Scan barcode
alok_pandey's review against another edition
2.0
The more I read Fukuyama, the more I feel his understanding of anything he writes on is very limited or constricted. He would choose an interesting topic, starts off well but someway in between, loses pace or the track itself. I also feel his understanding of political concept still carries a lot of western bias.
For this book, everything was okay-ish as long as the diagnosis of the issue is concerned(sure, it had its own flaws) but I was left really unimpressed with the solutions he proposed.
For this book, everything was okay-ish as long as the diagnosis of the issue is concerned(sure, it had its own flaws) but I was left really unimpressed with the solutions he proposed.
micahhortonhallett's review against another edition
3.0
Political centrist (maybe Just slightly left of centrist?) Francis Fukuyama offers his critique on the rise of identity politics from the moment Martin Luther nailed his opinions on a door to the globalised society of the present day. Fukuyama sets out to rationalise the splintering of left wing politics into ever smaller cadres competing over degrees of marginalisation, and the resurgence of a hard-right that manages to suppress their individual differences in order to to be really mean to people. And to a degree he succeeds.
In order for his thesis to work however, he has a tendency to overlook some stuff. Firstly- he identifies radical Islam as being an international movement while absolutely failing to identify a corollary in pan national white militant christian organisations. He identifies the resurgence of nationalism- but in terms of the west he confines the allegiance to individual nation states ignoring the validity of a European derived "traditional" western hegemonic cultural identity that transcends borders. This is just one (not unexpected) example of an inherent bias toward English/American models of participatory nationalist democracy. There are others.
Then in his solutions he spruiks the continuing need for a shared national identity as long as the world continues to be nation states. Fair enough.
One of his primary mechanisms for achieving this though, is compulsory national service- civil or military. Having already identified in his first chapter the disenfranchisement of voters across the political spectrum. How are we, as citizens, to give our service into the hands of a political class without being able to trust that our lives would not be squandered, or our labour not be used to further enrich those who already hold a massively disproportionate amount of capital and resources? Short answer is that we can't. So where to then?
In order for his thesis to work however, he has a tendency to overlook some stuff. Firstly- he identifies radical Islam as being an international movement while absolutely failing to identify a corollary in pan national white militant christian organisations. He identifies the resurgence of nationalism- but in terms of the west he confines the allegiance to individual nation states ignoring the validity of a European derived "traditional" western hegemonic cultural identity that transcends borders. This is just one (not unexpected) example of an inherent bias toward English/American models of participatory nationalist democracy. There are others.
Then in his solutions he spruiks the continuing need for a shared national identity as long as the world continues to be nation states. Fair enough.
One of his primary mechanisms for achieving this though, is compulsory national service- civil or military. Having already identified in his first chapter the disenfranchisement of voters across the political spectrum. How are we, as citizens, to give our service into the hands of a political class without being able to trust that our lives would not be squandered, or our labour not be used to further enrich those who already hold a massively disproportionate amount of capital and resources? Short answer is that we can't. So where to then?
jwsg's review against another edition
3.0
How does one explain the trend towards populist nationalism in international politics - the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the not insubstantial support he continued to receive in 2020; the vote for Brexit, Erdogan in Turkey, Duterte in the Philippines, to name a few examples? The title of Fukuyama's book - Identity - sums up his thesis.
We generally think of political life as centering on the control and allocation of economic resources - who should receive subsidies and other support, who should get taxed or receive tax breaks, for instance. Fukuyama argues that contemporary political life is more often concerned with "assertions about dignity" - who is recognised and given status in society.
Pre-democratic societies like the Athens of Socrates gave recognition to a select group of elites. Modernization, by contrast, has brought with it the notion that all individuals are fundamentally capable of exercising moral choice and therefore equally deserving of dignity and to share in the exercise of political choice and power. As such, "contemporary identity politics is driven by the quest for equal recognition by groups that have been marginalized by their societies". (Side note: Fukuyama notes that "authoritarian governments…fail to recognise the equal dignity of their citizens. They may pretend to do so through flowery constitutions such as those in China or Iran that list copious citizen rights, but where the reality is different. In relatively benevolent dictatorships, such as those of LKY in Singapore…the state adopted a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens. Ordinary people were regarded as children who needed protection from a wise parent, the state; they could not be trusted to run their own affairs").
