Abstract

In our study, we analyse aspects of Sen’s criticism of specific interpretations of cultural identity. We shall see that, in Sen’s view, different interpretations of cultural identity can be given. The different ways in which the concept of cultural identity is interpreted correspond to different ways of living one’s culture; they are connected to different interpretations of religion and religious identity
too. Throughout Sen’s inquiry, we shall find the following interpretations of cultural identity:

• The first interpretation of cultural identity, which corresponds to Sen’s interpretation of cultural identity, considers cultural identities as the results of a plurality of components which constantly evolve (this might be defined as the flexible, dynamic, and inclusive view of identity).
• The second interpretation considers identity as rigid, complete, isolated, and given once and for all (this could be defined as the rigid and static conception of identity). The second conception of identity corresponds to the aim of producing people and groups as isolated systems.

Sen investigates the psychological mechanisms connected to the rigid interpretation of cultural identity. Individuals can be manipulated through the rigid interpretation of identity. Sen shows that the rigid interpretation of cultural identities can be used to marginalise all those who do not belong to those same cultural identities. This interpretation of the cultural identity aims to divide individuals, groups, peoples, and nations from each other. Cultural identities can be used to create a group which, as such, does not exist at all or is not so homogeneous and uniform as those who support this concept of identity aim to let appear. The group is created artificially by an artificial cultural identity.

The rigid cultural identity of some groups means the exclusion of other groups. This kind of cultural identity serves to bring about enmity between individuals, groups, nations, countries, and communities: it is thought out to produce hostility from a group towards other groups. In Sen’s view, cultural identities always result from a plurality of cultural components. Cultural identities take elements from other cultural identities. Therefore, cultural identities are not isolated systems: they are the product of a historical development which involves the participation of different individuals, groups, and cultures. Moreover, cultural identities are not made once and for all: on the contrary, cultural identities are dynamic phenomena which continuously take in new elements.

For our investigation, we shall refer to Amartya Sen’s study Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny.

1) Introduction

In our study, we shall analyse some aspects of Sen’s criticism of specific interpretations of cultural identity. We shall refer to Amartya Sen’s book Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny. We would like to introduce our inquiry with a quotation from Sen’s book:

“The insistence, if only implicitly, on a choiceless singularity of human identity not only diminishes us all, it also makes the world much more flammable. The alternative to the divisiveness of one preeminent categorization is not any unreal claim that we are all much the same. That we are not. Rather, the main hope of harmony in our troubled world lies in the plurality of our identities, which cut across each other and work against sharp divisions around one single hardened line of vehement division that allegedly cannot be resisted. Our shared humanity gets savagely challenged when our differences are narrowed into one devised system of uniquely powerful categorization.

Perhaps the worst impairment comes from the neglect – and denial – of the role of reasoning and choice, which follows from the recognition of our plural identities. The illusion of unique identity is much more divisive than the universe of plural and diverse classifications that characterize the world in which we actually live. The descriptive weakness of choiceless singularity has the effect of momentously impoverishing the power and reach of our social and political reasoning. The illusion of destiny exacts a remarkably heavy price.”

– Amartya Sen, (2006), Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny, pp.16–17

We shall see that, in Sen’s view, different interpretations of cultural identity can be given. We shall find interpretations of identity which are mutually incompatible. The incompatible concepts of identity are the following:

• The first concept considers any cultural identity as the result of many components which have had a development, have a development, and will have a development. All cultural identities as such are phenomena having a development. Cultural identities do not arise as a system which is complete once and for all. Cultural identity is as such a plurality of elements. Cultural identity, since it is something which lives, absorbs elements from other cultures. This interpretation of cultural identity is the flexible, dynamic, and inclusive view of cultural identity. Cultural identity does not exist as an absolutely original system. Since the cultural identity is a plurality of components, and since every component can receive a different degree of importance from the individual with his free choice, the cultural identity is relativised. This concept corresponds to Sen’s interpretation of identity. Culture and identity develop; they are not something rigid or static. Sen’s investigation is an attempt to protect the freedom of the individual: if the individual is considered as completely belonging to his cultural identity, his group, his nation, his culture, and his language, if the individual is considered as an entity completely determined by the previously mentioned factors, then the individual is no longer a being which can determine itself. He does not possess either mental freedom or mental free spaces. On the contrary, his mind is completely occupied by the cultural components which he has.
• The second concept of identity interprets identity as a monodimensional system. This is the rigid, static, and marginalising conception of identity. The second concept of identity corresponds to the aim of producing individuals, peoples, and groups as mutually isolated systems. This concept is connected to the political action of isolating individuals, peoples, and groups from each other: it has potential for hatred, violence, and conflicts. The cultural identity is absolutised since it is isolated from all other cultures: it is considered as something original which has never had, does not have, does not need to have, and should not have any exchange with other cultures. Cultures emerge as complete systems.

In his inquiry, Sen aims to illustrate that the possibility of a reciprocal dialogue between persons, groups and people consists in finding the intersections of the different identities. Intersections are common aspects between individuals and groups. Consequently, they are points of contact between different individuals and between different groups. If, on the other hand, a kind of society comes about that consists of parallel communities which do not want to have anything in common with each other, this society is condemned to find difficulties in the mutual communication between its citizens. This society is therefore condemned to be exposed to a climate of potential violence between the different groups.

