Fukuyama's thesis reads like an orientalist's pipe dream of what ails the world with only one solution to fix it all: liberal democracy (as he understands it to mean freedom and equality - within the narrow definition that he presents), U.S. progress and global warfare between super powers to keep track of each other's interests. He shows no inclination to acknowledge the whys, hows, and what-ifs of U.S. / 'Western' intervention in the entire ME (the countries of which he quotes as rebellious and incoherent, whose strides into 'liberal democracy' were tainted by the election of 'Islamist' this and that - he shows he has no comprehension of what the world is like beyond U.S. interests and allies and cronies). His thinking is deeply-rooted to a systemic rise of U.S. and its allies, falling short of calling Russia, China, Iran evil (he gets a few punchlines in), and he conveniently ignores many movements around the world that revolve around restoration of dignity.

This is book is what Edward Said would have quoted in 'Orientalism' as an example, if it had bee written decades ago. I have no idea why he has labelled an entire narrative as 'Islamism' when it is pretty much clear to even a novice as me, that no such thing exists in the world. He has misread the entire European experience with Muslims / poor people / people from African countries who migrate there etc. etc.

The author lays out the case for strengthening our Democracy by becoming more united versus the polarized state our political climate is currently in. Very interesting and insightful read!

Every individual has an impulse to be respected and recognized, says Francis Fukuyama. Recognition is a deeply rooted human desire; it has been the cause of tyranny, conflicts, and wars, but at the same time, it also acts as a psychological foundation of many virtues, such as courage, justice and the spirit of citizenship.

This struggle for recognition, or what today we call identity politics, has become hugely important in the contemporary political discourse. Identity grows, writes Fukuyama, “out of a distinction between one’s true inner self, and the outer world of social rules and norms that does not adequately recognize that inner self’s worth.” Say I am a woman, or an African-American, or a lesbian, or some other category, a person that I have been disrespected and marginalized by my society in the past and what I am now asking is respect, the recognition that I am as good a person as everybody else.

In his book Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, Francis Fukuyama goes back to Hegel’s non-materialistic view of history based on the struggle for recognition, a desire so strong that Hegel argued that it is the driving force of history. Fukuyama offers a historical overview, from what Plato called ‘thymos’, the longing for respect and recognition, to Martin Luther’s Reformation, and the social changes that brought to Europe, to the modern concept of identity and identity politics.

The modern concept of identity unites three different phenomena, he writes. The first is ‘thymos’; the second is the distinction between a person’s outer and inner self that emerged in early modern Europe and suggests that the individual (the authentic self) should be prioritized over social structures; and the third is an evolving concept of dignity, in which recognition is due not just to a narrow class of people, but to everyone.

This authentic inner self is the basis of the human dignity and it is recognized by political documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and more recently by the Charter European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which declares that the peoples of Europe are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values in a European Union, “founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

What is happening today, argues Francis Fukuyama, is that many people do not feel that their inner self is respected and valued by their societies. Identity politics is, in short, a struggle for the recognition of dignity. Francis Fukuyama examines many groups and movements that feel disregarded, from Arab Spring to the white working-class men in the United States and Europe and from the Black Lives Matter to the women who launched the #MeToo movement. The characteristic of all these movements is the desire for recognition and respect, he argues.

“Each movement represented people who had up to then been invisible and suppressed; each resented that invisibility and wanted public recognition of their inner worth. So was born what we today label as modern identity politics.”

I don’t feel comfortable with identity politics. I never bought into it. To me, we are individuals with multiple identities. I am a woman, feminist, environmentalist, European, a bookworm, a kind of nomad. I understand that identity politics is a natural response to injustice. As such there is nothing wrong with it. Societies need to protect the marginalized and the excluded. It becomes problematic only when identity is interpreted in certain tribal way. The tendency of identity politics to focus on cultural issues and to ever narrower group identities threatens the possibility of communication, inclusiveness and collective action and diverts energy and attention away from broader socioeconomic issues, such as inequality or political corruption.

