This set of notes was prompted by an exchange on X with Ted Cantle. Following our discussion, I have ordered Amartya Sen’s book Identity and Violence to read into the themes he explores. These notes were generated from web searches and may be useful for underpinning future thinking about social cohesion and the challenge of supporting individuals to find their social experience meaningful and complete.
I want to examine how we might seek to achieve a more equitable and functional society, particularly one that prioritises the values of responsibility, competence, and integrity. These qualities, reflected in the immediate actions and contributions of individuals, I believe, form the bedrock of social cohesion and trust. By focusing on the present merits and character of people, rather than external identity markers or historical contexts, we can begin to foster a culture of accountability and respect that naturally leads to collective progress and social equity.
Social Cohesion Through Intercultural Understanding
Ted Cantle, recognised for his work on community cohesion and intercultural relations, has made several key points about identity and social cohesion:
Interculturalism vs. Multiculturalism: Cantle advocates for interculturalism as an approach that promotes fluid identities where individuals can interact across cultural boundaries, moving away from the rigid categorisations often associated with multiculturalism. He argues that multiculturalism can sometimes lead to community division by placing people into what he describes as “rigid boxes” patrolled by religious or community leaders.
Identity Formation and Fluidity: He believes that identities in the modern era are changing rapidly due to factors like globalisation, technology, and demographic shifts. Cantle suggests that there’s a need for policies and practices that encourage more nuanced and evolving identities, rather than static ones.
Social Cohesion: Cantle emphasises the importance of social cohesion not just through shared identities but through active interaction and understanding between different groups. He highlights the necessity of cross-cultural contact to reduce tensions, promote unity, and build a shared society where diversity is seen as an asset rather than a source of division.
Community Engagement: He stresses the importance of community engagement in various settings like schools, workplaces, and public spaces to foster a sense of belonging and mutual respect among diverse groups. Cantle advocates for environments where people can work together despite, or because of, their differences, which he believes leads to social coherence rather than just cohesion.
Political and Social Reform: Recently, Cantle has pointed out the need for political reform as a prerequisite for better social cohesion, noting a lack of trust in political processes which he sees as exacerbating societal divisions.
Response to Extremism: In the context of social identity, he has noted that one of the goals of terrorism or extremism is to create an ‘us versus them’ divide, and he recommends that society should counteract this by fostering unity and shared humanity over division.
These insights reflect Cantle’s perspective on how identity and social cohesion should be approached in contemporary society, with an emphasis on interaction, understanding, and evolving concepts of identity that can unite rather than divide communities.
Postmodern Challenges
The concept of ‘fluid identity’ aligns closely with postmodern thinking, arising from the processes of globalisation and the logic of the ‘global village,’ as predicted by Marshall McLuhan. Postmodern thought challenges fixed notions of identity, celebrating its malleability and the diverse influences that shape individuals in a globally interconnected world. This perspective has provided valuable insights in some contexts, enabling more inclusive and dynamic understandings of human experience. However, it also presents challenges, particularly as identity-based group and social identifications have become increasingly brittle and pronounced. As individuals push back against the fluidity of identity, there is a growing tendency to assert more rigid and certain expressions of self and group belonging.
A significant limitation of fluid identity is its externalised and individualised focus, which often neglects the intrinsic qualities of individuals—such as their creative, moral, and ethical capacities. By overemphasising the social construction of identity, postmodern approaches risk under-developing the essential character of people, leaving their potential for personal growth, ethical reasoning, and imaginative expression unexplored and untested.
Furthermore, the sublimation of the individual into the group—whether the group is defined by cultural, political, or social markers—can constrain personal autonomy and the capacity for independent thought. This group dynamic may discourage individuals from seeking intuitive ideas or taking personal responsibility, as blame is shifted onto broader social or historical factors. While group identification can provide a sense of belonging and collective purpose, over-reliance on it risks diminishing the individual’s ability to engage in critical self-reflection, to exercise moral courage, and to embrace the uncertainty necessary for personal growth and genuine creativity. Balancing the fluidity of identity with a renewed focus on the intrinsic capacities of individuals is essential for fostering a more integrated and responsible sense of self in the modern world.
