Identity liberalisms -

Identity liberalisms

06/10/2024

Partners • Feminism • LGBTI • Neoliberalism • Racism

By EDUARDO ELY MENDES RIBEIRO*

Capitalist liberalism, based on the principles that guide it, encourages the adoption of pragmatic individualist positions, which go against engagement in inclusive and supportive social projects.

“Freedom” is a worn-out word that has been used so much by (almost) all schools of thought that it has lost any precise meaning. It is defended by liberals and neoliberals, associated with individualist principles and the refusal of government intervention; it is defended by all versions of anarchism; and also by the various identity movements, which demand the end of a history of submission and oppression; in addition, of course, to the different socialist currents, which fight for the liberation of workers in the context of capitalist labor relations.

But how can we understand or substantiate these different perspectives of freedom? And what are their limits? I remember an episode when I was doing my psychoanalytic training and studying philosophy: in a conversation with Contardo Caligaris, I asked him how we could understand the relationship between freedom and determination from a psychoanalytic perspective.

After all, if we constitute ourselves as subjects based on genetic inheritance and primary social relations, where does this supposed freedom come from? It seemed to me that the basis of this freedom could only be metaphysical, which did not fit well with the idea I had of psychoanalysis. He gave me an answer that, at the time, I did not understand well. He proposed that freedom could be the exercise of determination. But, isn't that contradictory?

Contardo Caligaris’s speech, even though I did not understand it well, resonated within me, and I ended up allowing myself to make a small change to the proposition I heard: perhaps we can think that freedom is not “the” exercise of determination, but that it is situated “in” the exercise of determination. After all, there is no denying that we are at least partially determined by the meanings and values of the world in which we live, and by the relationships we have maintained, but these determinations are multiple and, often, contradictory. I understand that this is the context in which we exercise our choices and affirm our singularity.

The philosopher Alain Renaut[I] proposes that the idea of freedom has two distinct modes: autonomy and independence. Autonomy would not be a radical freedom, as it would be guided by social rules established based on collective will and freedom. In other words, freedom as autonomy is based on the assumption of the existence of a common humanity, irreducible to the affirmation of each individuality, and to which each individual must submit.

The ideal of independence would be very different, in which individual freedoms, concern for oneself, the cult of private happiness and the desertion of public space are emphasized. Independence would be associated with extreme individualism, something similar to the position defended by neoliberals.

A society based on freedom as independence is not difficult to imagine; it is a jungle where the law of the strongest (or, the richest) prevails. On the other hand, the possibility of a society based on freedom understood as autonomy would depend on the effectiveness of a social order based on widely accepted and shared principles. But how can this order be consolidated in societies where a variety of different codes, values and worldviews coexist and overlap? Common ethical values capable of recognizing and legitimizing differences would be necessary, but also of producing modes of relationship that sustain social cohesion.

This is not an easy project to achieve, given the advance of neoliberalism in contemporary societies. This can be observed even in our daily relationships, where the idea of depending on another person, whoever they may be, tends to be strongly condemned, perhaps because it refers to our history of oppressive relationships, of the poor in relation to the rich, of women in relation to men, etc. However, we often fail to realize that, if there is something that guarantees social cohesion, something that can be called a “fundamental bond”, this something is relationships of dependence, as expressions of a permanent and necessary reciprocity for the majority of members of a group. It is, therefore, a structural and structuring dependence in relation to society as a whole (as a symbolic system), and also to the subjects with whom we establish our exchanges.

In any case, the other option, the ideal of freedom in the form of independence, imposes an impossible task on the modern subject: he must, at the same time, be free and assert himself socially, that is, he must be independent, but he must seek social recognition that guarantees him a place and testifies to his value, his significance. Here is the paradox: in order to exercise radical freedom, we need the other.

Modern-contemporary society, by proposing equal rights, freed us from imposed destinies, since, at least ideally, no one should present themselves as the bearer of inherited insignia (family name, place of birth, economic activity of their parents); but, on the other hand, it launched us into the difficult task of building a place in the world, based on our choices and efforts.