The remedy, writes Fukuyama, is not to abandon the idea of identity. We all have multiple identities defined by our race, gender, education, affinities, etc. The aim is to create identities that are broader and more integrative that take into account the diversity of the existing liberal societies. He favours identities based on creed, that is shared values and beliefs, rather than identities based on race or heritage. He suggests that the “successful assimilation of foreigners,” could restrain populism and he proposes civic education in schools in order to form informed and open-minded citizens. Could this steer individuals, groups, and nations away from a politics of resentment? Francis Fukuyama hopes that it does.

https://www.ph-tribune.com/2018/08/29/definition-of-identity-must-be-based-on-liberal-democracy-virtues/

Consequential, magisterial study of the phenomenon which has already changed the political landscape of out times. Fukuyama not only provides analysis but also reflect on the need of redefining of the concept of identity. His solution is inclusive, integrating and liberal.


Excerpt from the review on ph-tribune.com:
'In his brilliant analysis Fukuyama emphasises what can be called a turning point for a shift in understanding of identity – replacement of religion with psychology. In the centuries dominated by religion, priests and ministers would define and guard identity for peoples. After religion was pushed on the margin of the Western culture, that void “was now being filled by psychoanalysts using therapeutic techniques ‘with nothing at stake beyond a manipulatable sense of well-being’”. Therapeutists were focused on discovery of hidden identity.

Self-esteem had gradually dominated thoughts, talks and attitudes creating a culture centred on self and nothing else. “Self esteem enabled not human potential but a crippling narcissism” which characterised Western society. “People were not liberated to fulfil their potential; rather they were trapped in emotional dependence”.

In this moment of the book Fukuyama brings reader to the reality of our days: “Narcissism led Trump into politics; but a politics driven less by public purposes than his own inner needs for public affirmation.”

Read my review at https://journalingonpaper.com/2018/08/27/book-review-identity-by-francis-fukuyama/

The author did an excellent job of examining modern identity politics.
By reviewing its origins and then showing its effects he gave a clear picture of how this is affecting affairs of state not only here in America but internationally.
I highly recommend reading this book.

We are living in testing times where notions of identity and ethnicity threaten to take precedence over cultural assimilation and geopolitical tolerance. The shock election of the entrepreneur turned playboy to the highest office in the oldest democracy on the Planet and the equally shocking decision by the United Kingdom exit the European Union are but two quintessential representations of the changing global contours. But what exactly is this political identity with which the world seems to be disturbingly occupied? Is identity politics a divisive force or an integrative power? What are the origins of this powerful attribute that permeates continents and exerts an indelible influence? These are some of the questions which one of the most well acclaimed political scientist and political economist, Francis Fukuyama attempts to answer.

Continuing from where he left off in his seminal, “The End of History and The Last Man”, Mr. Fukuyama dwells on the aspect of ‘thymos.’ Thymos as per the author is that part of the soul that desires recognition of dignity. The twin facets of ‘isothymia’ and ‘megalothymia’ – the need to be respected on an equal basis with other people and the desire to be recognized as superior respectively constitute two integral elements that drive the essence of identity. This craving for identity which originated with an intent and purpose to attain recognition has ineluctably morphed into a fervent ideology nursing and nurturing its own agenda. As the author illustrates, anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties are gaining ascendancy across nations. Primary examples being the National Front in France, the party for Freedom in Netherlands, the Alternative for Germany and the Freedom party in Austria. While the term “identity politics” is a recent coinage first attributed to the psychologist Erik Erikson during the 1950s, the concept of identity is deep rooted. Mr. Fukuyama employs the term identity in a specific sense to mean an identity that “grows, in the first place, out of a distinction between one’s true inner self, and an outer world of social rules and norms that does not adequately recognize that inner self’s worth or dignity.” This non recognition leads to isothymia and induces actions that strive to claim such absent recognition.

Departing from the received economic wisdom of rational preference and utility maximization, the author argues that “economic theory has little predictive value if preferences are not limited to something like material self-interest, such as the pursuit of income or wealth.” Thus, a hedge fund manager seeking to accumulate wealth as well as a soldier gallantly falling upon a grenade to save his brethren are both maximizing their different preferences. Drawing our attention to the conversation between Socrates and Adeimantus more than two millennia ago, Mr. Fukuyama, asserts that economics did not comprehend the fact that “desire and reason are component parts of the human psyche (soul), but a third part, thymos, acts completely independent of the first two.” Hence when man feels that there is a conflict between an authentic identity that is closeted within and the role assigned to their persona by society there occurs an identity crisis. This concept of identity has been analysed in great depth and detail by various beacons of change, ranging from the Augustinian friar Martin Luther to the pioneer of the construct of the social contract Jean Jacques Rousseau. The French philosopher bemoans the shift from amour de sol (love of self) to amour propre (vanity) which fuels the need for social recognition.

