TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA

MCP I

14.04.2014

Identity 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.

TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA

MCP I

14.04.2014

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, rather
tham someone elses. However, associations that prejudicially exclude people on the basis of

TANASA ANDREEA MIRUNA

MCP I

14.04.2014

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.