Identity and Universalism

 By Antonella Orologiaio 

Many of the political problems we face nowadays have to do with cultural matters, in particular problems that emerge from the concept of identity.  As Fukuyama pointed out in his book “Identity”, this concept is not new, but it has always had a major importance to human history, although in different ways.

In ancient Greece, all men didn’t have the same level of importance because they didn’t have the same dignity. Dignity was reserved for a privileged few like individuals with a high social status. It was based on the importance of the role one played in society, for instance, warriors were considered valuable and worthy because

 of their sacrifice in order to protect the polis. This belief has been the foundation of social order for a long time and it has represented the justification for most discrimination throughout history. In fact, the concept of “aristocracy” and its sustainability derive from this belief.  The point is that the need for recognition belongs to every human being, regardless of the social role they play. Fukuyama explains how this need can be conjugated in two ways: On one hand, there is the “Isotimia”, which is the need to be recognized in the same way as the others; on the other hand, “Megalothymia” is the need to be recognized as better than the others.  

Through the individualization process, along with those of modernization and secularization, something has changed. Because of the contribution of many scholars, the culture currents and the schools of thought they represented, new ideas concerning identity were born. From Christianity, which led to the universalization of dignity; to Rousseau and Kant who secularized dignity and focus on the personal experience and on the recuperation of our inner being, respectively; to Tocqueville’s work, which pointed out that the decision-making majority is not always “on the right side of history”.  Furthermore, we have witnessed “democratization of identities” through the extension of individual rights. This means that each individual deserves to be recognized as unique, authentic and different from the others, thus, achieving Isotimia through. Nonetheless, this was not an ideal outcome because individuals, sometimes, do not want their differences to be recognized, they want their similarities with others to be recognized and underlined. This desire has several consequences, among which there is the creation of new identities, increasingly exclusive, such as the most dangerous one: nationalistic identity. However, after wars and humanitarian crises, the world seems to have chosen another direction, which can be resumed in Habermas’ concept of “Universalism sensitive to differences”. Unfortunately, the risk persists. Differences relating to cultural and identity matters, have become a burning political issue. All the efforts made to create an universal identity based on the value of human dignity can be vain and even counterproductive when the “difference becomes indifference”. That is because of the fragmentation of society into smaller and smaller groups.  In addition, this can generate deep identity crises and cultural conflicts.

In conclusion, the key lies in figuring out how to effectively combine universal human dignity with cultural differences, in order to create an universal identity. Such an identity could prevent civil and international conflicts and could ensure peace in the name of respecting human rights.  If we really want to go toward a cosmopolitan law, we need to stop thinking about the things that make us different, and start focusing on the things we have in common, that make all of us equal.