It is in this context, of the relationship of each subject or social group with otherness, that it is necessary to recognize the limits of freedom and the fragility of identities, because, if norms that guarantee the primacy of the common good over private interests are not established and recognized, we run the risk of consolidating an extremely unequal and potentially unjust society, to the extent that each subject (or social group) will use their freedom to build the best place in the world (social identity) they can, disregarding any commitment to the collective.

In this sense, in recent decades, identity claims have gained strength, understood as a demand for recognition and appreciation by specific social groups. These movements rightly denounce that modern equality is a fallacy, and that traits (skin color, sex, gender, ethnic origin, religion) continue to produce stigmatization. Faced with this situation, it is proposed that those who bear these traits unite to defend their rights.

This is an absolutely legitimate reaction, but it raises another question: if certain traits still produce stigmatized collective identities, what strategy should we adopt to combat these injustices? Strengthen collective identities? Or denounce the stigmatization of those who are different?

Psychoanalysis can contribute to this discussion by demonstrating that there is nothing more fragile and inconsistent, both on a personal and collective level, than the belief in foundations such as “freedom” and “identity”. Firstly, because, as has already been pointed out, the exercise of freedom will always depend on a relationship with the other, that is, on a social articulation. In psychoanalytic clinical practice, this becomes evident, because, contrary to what it may seem to those who do not have this experience, it is not about “diving into oneself”, “the search for one’s true self, for one’s essence”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In an analysis session, many people “attend”: parents, romantic partners, children, bosses, friends, etc. We can only think about ourselves and affirm something of the order of desire that makes us subjects, based on our social relationships.

And any identity, in the same way, is only constituted and sustained based on a dynamic of recognition, “negotiated” socially. In other words, in the contemporary world, it is completely unrealistic for someone, or a collective, to claim that their place in the world is established based on a supposed identity, defined by any form of “essential attribute”, such as skin color, sex or gender. From a psychoanalytic point of view, every identity is absolutely imaginary and inconsistent, which does not mean that it is not necessary.

We all need to build an image of ourselves based on our social interactions. But this “image,” this “identity,” will always be as diverse and changing as the relationships we maintain. None of us “is” black/white, male/female, straight/gay, or at least we are not just that, because our identity cannot be reduced to any one trait.

With regard to social transformations in our recent history, from the countercultural movements of the 1960s, through the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the movements in defense of multiculturalism, the defense of freedom and equality has always been associated with ideals that contemplated the recognition and inclusion of all differences, with the obvious exception of the reactions of the extreme right. However, we currently live in a paradox: modern democracy was established in opposition to essentialist identity beliefs, such as medieval social hierarchies, slavery and xenophobic nationalisms; but it ended up leading us to the need to produce new collective identities, these of a libertarian nature, conceived as strategies to deal with the failures of democracy itself.

However, in this direction, we run the risk of establishing a rupture in relation to the democratic project, founded on the idea of universality, and which proposed that “the space of politics should not be marked by the affirmation of difference, but by absolute indifference in relation to any identity requirement”. (Safatle, 2012, p. 31.).

This leads us to believe that the distinction between what operates in the broader political field, where a universalization of rights and duties would be desirable, and the sphere of interpersonal relationships, where differences and singularities should be recognized, respected and not subjected to any hierarchical criteria, may be neglected. In other words: power relations, or alliances, and the search for recognition, which occur in different social interactions (work, family, affections), always singular, should be subordinated to the political foundations of society, which are, in fact, of universal validity.

According to these ethical principles, the important thing would be to maintain the fight for equality and universality, supporting the idea that the defense of the rights of marginalized groups (blacks, homosexuals, women, etc.) should not be transformed into segregatory practices and the identification of differences, but, on the contrary, into a strategy for the constitution of an egalitarian and fair society.[ii] where the recognition of differences is supported by universal principles.

