More Tensions to Manage
In his book The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time[1], Yascha Mounk outlines his belief that to right the wrongs of injustices, society has over-swung the pendulum in the opposite direction and in the process, has abdicated many of the liberal foundations that served as building blocks for modern-day democracy. He coins the phrase Identity Synthesis as a classification of this over-compensation and outlines his theory of how this dysfunction has accelerated over the past ten years, propelled by forces such as social media, trends in higher education and the political climate surrounding the 2016 election. By oversimplifying the most complex parts of the human experience, we are treating the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. [2]
Before I go any further in my treatment of Mounk’s work, I am compelled to share that as I was mulling over this book during our break, I discovered that just thinking about writing this blog made me apprehensive. As someone who would be categorized as falling into the class of both white and privileged, I am nervous to make any declarative statements. Today’s polarized society can magnify and take offence so easily, despite the good intentions behind the comments. With that in mind, dear cohort, please be gracious with me as I clumsily clobber forward with my thinking. In fact, it is just this type of controversy that we need to be able to discuss more openly. Empowering such conversations is the intended goal of my doctoral project. One of the things that I believe can help with dialogue in such situations is to approach with wonder and curiosity rather than declarations, so you will see that I have reverted to posing questions to highlight areas that caught my attention.
Does Yascha Mounk’s own lived experience give him an important or authoritative view on identity?
When reading a counter-cultural voice such as Mounk’s, I find myself wanting to know more about the author. A quick Wikipedia search informs us that he was born and raised in Munich by a Jewish mother whose family had been impacted by the Holocaust and had herself been forced to flee Poland due to Jewish persecution. Mounk states that he never felt accepted by his home country as a “true German.”[3] Someone with a generational family history of racially-based persecution who is still attempting to temper what he refers to as “woke culture[4]” catches my attention. As a naturalized American citizen, Mounk is not claiming that injustices to various groups have not taken place, or that they continue to take place. Rather, he is challenging how society is attempting to right these wrongs.
What do other’s say about this view?
It is not hard to connect Mounk’s work to that of Fukuyama’s book Identity where he provides sobering assessment of how we are treating each other: “Identity politics thus engenders its own dynamic, by which societies divide themselves into smaller and smaller groups by virtue of their particular ‘lived experience’ of victimization.” [5]
As these groups get smaller and smaller, Fukuyama says that our loneliness and isolation increases. He also asserts that these identities are being manipulated by those in leadership, to advance their own political aspirations rather than in altruistic support of the betterment of the groups in question.[6]
What are the reigning norms of society and are they in harmony with democratic ideals?
The most interesting part of this book for me appeared in Part 3, where Mounk goes into great detail to unpack what he has categorized as “reigning norms of mainstream society” that are attempting to “achieve identity synthesis.” These norms include Standpoint theory, Cultural appropriation, Limits on free speech, Progressive separatism and Identity-sensitive public policy.[7] Clearly, I do not have time to unpack each of these norms in detail, but they grabbed my attention in part because I have seen them all at play in my own context, and I can see how, when taken to their extreme, they do conflict with the values of our democracy.
Why is Mounk referring to “Liberalism” as a solution?
I was not anticipating that an author who was challenging a “woke” worldview to found his argument on a defense of liberalism[8], and yet, throughout his work, Mounk is referencing a Liberal Democracy as an antidote to the disfunctions caused by identity synthesis. He outlines them as the following:
- “no one has an inherent right to rule”
- “each of us should have the right to determine what we wish to say, which relationships to pursue, and how and whether we wish to worship”
- “laws that are legitimate because they are derived from the will of the people need to leave key decisions about how to live, whom to worship, and what to say up to each individual”
- “a government that takes the equality of its citizens seriously will also refrain from privileging some (groups of) citizens over others”[9]
One last question:
In the Christian community, how do we strike the right balance in the tension between not causing further segregating while still seeing and honoring the experiences of others?
In this cohort, we have already uncovered areas of tension where, if we take too extreme of a view on either side of the debate, we get out of balance. It is not surprising that the flaws that Mounk highlights are products of our institutions, as last term we spent time uncovering the limitations of human institutions such as the Church and capitalism. I am not ready to completely abandon the need for those of us living with privilege to make accommodations to those without such opportunities and yet we need to continue to think carefully about how we are creating new forms of segregation and isolation.
_______________
[1] Yascha Mounk, “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time” (New York: Penguin Press, 2023).
[2] Yascha Mounk – Cultural Appropriation, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQWqm_6cuYo.
[3] “Yascha Mounk,” in Wikipedia, December 24, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yascha_Mounk&oldid=1191560279.
[4] “Yascha Mounk,” 9.
[5] Francis Fukuyama, “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment” (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018). 164.
[6] Fukuyama, 7.
[7] Mounk, “The Identity Trap,” 129–31.
[8] As an aside: His characterization of a liberal worldview is so drastically different than how liberals have been characterized in my imagination. I have always had an association of “liberal” being synonymous with far-left leaning and ascribing to a particular political party. This concept of liberal being historically founded in the distinctive qualities of a democratic society is a new lens for me.
[9] Mounk, “The Identity Trap,” 256.