The Illusion of Unique Identities
Amartya Sen’s concept of the illusion of unique identities is a critique of the tendency to reduce individuals to a single, overarching identity, often based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, or other singular characteristics. He explores this idea in his book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (2006), where he argues that this simplification is not only misleading but also dangerous, as it fosters divisiveness and conflict.
Key Points:
- Multiplicity of Identities:
- Sen posits that each individual possesses multiple identities. For example, a person can simultaneously be a British citizen, a Leicester resident, a teacher, a football fan, and a parent. These identities are context-dependent and coexist within a single individual.
- The Danger of Reductionism:
- Reducing a person to a single identity—such as their religion or ethnicity—ignores the complexity of human lives. This oversimplification can lead to stereotyping and polarisation, as it fosters an “us vs them” mentality.
- Roots of Conflict:
- Sen argues that the illusion of unique identities has been a significant driver of social and political conflicts. When individuals are perceived solely through the lens of one identity (e.g., as “Muslims,” “Christians,” or “Jews”), it becomes easier to pit groups against each other.
- Freedom to Choose Prioritisation:
- He emphasises the importance of agency in identity. People should have the freedom to prioritise and balance their multiple identities, rather than having one imposed upon them by others or by societal narratives.
- The Role of Dialogue:
- To counteract the illusion of unique identities, Sen advocates for open dialogue and mutual understanding, encouraging people to see others as multifaceted and not confined to a single label.
- Implications for Global Challenges:
- In a globalised world, recognising the multiplicity of identities is essential for fostering peace, cooperation, and inclusive societies. Acknowledging shared interests across diverse groups can help bridge divides.
Amartya Sen’s the illusion of unique identities highlights the dangers of reducing individuals to singular, fixed labels. By recognising the plurality of identities, societies can move towards a more inclusive, empathetic, and less conflict-ridden way of interacting, fostering greater understanding and cooperation among diverse groups.
The Complete Self in a Meaningful World
Amartya Sen and Carl Jung both explore identity, but they approach it from distinct perspectives, reflecting their differing intellectual traditions—Sen from a socio-political and philosophical standpoint, and Jung from a psychological and archetypal one. While both emphasise the complexity of identity, their interpretations diverge significantly in focus and application.
Amartya Sen’s Perspective on Identity
- Multiplicity of Social Identity:
- Sen highlights the plurality of human identity, arguing that individuals embody multiple social roles and affiliations. These might include nationality, profession, religion, gender, and personal interests, which are situational and context-dependent.
- He critiques the “illusion of unique identities,” warning against reducing individuals to a single defining characteristic, as this fosters division and conflict.
- Choice and Agency:
- Sen places emphasis on the agency of individuals to prioritise and navigate their various identities. Identity is not pre-determined or fixed but shaped by personal choice and social interactions.
- Focus on External Dynamics:
- Sen’s analysis of identity is fundamentally relational and external. It focuses on how identity interacts with socio-political structures, how it is perceived by others, and how it influences group dynamics and conflicts.
Carl Jung’s Perspective on Identity
- Inner Identity and the Self:
- Jung’s concept of identity is rooted in the psyche and the journey towards individuation, the process of integrating various aspects of the self to achieve a unified whole.
- Identity, for Jung, is shaped by both the conscious and unconscious mind, including the influence of archetypes (universal symbols and patterns) such as the Shadow, Anima/Animus, and Persona.
- Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious:
- Jung identifies identity as being partially shaped by the collective unconscious, a shared repository of archetypes and ancestral memory that influences individual behaviour and self-perception.
- Focus on Internal Dynamics:
- Unlike Sen, Jung’s approach is introspective, focusing on the inner development of identity. His work explores how personal growth involves reconciling the unconscious with the conscious and integrating conflicting aspects of the psyche.