Revisiting this issue from another perspective, we can see that there is tension between universality and differences, on the one hand, and between individualism and social interest, on the other. On an ethical level, it would be important and necessary to share some universal values, and at the same time, recognize the legitimacy and richness of a diversity of ways of being. And, on a micropolitical level, we should build a “tense balance” between individual and collective interests, with individual interests never taking precedence over collective interests.

In an attempt to address these ethical-political tensions, Susan Neiman[iii] proposes that cultural pluralism (and social diversity, broadly speaking) should not be seen as an alternative to universalism, but rather as an improvement of it. Something that Aimé Césaire called “a universal enriched by each particular”.[iv]

With regard to identity movements, we can understand that each of their complaints and demands contributes to giving new configurations to the universal, represented by the idea of human rights. In other words, it is about recognizing what is universal in each particular.

For inclusive movements

The accelerated transformations that contemporary society is undergoing mean that postmodern structures and practices, where globalized communications interconnect an immense variety of “tribalized” social relations, coexist with premodern structures and practices, based on traditional and religious values.

This is the context in which identity movements emerged, as the development of liberal societies was established on social structures still based on hierarchical social relations, where women and black people in particular occupied subordinate positions. In other words, based on egalitarian assumptions, we created a society where, in the exercise of our freedom, we reproduce historically established inequalities.

In this sense, it was necessary for members of these oppressed social segments to unite so that they could become stronger, gain visibility and denounce the mechanisms of exclusion that affected them, and still affect them. This has indeed happened. Both feminism and the black and LGBTQIA+ movements have managed to draw attention to rights that have historically been taken away from them, and to advocate for measures that guarantee the reparation of these injustices.

The progress and achievements of these movements are undeniable. Few would disagree that, at least in most Western countries, women, black people and the LGBTQIA+ population enjoy more rights today than they did a few decades ago. Of course, there is still much to be achieved, and this is the discussion that is being proposed: how can we move forward? What are the obstacles to these advances? What are the limits of the strategies adopted so far?

This reflection is necessary because there is something in the strategy used by these movements that may be hindering or delaying progress towards their objectives. This is what they consider to be their “common,” that is, the element that unites them. In their discourses, the prevailing understanding has been that the factors that define and unite these groups are skin color, gender, and sexual orientation.

Even if we understand the reasons why these movements were formed in this way, and the effectiveness of the actions developed so far, it is important to note that they encounter difficulties in going beyond the scope of specific rights achievements and producing effective social transformations. For this to happen, it is necessary to focus on the most important thing, that is, the recognition that what is common in these cases is oppression and disrespect itself. It is the ethical principles that, at least supposedly, should guide relations in our society, such as respect for differences, equal opportunities, sexual freedom, freedom of belief, etc., that are being violated, and that constitute the “common” in all these cases. As Frantz Fannon said:[v], “all forms of oppression are identical, as they apply to the same object: man”.

Another obstacle is that universalist ideals face a lot of criticism and distrust, even in some segments of the left. This is probably due to a confusion between two completely different projects: the first is represented by the imperialist ambitions of some nations, which intend to impose their way of life on other societies, assuming that their model of society is the most evolved and fair, and therefore that they are carrying out the noble mission of freeing the most backward societies from obscurantism. Obviously, within the framework of the capitalist system, these intentions would not be so noble, and much less devoid of economic interests.

Certainly, this universalist project should be the object of strong criticism. However, there is another possibility, represented by the project that defends universal human rights, which would include respect for differences and the defense of freedom, understood as autonomy.

It is true that the modern social pact has never been able to produce equitable societies, but this is the model that organizes all democratic societies and, since few still believe in revolutions, all we can do is try to improve it. In this case, it is a question of considering that the historical damages caused to specific people and groups derive from the functioning of society as a whole, since cohesion and social justice depend on trust in the effectiveness of the principles that govern the relationships between its members.