2) Anthropology

One of the roots of the difference between the two interpretations of cultural identity consists in the interpretation which is given of the individual. The individual can be considered as being bound to the inherited traditions, or it can be considered as having different identities depending on the affiliations which he has in life:

“One of the central issues must be how human beings are seen. Should they be categorized in terms of inherited traditions, particularly the inherited religion, of the community in which they happen to be born, taking that unchosen identity to have automatic priority over other affiliations involving politics, profession, class, gender, language, literature, social involvements, and many other connections? Or should they be understood as persons with many affiliations and associations the priorities over which they must themselves choose (taking the responsibility that comes from reasoned choice)?”

– Amartya Sen, (2006), Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny, p. 150

Sen’s inquiry proves to be a detailed study of the absolutisation of cultural identity and of the psychological mechanisms connected to some interpretations of cultural identity. Throughout his investigation, Sen shows that any cultural identity can be used to marginalise all those who do not belong to a specific cultural identity. This kind of cultural identity is built to divide individuals from each other, to divide groups from each other, and to divide peoples from each other. Through his analysis, Sen is fulfilling a kind of enlightenment process: he is showing the potential destructivity which is connected to certain interpretations of cultural identity.

Sen’s analysis is a study on the complexity of concepts too. For instance, Sen shows that cultural identity is a complex concept, i.e., it consists of different components: any cultural identity is the result of processes of a development. Individuals too are complex, since they have different components in themselves, although it can happen that individuals are not aware of their complexity.
In Sen’s view, individuals can be easily manipulated. Individuals can be led to believe that they are only one element although they are, on closer inspection, not one element. Cultural identity can be used to create a group which, as such, either does not exist at all or is not homogeneous and uniform as those who plead for this concept of cultural identity aim to let appear. A group is created artificially through the invention of a cultural identity in which exclusively specific elements are isolated in order that some persons are included in the group, whereas other persons are excluded from the same group. The artificial group which is created through this artificial cultural identity is then incited against other groups. The process consists therefore in two fundamental steps:

• isolation of specific cultural elements.
• incitation of all who possess specific cultural elements against all those who do not possess these cultural elements.

This kind of cultural identity is an identity which is functional to the fomentation of enmity and hostility, of division and separation, of discord and dissension. This way of individuating groups is artificial since it isolates one element of the many elements which compose the cultural identity of a person: it is built to incite hatred of the group created through this identity against other groups [1].
Religions too can be used as a weapon if the religious identity is absolutised. The concept of cultural identity is not necessarily founded on religious faith. Nonetheless, we can find in Sen examples of conflicts due to the absolutisation of religious identities: through this process of absolutisation a religion is used against other religions; the members of religious groups are incited to hate the members of other religious groups. Thus, also religious identities can be absolutised and used to exclude all those who do not belong to a specific confession of faith from a specific religious group.[2]

[1] Sen’s interest in cultural identity primarily regards the world of adults; however, Sen’s interest is also directed to the world of children. Sen criticises, for instance, the structure of confessional schools, since confessional schools, instead of promoting integration between children belonging to different backgrounds, lock the children themselves into groups between which mutual contact is absent. Individuals should be considered primarily as individuals (and not, e.g., as members of a group). The individual is not reducible to the groups of which he is member. The individual’s belonging to a group does not mean that the individual is the property of the group to which he belongs.
[2] Religions are transformed into the exclusive cultural identity of a person, a group, or a people, as though persons, groups and people were exclusively this or that religious content, so that they were extraneous to all those who do not belong to the same confession of faith. In this way, persons, groups, and peoples are isolated from each other, as though they could not have any other cultural elements which unite them. Since an individual is exclusively his religion, he is either culturally the same as those who belong to his religion or culturally separated from all those who do not belong to his confession of faith. Therefore, he is either united to the other individual or he is irremediably divided by all other persons, as though he could not have any further cultural element which unites him with the individual who does not follow his religion. The process always functions through the reduction of an individual to an element: consequently, all the individuals who possess this element belong to the same group, all the individuals who do not possess this element are separated from the group. Those who plead for the absolute conception of identity contend that all those who are separated from a group do not have, cannot have, and can never find authentic points of contact with the group from which they are separated. Groups are, in this view, isolated systems.

Like all forms of cultural identity, religious identities can be used to exclude or marginalise people; they can be used to incite hatred against people. A way of interpreting religions as an absolute system, which is isolated and must remain isolated from all other religions, would bring about a reciprocally hostile disposition between religions which would be always ready to explode.

As mentioned, in Sen’s view, there is a precise responsibility of the individual as regards the disposition which the individual has in relation to his cultural components. The question is whether the individual aims to privilege an element of his components or whether he is ready to acknowledge himself as a being composed of different elements. This difference means, for the individuals, different ways of living their own culture: the first individual absolutises a component of his cultural identity to the detriment of all others (he denies that his identity has different components). The other individual relativises all components since he recognises that his cultural identity has many components and is the result of development. The individual’s responsibility cannot be forgotten: the individual is responsible for the way in which he lives and chooses to live his identity.

Autori: Kathrin Bouvot – Gianluigi Segalerba