- Role of the Persona:
- Jung’s concept of the Persona—the mask individuals present to the world—parallels Sen’s idea of externally perceived identity. However, Jung delves deeper into the psychological implications of this “mask,” such as its potential to obscure the true self.
Comparative Themes
| Aspect | Amartya Sen | Carl Jung |
| Focus | Social, political, and external dynamics | Psychological and internal dynamics |
| Multiplicity | Emphasises the plurality of social roles | Explores integration of fragmented inner self |
| Conflict | Highlights dangers of reducing identity to one dimension (e.g., religion or ethnicity) | Examines inner conflict between conscious and unconscious aspects |
| Agency | Emphasises individual choice in navigating identities | Focuses on unconscious forces shaping identity |
| Goal | Social harmony, reduction of conflict | Individuation and self-realisation |
Integration of Concepts
- Shared Complexity: Both Sen and Jung reject simplistic, monolithic views of identity, recognising it as multifaceted and dynamic.
- Interplay of Internal and External: While Sen emphasises external socio-political interactions, Jung focuses on internal psychological development. Together, they provide a holistic view of identity, connecting the individual’s inner life with their societal roles.
- Practical Implications:
- Sen’s insights are particularly relevant for addressing societal conflicts and fostering inclusive policies.
- Jung’s framework is more personal, aimed at self-understanding and psychological growth.
Amartya Sen and Carl Jung offer complementary perspectives on identity. Sen’s work addresses the external relationships and societal implications of identity, while Jung explores the internal complexities and psychological dimensions. Together, they highlight that identity is both a social construct and a deeply personal journey, shaped by interplay between the individual and the collective, the conscious and the unconscious.
Over-Identification with Persona as Identity
Too much attention is currently being directed towards external identity frameworks, with insufficient focus on internal character frameworks. While external identity markers—such as ethnicity, gender, and social roles—are important for understanding the dynamics of individual and group interactions, this emphasis often comes at the expense of fostering intrinsic human qualities such as creativity, moral reasoning, and personal responsibility. A humanistic perspective, rooted in the recognition of shared archetypal foundations as outlined in Carl Jung’s notion of the Collective Unconscious, seeks to identify these inherent and common capacities. However, differences within these archetypal frameworks often present challenges that are not easily reconciled.
One striking example of this challenge is how societies address the symbolic and practical relationship between the masculine and feminine principles. Some cultures exhibit a harmonious balance between these principles, fostering mutual respect and integration. Others, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, exemplify a severe imbalance, where the masculine principle dominates to the extent of subjugating women to sub-human status. Such extremes not only undermine the feminine principle but also distort the masculine, creating social dysfunction that reverberates across all aspects of life.
The failure to balance the internal and external dimensions of identity perpetuates this dysfunction. External frameworks without a corresponding internal development can lead to rigidity, conflict, and alienation. Likewise, neglecting external realities in favour of internal introspection risks isolation and disengagement from collective challenges. Until societies find a way to integrate these dimensions—fostering both the inner growth of individuals and the equitable structure of external systems—imbalances will persist, and the cycle of social dysfunction will continue to manifest. This integration is essential for building communities that are not only functional but also just and deeply human.
In conclusion, it is essential to prioritise what individuals can contribute in the present moment, how they respond to immediate circumstances, and the extent to which they take personal responsibility for their actions in the here and now. Consider a simple example: if we order a meal in a restaurant and the food is served tardily, undercooked, and poorly presented, our judgement of the situation must focus on the immediate merits and needs. In this moment, we do not compensate for social inequity, historical disadvantage, or cultural bias; instead, we assess the competence, care, and character demonstrated in the specific interaction.
This principle underscores the importance of merit and character as the foundation of social cohesion. When individuals are judged by their present actions and contributions rather than by external frameworks or historical considerations, a fairer and more functional society emerges. It is through fostering these qualities—responsibility, competence, and integrity—that social equity can be meaningfully addressed. By focusing on what people offer and how they act in the immediate context, we create a culture where collective progress is built on shared trust, accountability, and respect, with other social indicators naturally following from this foundation.