With the rise of individualism, we can no longer count on the stability (which today we might consider unfair) of traditional forms of relationships, in which each individual was born in a specific social place and received an “identity”; nor on the security promised by the liberal-democratic social contract, where the mechanisms of social organization and management should guarantee the necessary conditions for a dignified life. In other words, it is not easy to believe in the existence of a social bond that promotes equity, justice and security.

This fragility of our social organization helps us understand the existence of structural racism, structural machismo, and the difficulty of living with the diversity of ways of living and enjoying life. And it is these “structural” characteristics, resistant to change, that have made the creation of identity movements important and necessary, as they have strengthened the perception that our codes and institutions are still not capable of protecting us from those who react violently to social actions aimed at promoting greater equality and tolerance towards diversity.

However, it is regrettable that it was necessary to create identity movements and propose affirmative actions in order to give effect to the principles and values that constitute the foundation of our social bond. In any case, it would be a step forward today if these actions were adopted as public policy strategies, and not as demands from specific groups. After all, it is the principles that organize the relations of society as a whole that are being violated. And, in this sense, there is no reason to reinforce supposedly identity-based traits that we want to disappear, at least as they produce stigmatization and collective privileges.

Following this direction, the argument often used by activists and theorists of identity movements makes sense. Even recognizing that the ideal would be for no one to be judged and evaluated by the color of their skin, their sex, their gender, their beliefs or ethnicity, they consider it strategically necessary to group people based on these historically undervalued characteristics, giving them a voice and visibility, so that, at a later stage, after being empowered and seeing injustices recognized and remedied, these groups can dissolve, and together they can share in the constitution of a more just society.

This strategy has really strengthened each of these social segments, but everything indicates that the time has come to move towards a less fragmented and more supportive social project, since practices that defend the interests of specific groups are unlikely to lead to a more egalitarian society focused on the common good. The question that arises is how to promote the articulation of these movements.

From exclusion to the monopoly of speech

It is much more difficult to unite than to divide. Modern history has demonstrated this time and time again.

Racism, homophobia and misogyny are historical and cultural legacies that have been combated. However, it is interesting to note that, at least initially, this fight was aimed at universalizing rights, and not at social segmentation based on identifying traits. The focus was on universality, not difference.

This position is clearly expressed by several important references for identity movements. In the black movement, for example, in 1930, Angela Davis spoke about the union of forces against racist violence in the USA: “These courageous white women suffered opposition, hostility and even death threats. Their contributions were invaluable in the crusades against lynching.” (Bosco, 2017, p. 22)

Also Frantz Fannon[vi] rejects any strategy of producing a “black identity”: “My black skin is not a repository for specific values… I have neither the right nor the duty to demand reparations for my subjugated ancestors. There is no black mission. There is no white burden. I do not want to be a victim of the rules of a black world… I am not a slave to the slavery that dehumanized my ancestors.” […] “For us, those who worship black people are as ‘sick’ as those who execrate them.” […] “We consider that an individual should be inclined to assume the universalism inherent in the human condition.”

And, even more recently, within the movement Black Lives Matter, 54% of protesters identified as white,[vii] which makes it clear that it was not a black movement, but rather a movement against racism.

So, returning to the issue of collective identities, there is no reason to suppose that it is necessary for these movements that demand equality to position themselves based on identity oppositions, since the field of identities, which is established based on differences, is situated within the scope of singularities, while the defense of equality, this must take place on a collective level.

The fact is that the weakening of these universalist social ideals has driven private projects aimed at defending the interests of specific social segments. It is in this context that the demand for exclusive “places of speech” is strengthened, based on the idea that only the oppressed have the legitimacy to speak about their oppression.

And it is from an imprecise use of this expression that many supporters of “identity causes”, who do not have the same history of discrimination, have been forced to remain silent, under the claim that they have enjoyed the discursive dominance for too long, and that the time has come to give voice to the oppressed.