About the Author
Jennifer Vernam
9 responses to “More Tensions to Manage”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jen, You wrote:
Why is Mounk referring to “Liberalism” as a solution?
I was not anticipating that an author who was challenging a “woke” worldview to found his argument on a defense of liberalism.
As I unpack Mounk’s book and thesis this week, I am asking the same question so I can understand. In fact, he refers to universalism as guiding light. What does he mean exactly when he uses that term? What have you understood him to say?
Thank you for asking questions in your post as you gain an understanding of where you stand with this book.
It was surprising, wasn’t it? I have to do more research on this, but I think that he is inferring that the term liberal has been mis-applied in current day politics to identify a political party. On from pages 258-9 of his book, I recorded the following notes:
“Why the Core Principles of Liberalism Help to Create Thriving Societies
1. A commitment to collective self-determination helps to avoid the worst forms of government abuse.
2. A commitment to individual freedom helps to keep the peace.
3. A commitment to government neutrality helps to avert the most destructive forms of intergroup competition…And they encourage citizens to see those of their compatriots who belong to groups that are different in some salient way as competitors, even enemies. Thankfully, governments can reduce the danger of these pitfalls by binding themselves to universal values and neutral rules.”
This description, to me, seems more in line with what made the United States of America unique when it was originally created. Here is a link to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_liberalism where liberalism is describes it as:
“the belief in freedom, equality, democracy and human rights, is historically associated with thinkers such as John Locke and Montesquieu, and with constitutionally limiting the power of the monarch, affirming parliamentary supremacy, passing the Bill of Rights and establishing the principle of ‘consent of the governed’. The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy—the declaration stated that ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.”
As always, brilliant.
You asked, “In the Christian community, how do we strike the right balance in the tension between not causing further segregating while still seeing and honoring the experiences of others?”
I was speaking with Dr. Clark about the “third space.” I believe that means the place where the church can see both sides of an issue and respond with a biblical/loving/Christ like response.
I am hoping to engage this third space for my immigration symposium, in of all places, TEXAS.
Sigh…storms ahead.
Shalom.
I like this idea of a “third space.”
Over the holiday, I learned about the idea of primary, secondary and tertiary doctrine. I want to understand this more, but I believe that primary theology would be around the core essentials and secondary areas would be those that may cause division into varying denominations…. as we move through these layers of doctrine, getting farther and farther from essential issues, are there increasing options for this “third way?”
Certainly something I must learn more about for my work.
Wow, thanks.
You raise some great questions and provide sound assessments, but in this comment I wanted to focus on this:
“With that in mind, dear cohort, please be gracious with me as I clumsily clobber forward with my thinking.”
I pastor a very racially diverse congregation and when issues come up that I feel unqualified to speak into but that as a pastor I need to lead us to prayer over, I’ve occasionally sat down with my legs hanging over the platform and just said “I know I don’t understand. I know there’s pain. I know our world is broken. Let’s figure this out together. Let’s go to Jesus together. Let’s love each other. Let’s be the one place in LA that isn’t divided among racial lines today”.
I honestly feel unworthy as I “clumsily clobber forward with my pastoring”, but afterwords I’ve had non white congregates in tears thanking me for my position and humility.
Jen I see that humility in you even as you communicate with clarity, conviction and brilliant critical thinking. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing, Tim.
I honestly can not think of another way to approach these really knotty issues we are having to address in society today: in community, with sensitivity, curiosity and a prayerful attitude.
Do you think those sitting in the pews are looking for that from leaders, or are they expecting you to have all the answers?
Some ARE looking for you to have all the answers…or maybe more accurately, are looking for the pastor to have the same answers they already believe. Those are usually the loud ones.
I think the silent majority are thrilled for a leader to respond that way. I do hear from some, but at the end of the day, regardless, we have to be honest, authentic and model what it looks like to follow Jesus even if it doesn’t line up with popular political opinion.
I’m struck by your connection of Christian community and honoring the experiences of others (or if that wasn’t exactly what you were saying, that’s where my mind went). We’ve seen over and over again that the antidote to tribalism is entering into relationship with those who are not like us. And we certainly can’t do that if we increasingly segregate ourselves into smaller and smaller groups and subcultures.
I’m thinking back over my past experiences of the last 10 or so years and I’m grateful for those relationships that have helped me see, even a little bit, through someone else’s eyes. I think most, if not all, of those experiences have happened in the context of Christian community.
Well done, Jen. A couple of things stand out / come to mind from your post. First, you took the route of asking good questions rather than pursuing a direction so many people seem to take (from both sides). Too many people want to take a path of moralism, making declarative (“this is what one should do instead of…”) statements, or even shaming the other side. Whereas too many people want to take a zero-sum approach (winners and losers), your approach invites conversation and creates a larger space for healthy disagreement.
Second, I too was a bit surprised (at first) at Mounk’s argument for liberalism in response to the “identity synthesis,” but after I read his definition, it made a ton of sense. You captured a key premise of philosophical liberalism from the book toward this argument: “‘laws that are legitimate because they are derived from the will of the people need to leave key decisions about how to live, whom to worship, and what to say up to each individual.’” Our current moment (is “current moment” a tired phrase?) seems to foster something else, something akin to a virtuous “side” and a non-virtuous side that should be “cancelled” or punished.