The Identity Trap by Yascha Mounk (Review)
As I read The Identity Trap, I found myself thinking about Sandra Day O’Connor’s struggle with Grutter v. Bollinger, the Michigan affirmative-action cases. In his biography of Justice O’Connor, Evan Thomas describes her struggle with the case. Her roots as an Arizona rancher instilled a deep sense of rugged individualism. After a career of being marginalized as a woman, she was wary of system that emphasized race or gender over our shared traits and a more objective pursuit of excellence. Yet she was also a pragmatist who recognized that the country was not yet color-blind. She lived on the fulcrum of these competing pursuits.
In The Identity Trap, Yascha Mounk explores this same tension and attempts to chart a forward path. He argues that modern identity politics can take on a paradoxical nature: categories like race, gender, and sexuality are often described as socially constructed, yet in practice are treated as the end all of identity. The result is not that these traits are meaningless, but that they too often take on an outsized role that overwhelms that which we have in common. Mounk subsequently argues for recognizing identity without letting it swallow up the connections that support a shared community.
I found Mounk’s analysis compelling and thoughtful. The subject is one that carries much baggage and prompts big emotions, and the book strikes a solid balance of the challenging subject of identity. I recommend the book for anyone who seeks to maneuver thoughtfully in political or other complicated settings, and here are some of the ideas I found most interesting:
Jonah Goldberg wrote a column while I was reading Identity Trap. His column, “Identity is a Uniform,” restates the concerns over identity:
“The problem is one of degree. When factions become concretized into a form of self-conception that sees itself as a kind morally superior and privileged caste, it ceases to be simply a faction and becomes a form of identity. The tell is when the group stops making arguments based on facts or concrete interests and starts making arguments based on the self-asserted authority of their identity itself. This usually comes with emotional appeals about collective grievance.” He continues: “Just as you outsource your individuality to the demands of the group identity, you blind yourself to the individuality of others.”
Mounk uses Michel Foucault to explain the European thinking after WWII, which—after the disillusionment with Marxism and communism—was highly suspicious of power and any universal theory of systems. There was cynicism against the prospect of human improvement and scientific advancement. As Mounk described it, “where there is power, there is resistance.” Distilled down into two points, Mounk describes Foucault’s thinking (and post-modernism generally) as (1) rejection of universal truth and (2) skepticism toward the possibility of progress.
Mounk introduces the concept of intersectionality through its originator, Kimberlé Crenshaw. The concept highlights how different aspects of identity (race, gender, sexuality, and class) are interconnected and not in isolation from one another. According to Crenshaw, the systems of discrimination overlap to create layered experiences of injustice unique to each person according to their identities. Mounk’s concern over this theory and system is that it can deny entry into public discourse or aspirational improvement to individuals who do not fit within a particular identity framework. Further, he is concerned that intersectionality gives rise to incommensurability—a bar on the shared human experience unless your identity fits the right category.
This section had me thinking about George Packer’s essay, “The Moral Case Against Equity Language,” Which fleshes out the shibboleths that exist for people on the left and the right. At some point, language becomes inaccessible unless you’re firmly within one camp, and such an existence makes it hard to build consensus or even basic connections.
Mounk credits the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR as being a significant cause of change in focus for liberals. The focus of change no longer centered on class and economics but made a shift to culture and identity. These new issues were previously subordinate to class but now had a leading role.
The section on Psychologist Solomon Asch regarding groupthink and group susceptibility helps demonstrate why people are so prone to social pressure. In his experiment, Asch showed that participants frequently agreed with obviously incorrect line-length assessments just to match a unanimous majority. Mounk uses this to illustrate how social conformity pressures people to publicly align with group norms, which combines with group polarization to drive communities toward increasingly extreme positions.