This universal demand for dignity has birthed revolutions from time immemorial. Whether it be the French Revolution or the Arab Spring of 2010, the “demand for the equal recognition of dignity” continues unabated. Geniuses such as Vincent Van Goh and Franz Kafka who were not accorded recognition during their life time became martyrs of an unapologetic society that did not have the necessary sense to appreciate the depths of individuality represented by such stalwarts. Mr. Fukuyama also underscores the lockstep between individual identity and collective identity. While the former is an individualistic desire to be recognized, the latter is the outcome of a belongingness to a particular unit such as a nation, a religion or a community. First accorded prominence by Johann Gottfried von Herder, the notion of collective identity or ‘ethno-nationalism’ has assumed magnitude of great and at times grave proportions. In the words of Mr. Fukuyama, who echoes the sentiments of the nineteenth century social theorist, Ferdinand Tonnies, “the shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, or from village community to urban society……engenders a psychological dislocation that lays the basis for an ideology of nationalism based on an intense nostalgia for an imagined past of strong community in which the divisions and confusions of a pluralist modern society did not exist.”

This ideology propagated by the Biblical scholar Paul de Lagarde and avidly researched by intellectuals such as Wilhelm Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Troeltsch and Thomas Mann, was also one of the driving thrusts behind the Nazi forces. This very transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft is the one that has seen the humongous migrations of victims from the war torn countries of Syria, Yemen, Libya etc and has led to a raging debate on immigration and the attendant policies. The ethno nationalism triggered by this transition leads to people wearing specific garbs not as a declaration of their faith towards a particular religion but as a strong and impacting declaration about their association or belongingness to a cause or a group. The “born-again” phenomenon that results in an otherwise perfectly normal, seemingly assimilated group of Islamic youth transform into suicide bombers and gun toting maniacs has been described by the French Middle East Scholar Oliver Roy as more of “Islamization of radicalism, rather than radicalization of Islam.” The motives underlying the wanton acts of destruction of such brain washed individuals are more a result of deprived identity rather than a fostering of religious ideologies. Not surprisingly this theory of Roy has come in for some scathing criticism by other scholars and experts in the subject.

This loss of identity which makes one seem almost ‘invisible’ in relation to a class which wallows in wealth and recognition also unleashes an ethno nationalism based on dissent and discord. Citing the example of Thailand, the author states, “loss of middle class status may explain one of the most bitter polarizations in contemporary politics, which has emerged in Thailand.” The roiling class division that led to clashes between the “yellow shirts” supporters of the monarchy, and the “red shirts” rebels of the Thai Rak Thai Party depicted in chilling detail the sectarian strife that could be triggered by a lack of identity. Similar were the working class resentments which not only led to the formation of the Tea Party in the United States but also vaunted a demagogue to the country’s highest political pedestal.

Mr. Fukuyama also identifies what he terms to be six vital functions of national identities: “physical security; quality of government; economic development; promoting a wide radius of trust; maintaining strong social safety nets that mitigate economic inequality; and to make possible liberal democracy.” Such a national identity, “provides the connective tissue around which diverse communities can thrive. India, France, Canada and the United States are examples of countries that have tried to do this.” Mr. Fukuyama also proposes measures such as encouraging proper assimilation of refugees, streamlining citizenship laws by introducing community and civic service, changing the laws of EU member states still based on jus sanguinis to jus soli and to counter specific abuses such as sexual harassment and abuse to overcome the obstinate problem of identity crisis.

In an era where using trucks to mow into a teeming mass of public, or to explode oneself in the middle of a bustling concert has become commonplace, socio economic measures and political policies followed by the nation states will, to a large extent determine not only the well-being of the world, but also the path to be pursued in future.

Francis Fukuyama’s new book, while not proclaiming to erase the ails triggered by the needs of identity, provides an illuminating overview of the very problem and the myriad reasons undergirding the same.

I can’t begin to convey the depth and probity of his argument, but I will say that I see this book as nothing less than necessary. There is much to learn here and much to think about. Readers will doubtless not agree with everything Fukuyama says -- indeed, some will likely be irritated by parts of his analyses -- but if they are serious about trying to understand why our political culture is as angry and polarized as it is, they will give thought to why they disagree and what precisely they are disagreeing with. I certainly found myself thinking about things in different ways after reading the book.

