Rethinking Group Identity

Some people seem to think that everyone is subsumed by one overriding group identity.  And if that group contains individuals with certain characteristics, then everyone else in that group must have those characteristics as well. But a moment reflection is sufficient to show that this cannot be the case.

All women are physically weaker than men? All men are sexual predators? All French people resent American influence? All British citizens share in the guilt of imperial conquest? All Christians believe that ‘an eye for an eye’ means no transgression should ever be forgiven? All those who do not subscribe to a religious doctrine have no moral compass? All elderly people fear change? All young people are angry?

From trivial generalisation to obnoxious stereotyping, the inclination to categorise people by a monolithically defined group identity is misguided and dangerous.

Ultimately, it makes no sense. Each of us has multiple group identities, and none of those identities can be captured by a single set of characteristics. We draw from some of them, don’t mind too much about some, and firmly reject others. These unique and varied dispositions are what give us our distinct identity as a person. 

For example, am I, as a Brit – born in a traditional Chinese family, spent my formative years in a Catholic boarding school in Sussex, a life member of Humanists UK, educated at Oxford, having to make a living as an immigrant when employment opportunities were dwindling, attached to classic European civilisation, absorbed in American popular culture – supposed to resent my British self for the guilt of the Opium Wars against China? Or do I condemn my Chinese self from a contemporary British perspective for China’s violation of human rights? Am I appropriating European culture when I write in its intellectual tradition?  Do I betray my British roots whenever I favour American entertainment? 

In practice, I see the good in diverse groups I can be classified in, and I want to emulate those elements.  I also see regrettable aspects associated with some members of those groups, and I do not hesitate to criticise them.  But I am not thus battling myself.  I am piecing together what out of the different groups/categories to which I can be said to belong, the features I want to be at the core of my being.

Nearly everyone, even those who have not moved far from where they were born, would – if they think about it long enough – recognise they have multiple group identities.  Instead of pretending they must choose one and accept what some propagandist may selectively pick out as the defining characteristics of that group, they should consider what elements would truly embody the kind of person they want to be.

A Brit can criticise Britain’s imperial atrocities without being any less of a patriot. A Catholic can condemn the Church for ignoring immoral practices by members of the clergy without being any less of a believer.  A man can challenge anti-feminists without being less of a man.

Group identities do not define us. We reflect on varied elements of multiple group identities and define ourselves.

What is the 'Small State'?

[Reporters tend to gloss over politicians’ mantra about the ‘small state’ as though it’s obvious what they are talking about. But a more probing approach may help explain the real thinking behind it]

Q. You have repeatedly said that you are a champion of the small state. What do you mean by that?

A. It’s simple. The state should do as little as possible.

Q. What would you like to see the state stop doing?

A. For a start, it should stop getting in the way of business. We have too many regulations, too much red tape.  We should leave business to operate in a free market, and everything will be better.

Q. Are you saying businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want? The state should do nothing where businesses deceive customers about their products, exploit their workers and suppliers, pollute the environment, or sell what could cause serious ill health or injury?

A. You sound very anti-business. We should all be supportive of business.

Q. Then why did you ignore them when they asked you not to pull the UK out of the European Union? Should a small state go out of its way to do something the vast majority of businesses are against?

A. A small state does what is right, like letting businesses keep their hard-earned money, indeed everyone should keep their money instead of handing it to the state.

Q. You’re suggesting there should be no taxation at all?

A. Ideally, but we need to raise taxes to have a strong military and to lock up criminals, so we need to have some taxes – not a lot.

Q. What about the things that a country can only do effectively if it pools its citizens’ resources? For example, a reliable and accessible health service, a safety net for those without a job that pays enough for them to live on, protection against environmental degradation, plans to deal with shortage of housing, quality education for everyone, affordable care for the elderly, strategic research, communications infrastructure, a dependable supply of clean water and sustainable energy, …

A. Let me stop you right there. Anyone can come up with a long list of things we’d like to have. The key is to trust individuals and businesses, not a big government, to do what’s necessary. All the things you mentioned, we should always aim to let private enterprise handle them.

Q. Doesn’t the evidence tell us that we have problems and shortages in all those areas when they are completely left to private business. And where governments hand over responsibility for them through privatisation, hasn’t it often led to profiteering, deficient performance, and serious failures?

A. You’re exaggerating.  More importantly, you’re forgetting the value of freedom. It is inherently better for people – individuals, businesses – to do things for themselves than for the state to step in and boss people about.

Q. Aren’t you aware of the many cases where people on their own – lacking coordination, rules and enforcement, combined resources, joint planning, collective agreement – would be unable to meet their common needs, or worse, discover that some will cheat, intimidate, hurt others without hesitation?

A. Bad things happen in life. Instead of relying on a nanny state to barge in, we must learn to trust people’s moral sense. Promote good values, and problems will take care of themselves.

Q. That’s your reason for the small state not helping people in need, restraining corporate misconduct, or taking action against discriminatory behaviour? You believe people will get things right by themselves somehow?

A. Absolutely, we – champions of the small state – have faith in the people.

Q. Does that mean the small state would stand back if workers resort to strike action when they are faced with unacceptable conditions, women opt for abortion when they have problematic pregnancies, or protestors challenge those who spread racist lies and hate?

A. That’s totally different. When people don’t show they have the right values, the small state has to act – and we will continue to restrain strike action, abortion, woke protests and anything else that disrespects what our country stands for.

Q. You mean what you want our country to stand for?

A. We want our country to stand for: God-fearing, free market, patriotism.

Q. Some may say your notion of ‘God’ is just a mirror of your own prejudice, your concern for businesses is limited to those which make big campaign donations to you, and you care for what the wealthy few can offer you and not what you can do to help the people of this country. Isn’t that the essence of your ‘small state’?

A. You’re a damn socialist!