Now, we have reasons to believe that the place of speech will always be singular: each subject constructs his/her place from an intersection of experiences, contexts and relationships, which may have similarities, but will always be unique.

Our places of speech cannot be reduced to any trait we have in common, because far beyond, or below, the generalizations implied in some identity projects, what is perceived is a plurality of positions, such as: women who have incorporated and naturalized a sexist culture, gays who believe they have an anomaly, black people who consider themselves integrated and refuse to be defined by the color of their skin, conservative parents who have revised their homophobic positions upon discovering that the love they have for their homosexual children is greater than their prejudices, men and women who face the encounter/confrontation with diversity in different ways; in other words, people who assume their places of speech based on their stories, affections and choices, and who cannot be reduced to extras of collective identities.

An alternative would be to consider that, more important than guaranteeing certain social groups the exclusive right to defend their causes, based on the specificity of their places of speech, would be to expand the conditions for listening. However, for listening to occur, it is necessary to establish a non-accusatory and non-persecutory relationship. The aim is to create conditions so that the other is perceived based on his or her singularity, and so that differences cease to be the object of disqualification.

After all, in everyday life, our relationships and affections are not restricted to our fellow human beings, those who share the same sex, gender and/or origin. We live in constant contact with diversity, and the closer we get to these diverse people, and get to know them as subjects, with their desires and fears, the more we develop empathetic feelings, the more we are able to revolt against the injustices suffered. So…

When a woman reports that, throughout her life, she was afraid of crossing paths with men on the street, always feeling the need to look away, because she knew she could be the object of a disrespectful advance;

When Afro-descendants report that they often experienced the embarrassment of seeing other passersby changing sidewalks, as they feared that they were muggers;

When homosexual couples report having received countless insults, or even attacks, simply for loving people of the same sex.

These stories, and many others, are capable of affecting us, not necessarily because we have gone through similar experiences, but because we share the same humanity, and also know feelings of insecurity, impotence, humiliation and fear.

In this sense, to whom should they be addressed? To those who fight for the same causes, reinforcing a feeling of collective victimization? Or to society as a whole, so that each person, from their place of speech and listening, is able to join movements of indignation, resistance and transformation?

Francisco Bosco[viii] brought to this debate the existence of strategies bridging e bonding, whose names already explain the difference. The first proposes bridges between all those who are in solidarity with the same cause, while the second defends the creation of exclusive identity collectives, where those “on the outside” could have, at most, a marginal participation. At the current stage of the identity movements, wouldn’t it be time to rethink the most appropriate and effective political strategy?

Furthermore, as Vladimir Safatle reminds us,[ix], the identity of the oppressed is defined by the oppressor. It is he who establishes and hierarchizes the differences that will produce oppression. Perhaps the time has come to free ourselves from this perverse setup, and believe that any possibility of emancipation involves the creation of a generalized sensitivity aimed at deconstructing the distinctions produced by the oppressors.

Possible strategies

Returning to the initial considerations about the relationships that are currently established between the values attributed to freedom and identity, and about the advancement of ethos individualistic, it is possible to affirm that our challenge as a society is to find/produce elements capable of guaranteeing a necessary minimum of cohesion and social justice. And, if we are a little more ambitious and optimistic, to recreate ideals and utopias capable of directing movements aimed at the common good, and the reduction of conflicts and violence, considering that it is precisely our contradictions that impel us to promote these transformations.

This understanding is often criticized for being considered naive and unfeasible, since conflicts would be inherent to human sociability, which is an irrefutable truth. However, on the other hand, this does not mean that we should give up our ideals, as Neimann proposes.[X] “Ideals are not measured by the degree of their adequacy to reality: reality is judged by the degree of its adequacy to ideals.”

When we give up on collective projects aimed at the whole of society, we naturalize the confrontation between differences. If defined based on “identities”, the scope of the collective tends to become increasingly restricted, and begins to assert itself through confrontation with other collectives. After all, in this situation of struggle for recognition, the other needs to be confronted/confronted.

