Fukuyama’s argument consists of three parts: the need for social recognition is a major source of identity politics; the death of religion and the beginning of therapeutic culture in the West gave rise to the height of identity politics; and finally, we need to build a universal identity based on liberal democratic values (the rule of law, human equality, constitutionalism) to mitigate the downfalls of IP.
Overall, this book is disappointing. However, I point out that analysing the origin of identity politics and offering some kind of mid-way solution to its current issues is tricky work, as it involves various cultures and sociological considerations. Factors such as the role of culture and languages in an identity, what it means to disregard them in pursuit of a more cosmopolitan one and the practicality of building a universal value consensus among different ethnic groups are keys to justify the soundness of the solution. To suggest using liberal democratic values as a base to construct state identity, the author should have articulated some aspects of aforementioned elements, because there are studies showing trust between people is highly determined by languages, race and cultural background. What can be the ground for a universal state identity if cultural aspects are dismissed? Hence, I am unconvinced by the solution to modern identity crisis.
The title seems to indicate this book addresses a lot of what’s been happening: Brexit, Trump’s attack on inclusive values and the non-stopping protests among minority groups. It does starts off well but gradually loses it. I would give a solid three-starts to the first few chapters, where Fufuyama articulates how human dignity and their need to strive for social recognition and solidarity is more influential to contemporary politics rather than economic conditions and material gains. This part does picture quite a convincing narrative to look at similar events happened throughout the last two decades (e.g. Arab Spring, MeToo movement, and the UK nationalism etc). And it also offers an interesting perspective to think about the causation between political correctness and identity crisis. When identities are democratised in an institution that values respect and citizen equality, little space is left for more genuine discussion on the issue of foreign culture assimilation. These issues, nonetheless, are not something incredibly new to me. So, the central argument seems somewhat like a no-brainer.
The inadequate part is its coherency and depth. What I do look for in this book is a more detailed investigation of how some of the components mentioned in the book – the inside and outside the self, the need for social recognition and solidarity – originate and mature in contemporary politics. A good reader would wish to understand why psychology element matters in identity politics, not to be simply told that they do matter. I also expect some statistical evidence presented to support the argument, besides general outlining of Locke, Kant, Hegel and Hobbes. The reason why the author picked only some of the historical big names such as Rousseau as central philosophical characters is left unexplained, which makes his devoting a lot of pages to explaining philosophical ideas a complete waste of pages. Where does his epistemological and methodological stance lie?
Lastly, the idea of liberal democracy is hugely taken for granted here. I was left with a feeling that there is an agenda behind the whole book, which is to defend and strengthen the values of liberal democracy (even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this). Fukuyama argues that although in some authoritarian countries such as China, the unity of national identity helps facilitates its growth, liberal democracy is the most sensible solution because it is the only system that offers what humans desire: equality, the freedom to voice one’s needs and the space to strive for broader social recognition. But the ironic thing is, it is in the liberal democracy that identity politics grew sour. In dictatorships such as China, the shared national identity remains strong albeit instilled politically. This end up causing me to question again the utility of mentioning political systems at all.
I am hence unsure about the purpose of the book. Is it a cultural critique of the Western society, an analysis of philosophical texts under a contemporary context, or advocacy of liberal democratic values? These are big themes to discuss and require a good level of focus. For sure the author can say all, but the chapters do not do justice to it.
Siming Lan 