Second, our modern conception of identity creates anxieties when we feel this conception is coming under threat in some way. This concept of identity as we understand it today would not have arisen in traditional human societies; who you were was very much determined by the family and village you were born into. Modernization offered individuals the beguiling prospect that they could define themselves - by moving to another city, taking on a new occupation, climbing the social ladder, for instance. Yet, this freedom generated anxieties of its own - over the authenticity of that identity (the authenticity of an acquired identity from growing up in a colonial context, vs indigenous traditions; the identity of an immigrant who has assimilated vs retaining traditional cultural practices) and the recognition and respect one receives, whatever one's (chosen) identity.
Third, Fukuyama points out that the contemporary left, in trying to speak to this politics of identity and dignity, has "focussed on ever smaller groups being marginalised in specific ways" instead of "building solidarity around large collectives such as the working class or the economically exploited". He attributes this to the rise of the "therapeutic society", where there was a growing belief that building individual self-esteem was key in maximising human and societal potential. Hence the connection now forged between democracy, recognition, dignity and self-esteem.
So what to do about this? Fukuyama stresses that we need a more inclusive and integrative conception of identity - one that is not based on fixed characteristics like race, ethnicity and religion but a "creedal identity" based on shared values and aspirations. This must then be reinforced through public education, distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.
We generally think of political life as centering on the control and allocation of economic resources - who should receive subsidies and other support, who should get taxed or receive tax breaks, for instance. Fukuyama argues that contemporary political life is more often concerned with "assertions about dignity" - who is recognised and given status in society.
Pre-democratic societies like the Athens of Socrates gave recognition to a select group of elites. Modernization, by contrast, has brought with it the notion that all individuals are fundamentally capable of exercising moral choice and therefore equally deserving of dignity and to share in the exercise of political choice and power. As such, "contemporary identity politics is driven by the quest for equal recognition by groups that have been marginalized by their societies". (Side note: Fukuyama notes that "authoritarian governments…fail to recognise the equal dignity of their citizens. They may pretend to do so through flowery constitutions such as those in China or Iran that list copious citizen rights, but where the reality is different. In relatively benevolent dictatorships, such as those of LKY in Singapore…the state adopted a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens. Ordinary people were regarded as children who needed protection from a wise parent, the state; they could not be trusted to run their own affairs").
Second, our modern conception of identity creates anxieties when we feel this conception is coming under threat in some way. This concept of identity as we understand it today would not have arisen in traditional human societies; who you were was very much determined by the family and village you were born into. Modernization offered individuals the beguiling prospect that they could define themselves - by moving to another city, taking on a new occupation, climbing the social ladder, for instance. Yet, this freedom generated anxieties of its own - over the authenticity of that identity (the authenticity of an acquired identity from growing up in a colonial context, vs indigenous traditions; the identity of an immigrant who has assimilated vs retaining traditional cultural practices) and the recognition and respect one receives, whatever one's (chosen) identity.
Third, Fukuyama points out that the contemporary left, in trying to speak to this politics of identity and dignity, has "focussed on ever smaller groups being marginalised in specific ways" instead of "building solidarity around large collectives such as the working class or the economically exploited". He attributes this to the rise of the "therapeutic society", where there was a growing belief that building individual self-esteem was key in maximising human and societal potential. Hence the connection now forged between democracy, recognition, dignity and self-esteem.
So what to do about this? Fukuyama stresses that we need a more inclusive and integrative conception of identity - one that is not based on fixed characteristics like race, ethnicity and religion but a "creedal identity" based on shared values and aspirations. This must then be reinforced through public education, distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.
pransu_123's review against another edition
5.0
The book unlocks the history of identity politics to the future based on different thinkers and examples existent around the same. Identity and the movements associated with it is largely prevalent throughout the contemporary world that primarily boils down to the protection of emotion of pride and dignity, be it in case of Indian BJP movement or in the wars between Israel Palestine. This tends to pose multiple repercussions given the liberal purview it has, often indicating growth as it's positive side yet the recession caused in the developed nations posed by it.