History shows that members of movements formed from collective identities, whether right-wing or left-wing, have always considered themselves disadvantaged by the way in which social relations are formed, and have come to understand that overcoming their misfortunes should happen through the combative defense of their identity, and not through the permanent effort of constructing and implementing social relations based on acceptance and coexistence with non-hierarchical differences.

Regarding identity movements aimed at promoting equality and social justice, what is currently challenging is overcoming isolation, since each of these movements has its own specific agendas, and what is currently needed is their progressive openness and alliance with “non-identity” subjects and groups, bringing together these demands and proposals in a societal project guided by a shared utopia. It is worth remembering that, as stated above, utopias are not idealized images that are impossible to achieve; utopias are vectors of desire.

Due to their reactionary nature, conservative forces find it much easier to unite, since their reference is the past, whatever it may be (the military dictatorship, social stratification, religious morality, the subordinate role of women and people of African descent). They have an ideal to affirm and defend, and enemies to fight: all those who are related to social transformations that they do not understand and do not accept, and whom they hold responsible for their eventual frustrations.

On the other side of the political spectrum, what we see are movements and collectives formed based on different objectives, but all related to the defense of inclusive and ecologically sustainable social models. The problem is that these movements are currently not united around a social project. Unlike the right-wing camp, which has one flag (in Brazil, it is embodied in the national flag itself), the so-called progressive camp has many, which means that there is none capable of representing a common project.

The great challenge to be faced is the current difficulty of producing collective enchantments with large projects of social construction and transformation, such as those that were present in the countercultural movements and in the various socialist, or even social-democratic, projects.

Capitalist liberalism, based on the principles that guide it, encourages the adoption of pragmatic individualist positions, which run counter to engagement in inclusive and supportive social projects. It is for no other reason that neoliberals defend the minimal state.

Considering the advances of the far right, it is only apparently contradictory that an alliance should occur between neoliberal projects and the most moralistic religious beliefs and practices, since “individualistic freedom” cannot be sustained without establishing conditions for the production of social identities, such as those that can be promoted by feelings of belonging to a country, a family or a religion. It is an alliance between certain conceptions of freedom and identity, which conspire against the universality of rights and respect for diversity.

Obviously, self-styled “identitarian” movements have other goals, but at this stage of their development they must escape the trap of being trapped in the idea of identity.

In the face of this situation, some movements can acquire transformative power. One of them is decolonial thinking, which proposes a decentering of the frameworks of understanding produced by the liberal/capitalist tradition, and opens up new possibilities for conceiving and experiencing our social relations. Another is the ecological movement, as it becomes increasingly evident that the current economic model is causing obvious harm to all inhabitants of the planet. In other words, we are all in the same boat.

In this sense, once again, it is not about opposing identities or world views, but rather about enriching our experience by opening up to other forms of relationships with others and with nature, which can help us deal with the impasses and conflicts we face.

*Eduardo Ely Mendes Ribeiro is a psychoanalyst and has a PhD in social anthropology from UFRGS.

References

Bosco, Francis. Is the victim always right?: Identity struggles and the new Brazilian public space. São Paulo: However, 2017.

Cesaire, Aime. Discourse on colonialism. New York: Routledge. 2020.

Fannon, Frantz. Black skin, white masks. São Paulo: Ubu Editora, 2020.

Neimann, Susan. The left is not woke. Belo Horizonte: Ayiné Publishing, 2024.

Renault, Alain. The Age of the Individual. Lisbon: Piaget Institute, 1989.

Safatle, Vladimir. The left that is not afraid to say its name. Sao Paulo: Three Stars, 2012.

Safatle, Vladimir. Alphabet of collisions. São Paulo: Ubu Editora, 2024.

Notes

[I] See Renault, 1989.

[ii] See Safatle, 2012, p. 34.