The basic idea of the school of choice is represented by

the freedom of individuals to identify and live as they like, not as anyone else determines. The

people need to be politically recognized not for their particular group identities but rather as

bearers of equal rights, among which are equal citizenship and freedom of association.

Nevertheless, the school of choice recognizes the fact that the freedom of individuals

is limited by socialization and social context. A special attention is given to the value of free

association, which depends not on whether human identity is independent of causality but

rather on whether individuals are accorded the freedom within a democratic context to

identify as they themselves see fit not as government determines for them. This freedom

depends on whether individuals are free to enter and exit association at their own will, rathertham someone elses. However, associations that prejudicially exclude people on the basis of

8/10/2019 Identity and Democracy

3/3

TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA 14.04.2014

MCP I

their race, gender, ethnicity and other ascriptive characteristics are a source of negative

identity politics. Moreover, the right to enter and to exist from an association are seen as

being problematic, because they can also limit the rights.

In the last section of the article the author raises the question of how missing identities

might alter democratic landscape. Gutmann suggests that even if the two schools of thought

have opposing views, they can converge in political substance, because we can see that both

perspectives depend on valuing individual freedom in the context of cultural differences that

are not simply a matter of choice. Furthermore, it seems that both perspectives tend to neglect

the critical role that democratic processes, institutions and ideals play in selecting and

mobilizing some group identities rather than others.

The author presents the synthetic perspective, which defends the idea that individual

freedom is always exercised within social constraints, but those constraints are not static

given the fact that they can change over time, with the exercise of individual freedom of

association.

A synthetic perspective avoids conflating the identity of a community with that of the

individuals who are part of that community, but it also refuses to isolate individuals from their

social contexts, to reduce their interests to self-welfare or to assume that facially neutral laws

suffice to protect the basic rights and civic equality of individuals. The humanist synthesis

attends to the dynamic interaction between political institutions and group identities. The

interaction between democracy and identity should mean not assuming that the best way of

defending our values is to repress challenges to them, rather to find ways of bringing those

who disagree with us into a more equal and potentially constructive relationship.

Democratic society can benefit from the addition of some group identities that are now

missing or are relatively underrepresented. The presence of some missing identities would

push democracy in the direction of a greater justice. Democratic politics needs people who

identify as humanists for political purposes and are therefore prepared to act collectively and

consistentl with humanist discourse.

Gutmann concludes her article by emphasizing the fact that theorists need to think

about ways in which politics that necessarily depends on groups can work to better secure

liberty and opportunity for all individuals, not only for the most powerful groups.