Identity and conflict

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Isaac Levi

IDENTITY AND VALUES

AMARTYA SEN WISELY REMINDS US OF A FAMILIAR FACT: ALL AGENTS carry many different "identifies." X may be a US citizen, a Democrat, a secular humanist, a father, a husband, a grandfather, bureaucrat, and a great many other things. (1)

As Sen recognizes, to say that all agents carry many different identities should not be equated with the banal observation that each of us possesses many different characteristics at a given time and over time. An agent identifies only with some of the groups with whom the agent shares traits in common. These are the groups who have an influence "on what we value and how we behave" (Sen, 2006: 20).

Sen has long been a critic of attitudes among economists concerned with explaining and predicting behavior in terms of self-interest even if such interest is generous enough to include interest in the welfare of others or interest in promoting the goals of others. The values promoted by decisionmakers can vary. They may become affiliated with institutions, ethnic or religious groups, with their country, profession, their families in ways that run counter to their personal goals no matter how altruistic the latter may or may not be. They may conform to the requirements of some moral code or code of honor. Doing any one of these things may entail considerable self-sacrifice. We need not insist on a view as to how widespread this behavior is in order to acknowledge that such behavior counts for a considerable portion of both routine and deliberate behavior. According to Sen, having an identity is an affiliation with a group and commitment to a code of conduct or system of value commitments associated with the affiliation.

Sen points out that the classical model of rational economic man may be described as urging a monomaniacal insistence on a single affiliation. Rational X affiliates with the group (typically a unit set) committed to promoting X's self-interest. Affiliating with the value commitments of a single group is a feature rational economic man shares in common with fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews of the more fanatical varieties who express loyalty exclusively to their religious groups or to the God who is the alleged object of adoration.

According to Sen, most of us have many affiliations. In some contexts, some are more salient than others. Even where loyalty to several affiliations is called for, it is often feasible to gratify the demands of all of them. Where it is not feasible, the need to prioritize the several identities can lead to conflict within a single individual or group or to violent struggle between groups. Sen denies that violent struggle is inevitable. He contends, however, that recognition of the multiple affiliations that agents have presents an opportunity to replace violent struggle with deliberate choice of resolutions of conflict based on reasoned deliberation where the conflicting demands of competing identities are weighed and evaluated.

This is not an excessively optimistic view of identity politics. Sen does not predict that agents with multiple affiliations will seize the opportunities for avoiding violent struggle and choosing the path of reasoned deliberation. He points out that the many identities that agents have is an opportunity for exercising reasoned choice. And he seeks to encourage the exercise of such opportunities. But he does not predict that agents will take advantage of these opportunities.

Some aspects of Sen's admirable attitude call for closer scrutiny. One way of "seeing oneself" is, as Sen points out, through an appeal to history and background. It is not the only way, but it is one way. However, it is far from clear that this way of seeing oneself entails devotion to any particular code of conduct or network of value commitments. No doubt one's upbringing inculcates certain values. But one can retain identification with one's family, ethnicity, and background without endorsing those values. I was brought up to be a moderately observant Jew and a Zionist. I am now a nonbeliever without any particular attachment to Jewish religious practice or the state of Israel. Although there are Jews who would allege that I am no longer Jewish, others would insist otherwise and allege that I indulge in self-hate. I regard myself as Jewish and so would most of my acquaintances, whether Jewish or not, who think about it. I do not see any of the value commitments to which I subscribe as being particularly connected with this identity. Perhaps my affection for my extended family is caught up in this, but I doubt it. In having family connections, I am no different than others who have different ethnic or religious affiliation. It may be argued that there is a difference in culture involved, in style or aesthetic sensibility. But if there is, it is not very significant. Yet, I would resist the allegation that I am not Jewish. If there were another outburst of Nazi style anti-Semitism I would, like Henri Bergson, voluntarily wear the Jewish star. Perhaps, that is what my Jewish identity amounts to in the way of a code of conduct.