Mounk points out that Ibram X. Kendi (How to Be an Antiracist) and Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility) created an unfalsifiable theory. His argument is that agreement with their anti-racist framework validates the theory and disagreement is treated as proof of bigotry or privilege. Under Kendi’s binary, any policy or perspective that strays from his specific prescription is categorized as inherently racist, which eliminates the prospect of neutral principles or alternative solutions
This self-defending logic is reinforced by standpoint theory, which restricts authority on issues of identity to the select audience who are within those groups. And commenting outside of the group’s norms can lead to accusations of cultural appropriation and speech limits that shield these core ideas from critiques.
Mounk used an interesting illustration with “Fiddler on the Roof.” When it opened in Japan, the show prompted a question by the Japanese producer: “Do Americans understand this musical? Because it’s so Japanese.” Art had a way of crossing language, cultural, and experiential differences. There are pathways to mutual understanding. Despite claiming the prospect of mutual understanding, Mounk does, however, emphasize the need to listen carefully to different groups and their experiences.
Lastly, Dr. Rachel Frazier (Oxford) offers this observation: “The role of experience in politics should not be overstated. Who we are will shape what we learn about the world, but it need not constrain our ability to communicate those insights to others.”
Mounk notes that there is not a collective ownership of ideas and cultural output. He also recommends narrower and precise language when there is unjust use of cultural appropriation: discrimination against minorities or intent to mock minority cultures. The healthy instances of cultural exchanges should not be barred based on the examples of bad actors.
The Identity Trap listed some important reasons for free speech. Mounk argues that protecting heterodoxy is essential for exploring new ideas and essential for ensuring that current beliefs and ideas can stand firmly when met with disagreement.
Mounk leaned on John Stuart Mill’s commentary from On Liberty. If we shut down opinions that turn out to be false, then true beliefs will turn into dead dogma. The foundations of our core ideas can be swept aside easily if we do not train ourselves to defend those ideas.
Some critics (a sadly increasing number on the right and the left) argue that restricting speech is necessary to combat harmful trends and ideas. Mounk counters by highlighting the severe negative consequences of abandoning free speech:
Eliminating free speech strengthens the powerful and further shifts power away from the powerless.
Relatedly, the stakes of who holds power greatly increases, and the absence of free speech incentivizes “political partisans to refuse to accept the outcome of elections or even engage in violence.”
Society loses an important avenue toward reform and redress for victims of bad public policy or bad actors. The absence of free speech makes it much harder to achieve meaningful societal change.
In Chapter 11, Mounk emphasizes the need for schools to emphasize shared characteristics rather than segregating by affinity groups like race or sexuality. He focuses primarily on universities, though the application seems broadly applicable to organizations. Collaboration and finding common ground builds affinity and affection. Segregating does the opposite.
Mounk uses the following definition of equity: “A commitment to eliminating group-level disparities, especially between different races and ethnicities.” Mounk starts here to express the importance of prioritizing policies that promote equality rather than equity. He notes the effect of focusing on black poverty rather than poverty has a harmful effect because there are so many more poor white Americans. Such policies have compounding negative effects. Public policies focused on equity by race gives each ethnic group a divisive incentive to fight for its own interests.
Mounk maintains that universal values and neutral rules are worthwhile and history supports the advancement of disenfranchised and marginalized groups. He argues that adherents of identity politics are missing that history when they maintain that such values (like free speech or prohibitions against racial discrimination) are tools of the powerful to keep others on the margins.
Durin Mounk’s focus on how we rebuild mutual trust, Mounk features Eboo Patel, the founder and president of Interfaith America. Patel states that “Responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy is not principally about noticing what’s bad. It is about constructing what’s good.” Patel notes that calling out injustice and endless critiques accomplish nothing without offering and taking meaningful steps to build something better. The prospect of improving our governance at all levels is one of the great joys in my job.
The Identity Trap is certainly an accessible book, but it presents complex ideas that would fit appropriately in a political-science classroom. Still, the author provides a great resource for a broad audience to better understand some challenging issues. I recommend this book for those on both sides of the political aisle. Mounk provides a guide to communicate thoughtfully with humility, which is necessary to achieve understanding and political change. These are the necessary traits for a pluralistic society.
