Yascha Mounk, founder of Persuasion and author of The Identity Trap, discusses the intellectual origins and influence of the 'identity synthesis' ideology. They explore the evolution of wokeness and identity politics, the contested nature of these ideas, and the paradox of social constructs. They also delve into the connections between intersectionality, critical race theory, and postmodernism, as well as the importance of defending free speech and challenging ideas.
The identity synthesis ideology is a combination of postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory, which emphasize the importance of group identity.
Language and discourse play a significant role in shaping social realities, leading to the critique of existing language and the creation of new terms and categories to challenge oppressive systems.
Orwell believed in the potential for moral progress by stripping away euphemisms and recognizing truth, while Foucault focused on deconstructing power structures and analyzing existing systems rather than affirmatively building a more just society.
Orwell and Foucault both expressed concerns about language control, surveillance, and self-censorship, highlighting the potential threats to freedom of expression and the stifling effects on society.
Deep dives
Influences of Foucault and Said on the Identity Synthesis Ideology
The Identity Synthesis ideology, which revolves around the importance of group identity, is a synthesis of three intellectual traditions: postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory. Foucault's skepticism of universal truth claims and his focus on the power dynamics of discourses contribute to the ideology's understanding of language and how it shapes social realities. Said expands on this by critiquing how Western discourse about the Orient justified colonial rule and emphasizes the need to change language and identity categories for political purposes. This leads to a strategic essentialism that can be seen in the obsession with language and the creation of categories like BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ to challenge existing societal structures. Despite their similarities, Foucault focuses on deconstructing power and language, while Orwell's critique centers on the possibility of moral progress and the dangers of totalitarian control.
Language and Changing the World
Foucault and Said's ideas about language's influence on the world are reflected in the identity synthesis ideology's emphasis on language and discourse. The belief that language shapes social realities leads to a critique of existing language and the creation of new terms and categories to challenge oppressive systems. This can be seen in the obsession with language-related activism, such as word salading and the proliferation of identity categories like POC and LGBTQIA+. However, the critique of language is not exclusive to Foucault and Said, as even Orwell's concern about euphemisms and the manipulation of language in totalitarian states shares a similar recognition of language's power to shape perception and control society.
Differences in Views on Moral Progress
A key difference between Orwell and Foucault lies in their views on moral progress. Orwell believed in the possibility of societal improvement by stripping away euphemisms and calling things for what they really are. He saw the importance of recognizing truth and believed in the potential for positive change. On the other hand, Foucault, skeptical of universal truth claims and grand narratives, doubted the idea of moral progress and instead focused on the power dynamics and limitations of language and discourses. He was more interested in deconstructing oppressive systems and analyzing existing power structures than in affirmatively building a more just society.
Language Control and Fear of Anticipatory Obedience
Both Orwell and Foucault shared concerns about language control and the fear of anticipatory obedience found in oppressive systems. Orwell's concept of the telescreen and Foucault's notion of the panopticon highlight the fear of constant surveillance and the resulting self-discipline and self-censorship that individuals engage in to avoid punishment. In today's context, this fear can be observed in cancel culture and the ever-changing boundaries of acceptable speech and behavior. Both thinkers would raise concerns about the impact of language control on freedom of expression and the stifling effects of self-censorship in societies that prioritize adherence to certain ideological standards.
The core principles of the identity synthesis
The ideology of the identity synthesis is characterized by three core principles: viewing society through the lens of race, gender, and sexual orientation; challenging the universal values and principles enshrined in the Constitution; and advocating for a dismantling of these universal values in favor of identity-based policies.
Defending free speech
The defense of free speech is crucial in countering the ideology of the identity synthesis. It provides a means for marginalized voices to be heard, prevents authoritarian control over information, and acts as a safety valve to self-correct flawed policies. By preserving free speech, we ensure a more inclusive and open society.
Pushing back against the identity synthesis
Pushing back against the influence of the identity synthesis requires a two-pronged approach. First, it is essential to understand the core principles of the ideology and counter them with a coherent argument for embracing multiple prisms of understanding society, recognizing the progress made through universal values, and demanding that we uphold and live up to these values more fully. Second, it is important to resist the imposition of restrictive laws and customs that suppress opposing viewpoints while remaining true to our own values and engaging in honest and open dialogue.
In this week’s conversation, Coleman Hughes and Yascha Mounk discuss the intellectual origins of the "identity synthesis"; how this novel ideology was able to become so influential so quickly; why its application to areas from free speech to cultural appropriation is a trap; and how to make a compelling case for the liberal ideals that are more likely to remedy injustices.
