The Chains of Political Identity
Today’s political discourse is rife with identity politics, inflating their presence in public and private realms. While these discourses have mostly been about race, class, or gender they miss the most damaging identity to our democracy: political identities. For it is these political identities that keep an individual in a fixed state; holding them back from living an authentic life that takes full responsibility for their innate freedom. However, Jean-Paul Sartre and his disdain for identity, and John Dewey’s concept of a democracy show us how to escape from these self-imposed chains.
The public realm is especially hindered by unfree citizens who attempt to strictly identify as a conservative, liberal, socialist, etc. The public realm, if it is to flourish, needs citizens free from identity; free from political identity. For the point is not to inflate identity; the point is to reject identity. Before I continue, there are a few philosophical terms and concepts I should clarify.
In Sartre’s concept of freedom, if one lives in bad faith — if they act inauthentically — then they are a being-in-itself because they don’t take full responsibility for their freedom to define their essence. Conversely, a being-for-itself takes full responsibility for this freedom by acting authentically, enabling the individual to freely change their essence and thus identity; being-for-itself is a fluid and dynamic mode of being.
“The external democracy exposes the individual citizen to plurality, nurturing the growth of the internal democrat and loosening the chains of political identity.”
In Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us John Dewey argues that democracy should be a personal experience that is an end-in-itself because it enables the citizen to constantly change their political beliefs. Dewey presents the ideal democracy as constituted by citizens that are beings-for-themselves because they are fundamentally democrats.
If we are to embrace our innate freedom, one should become the democrat that Dewey describes. This does not mean a Democrat (like someone who votes for the US Democrats); rather, a being-for-itself, a Sartrean democrat, is someone who discards their identity and actively pursues a mode of being that is open to change.
The Sartrean democrat is free because they actively reflect on their political identity; they are conscious of who they were, are, and can be. Conversely, someone who proudly states “I am a liberal” or “I am a socialist” (without any further consideration) fixates on their external identity, limiting them to that identity. If, for example, a socialist believes something a liberal says, then their identity falls into crisis. Any change to that identity would be a contradiction to itself. The socialist then must reject this liberal idea to stay a socialist. In doing so, “all ends and values that are cut off from the ongoing [democratic] process become arrests, fixations”. To identify with this or that identity effectively ‘cuts us off’ from any chance to change.
“This does not mean that people should not assume certain political identities; rather, people should be open to changing their political identities at any given time.”
Thus, to become a democrat is to become someone open to change, i.e. someone who is free to change. Freedom in the public realm means that no end is set, for such freedom is secured in a democracy which has “no end till experience itself comes to an end, the task of democracy is forever”. However, to free one’s self, reflection is needed because one cannot control something that they are not aware of. Consciousness is necessary for action, and it is democracy which provides this internal and external reflection.
Inside one’s mind, there is an internal ruler deciding what should be believed and identified with. One can choose to be an internal dictator and totalitarian: sticking to one political identity and rarely changing, suppressing any thought that might suggest to sincerely investigate what alternative beliefs there are (e.g. a right-winger internally suppressing left-wing ideals, ideas, solutions, etc. and vice versa), and cutting off the chance to assume that belief. Or, one can choose to be an internal democrat and allow a plurality of opinions (liberal, socialist, conservative, communist, etc.) to flow freely through their mind so that they may freely choose. However, it is outside of one’s self that this consciousness can be more fully experienced.
In a democracy, a plurality of ideas, opinions, and beliefs more or less freely converse; for “the heart…of democracy is in free gathering of neighbours…to discuss back and forth what is read in uncensored news…and in gatherings of friends…to converse freely with one another”. These discourses are the heart of a democracy because it is here where one’s ideas are fully brought to worldly consciousness.
When someone speaks their opinion then all its angles and dimensions are inspected by the surrounding citizens. In speaking with each other, citizens points out certain flaws, weaknesses, strengths, and contradictions to the original speaker. These angles are brought to light in a democracy; brought to consciousness. If one is not conscious of something they cannot freely act upon it. Consciousness is needed for freedom, and democracy secures this external consciousness. This fosters a political environment that enables the fluidity and dynamism of a citizen’s identity. The external democracy exposes the individual citizen to plurality, nurturing the growth of the internal democrat and loosening the chains of political identity.
However, this doesn’t infer that if a citizen chooses to be static or chooses no political belief, they’re being-in-itself because “if I do not choose, that is still a choice”. Furthermore this does not mean that people should not assume certain political identities; rather, people should be open to changing their political identities at any given time.
Indeed, to internally suppress and disregard other political beliefs simply internalises totalitarianism. A totalitarian regime suppresses and disregards political beliefs that contend with its totalising ideology. Is it not the same for an individual to become internally totalitarian by totally suppressing and disregarding other political beliefs? And, is it not indicative of the fragility of the entity’s (an individual or a regime) ideology if other political beliefs are not even given the chance to put forward their argument?
I put the question to you: if you are so confident that you have chosen the correct political beliefs, what is there to be scared of from opening up the possibility of change?
To let go of these fixed political identities it to fully embrace our political freedoms that we hold so dearly; to hold onto our political identity, without any consideration, is to shun them.
