but consider identity as non-negotiable, something that defines the group one
belongs to as much as oneself. In the political arena, identity arguments are often
presented as irreducible ‘reasons’ for defending a position: ‘Because we are Xs,
we (should) have the right to (not) do Y.’ Questioning the rationality of such a
position is difficult; for when your identity is at stake, nobody can expect you to
give in.
The conceptual mistake is to treat the meaning of the term ‘identity’ as if it were
the same in referring to individuals and to groups. This is not nitpicking about
semantics. At issue is the danger of undue generalization and discrimination.
Because of this confusion and because identity arguments appeal to emotions,
they are not falsifiable. Identity arguments have two complementary parts, ‘we
are different’ and ‘you are different’, which makes it all but impossible to evade
them. If you insist on having an identity, I cannot easily say, ‘I can do without
one’.
Justin Trudeau tried to do just that, spelling out an antidote to exclusionist
identity politics. After becoming prime minister in 2015, he declared that
Canada would be the first ‘post-national state’. ‘There is no core identity, no
mainstream in Canada’, he said. This is an ambitious policy statement. In the
neighbouring US, like Canada an immigrant country, a similar statement would
be unlikely to fall on fertile ground (Figure 9). Too deeply entrenched is the idea
that one has to attach oneself to a group identity to counteract individualism and
total isolation in the globalized world.