The Two Types of Group Identities
Much of today’s discourse is framed around the concept of group identity. Diversity, BLM, LBGTQ, and white privilege are all concepts based in assigning people to groups. America has always had challenges living up to the motto on our Great Seal, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. The 1889 cartoon from Puck was about how the Irish were the one immigrant group unable to assimilate with other groups in our idealized melting pot.
There can be no doubt that humans are social animals and members of groups. We start with our family and join many groups over our lives, school and religious communities, neighborhoods, companies and industry groups, unions, and philanthropic groups. Some choose to be Yankee fans – others Red Sox fans.
Alexis de Tocqueville was amazed at the variety “voluntary associations” he found on his 1831 tour of America. He felt that these groups protected us against both tyranny of the majority and excessive individualism.
Social media has undoubtedly contributed to our separation into groups with curated news feeds and commentary that inflames dislike of “the other.” In addition, the pandemic has taken away much of our in-person interaction. We have become a society fixated on deciding who are the good and who are the bad.
Political discourse has come to a point where many assign moral status on the basis of group identity. Group identity assumes that all members of a given group are the same. This assumption is, at best, a massive oversimplification of the complexity of actual people. How can we square the concepts of group identity with individual choice and free will?
When considering moral questions, we should distinguish between group identities based on personal choice and group identities based on factors outside of a person’s control (such as nation of birth, gender or skin color). It is easy to see how nonsensical it is to make moral judgements based on whether a person was born in Ireland or Mexico, born male of female or the color of their skin. However, it is perfectly sensible to make moral judgments based on voluntary choices, such as joining the Neo-Nazis. The distinction between groups identified by accident of birth compared to groups joined by choice thus becomes apparent.
Assuming that a person has a specific set of beliefs or has acted in specific ways, based on their skin color or gender without actual knowledge, is a recipe for tearing America apart. We should all be more thoughtful in our interactions with our fellow Americans, giving the benefit of the doubt and entering conversations in a spirit of good will.
If you liked this content, please click the like button to help other readers find Comments From Connecticut