A book talking about the politics of resentment, dignity and identity which was difficult to be put down. Extremely insightful and critical.
Definitely the best read to end 2023!
A book talking about the politics of resentment, dignity and identity which was difficult to be put down. Extremely insightful and critical.
Definitely the best read to end 2023!
whitneyiles's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting read, good reflection on the times but lacked originality.
sterlinglacroix's review against another edition
3.0
Ever wonder what the term "identity politics" means? This book gives a breakdown of the meaning. It takes you back to humanity's most famous philosophers and how we understand that every human needs to be shown dignity and respect. Ultimately, identity politics arises when a group of same minded people feel like they are losing those values in society. The book suggests that instead of identifying ourselves together as Christian, straight, gay, white, black, etc. we should be working together and identify ourselves as supporters of democracy and pride in our nation.
davidgilani's review against another edition
2.0
Warning, this didn't start as a rant... but it turned into one.
I had a lot of issues with this book. It is a fascinating topic and I feel like there are lots of great points made, so perhaps just 2 stars is a little harsh. However, this book has so much wrong with it. There is so much focus on the 'failures' of the political left for the growth in identity politics, however it completely fails to realise / discuss how the political right have lived on identity politics for decades and centuries. In the legal exclusion of women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people - the right have been the ones who, up until very recently in the grand scheme of things, have made laws excluding these groups from equality in one way or another. To assume that the removal of these legal exclusions (in some western countries) now means that everyone will suddenly be equal is naive - and therefore to blame the left for identity politics now just seems a bit ridiculous.
What this book could have covered to be much more interesting was how the terms around 'identity politics' have been co-opted and utilised by the political right as a way to turn these groups against each other and therefore to keep the 'economic agenda' off what people are talking about (just look at the farce around critical race theory that is currently happening in the US).
I had a lot of issues with this book. It is a fascinating topic and I feel like there are lots of great points made, so perhaps just 2 stars is a little harsh. However, this book has so much wrong with it. There is so much focus on the 'failures' of the political left for the growth in identity politics, however it completely fails to realise / discuss how the political right have lived on identity politics for decades and centuries. In the legal exclusion of women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people - the right have been the ones who, up until very recently in the grand scheme of things, have made laws excluding these groups from equality in one way or another. To assume that the removal of these legal exclusions (in some western countries) now means that everyone will suddenly be equal is naive - and therefore to blame the left for identity politics now just seems a bit ridiculous.
What this book could have covered to be much more interesting was how the terms around 'identity politics' have been co-opted and utilised by the political right as a way to turn these groups against each other and therefore to keep the 'economic agenda' off what people are talking about (just look at the farce around critical race theory that is currently happening in the US).
liberrydude's review against another edition
3.0
A nice fusion of philosophy, psychology, and political science. And you learn some new words like traduce and thymos. I had found his much publicized book on the end of history rather obtuse but this is much sharper although it does have some moments of dryness. It has a timeliness as well as an urgency too.
Identity as an individual has given way to shared identity by groups of like individuals. Nationalism and religion exploit these unions and social media has given them a disproportionate loud speaker. Identity is shaping every debate. You could compromise on an issue but you can’t compromise on identity. Fukuyama takes us through American and European political systems. There’s a lot of meat here in this short book that could be a college course. He offers solutions but I’m not as optimistic for the future.
Identity as an individual has given way to shared identity by groups of like individuals. Nationalism and religion exploit these unions and social media has given them a disproportionate loud speaker. Identity is shaping every debate. You could compromise on an issue but you can’t compromise on identity. Fukuyama takes us through American and European political systems. There’s a lot of meat here in this short book that could be a college course. He offers solutions but I’m not as optimistic for the future.
almamalmberg's review against another edition
5.0
Had to read it for class, I have notes on it so I probably did but don't remember it (could have asked someone for notes but cannot for the life of me remember)