No thanks

Another "Trump is Terrible Tale" and he is really the only one. If you hate Trump you may like it but if you are trying to learn something tale a pass

Francis Fukuyama, the (former?) neoconservative thinker, has put together an analysis of the development of identity politics over the 20th century and the current impacts it is having on society, culture, and politics - this analysis is grounded in the theory of "thymos", and he does an admirable job of making this convincing. Additionally Fukuyama has developed some recommendations for addressing the more negative aspects of identity politics as well. Surprisingly, many of his perspectives and opinions are taking a strangely liberal tack. While he has been appearing to move leftward (or at least toward the center) since his written opinions during the Bush 43 presidency, many of these opinions and recommendations would not appear out of place in some of the leftward leaning publications (at least as a corrective to centrality). Fukuyama asserts that identity politics, while strongly identified with the left, has also given rise to the right-wing populist movements; and that identity politics is at the heart of white America's support of president Trump. The collection of his strategic recommendations in this book indicate his belief that for the time being identity politics are not going away and that the Democratic Party(!) should use identity politics to claim the middle ground - without necessarily ceding ground on the support of smaller, less hegemonic populations. While the topics covered in this book are very au courant, their likelihood of being adopted are practically non-existent; both parties are drifting further to the margins as their respective bases are increasingly driving the primary processes. I would have been curious to see Fukuyama outline strategic recommendations for addressing the abrogation of the "center" in the base support of the parties.

A fantastic intelligent study of Identity politics. Read review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2479861044

Required reading, and very readable
In Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama presents an impressively well-reasoned and lucid explanation of the phenomenon of identity politics, which is being increasingly recognized as a powerful force within the United States and world-wide. Although he acknowledges in the Preface that the 2016 U S presidential election was the inspiration for the book, Identity goes far beyond an analysis of the last election or similar phenomena like the Brexit vote. The scope of the book is summed up well in the aptly-chosen subtitle: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. Fukuyama is a scholar and deep thinker, and he traces the origins of identity politics back to its roots both historical and psychological. As he explains it, identity politics begins with thymos, a basic human desire for dignity and recognition of an individual’s worth, which creates resentment if an individual feels disrespected. The modern concept of identity has changed over the past few centuries, though, under the influence of thinkers like Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others. As society has become modern and complex, people have felt their identities more repressed and value their inner selves more. And as modern society has developed, people increasingly began to believe that dignity is something that all people deserve, and not just a narrow class. When large numbers of people sense they are not being accorded that dignity, various forms of unrest develop. Some are positive and productive, and some are not, and Fukuyama presents a number of excellent examples, such as the Arab Spring that was touched off when a Tunisian policewoman slapped a street vendor. If people cannot feel respected for themselves alone, they can look for respect by virtue of membership in a group, be it ethnic, religious, or class, and it is this push for respect by virtue of group identity that is being noted in many ways today, whether it is the tribal antipathies in Africa, anti-immigrant feelings in many countries, or requests for ethnic-focused dorms on college campuses. Although we tend to note negative results of people’s quest for dignity and respect, Fukuyama says “that the demand for dignity should somehow disappear is neither possible nor desirable”. Ultimately, if I may oversimplify a much more sophisticated conclusion, Fukuyama calls for a broadening of the sense of identity based on a commitment to liberal democratic principles as a solution to many ills.
Identity is definitely the best non-fiction book I have read in a very long time. It is disturbing, enlightening, and convincing; to me it also appeared very objective if approached with an open mind, although I suspect it will offend hardliners in both the liberal and conservative camps. His thesis is sophisticated, but the book is very readable, and his ultimate conclusion is positive: “Identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate. That in the end will be the remedy for the populist politics of the present.”

Reveals that identity politics is not the end but an evolutionary stage to be followed by something else

Fukuyama explores the development of political philosophy and history that led to the current state of affairs with regard to identity politics. The book is accessible even though it is academic. Fukuyama does not simply summarize the current state of Western democracies, he also provides suggestions for how to improve the social and political environments. It ends on a hopeful note, which is much appreciated considering the current state of politics.

Identifying is innate

Francis Fukuyama’ Identity starts off very badly, with a bizarre defense of his famous claim that the crumbling of the USSR and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall constituted “the end of history”. Like a Donald Trump (who gets more criticism than everyone else in the book combined), he doubles down on the statement by claiming what it says is nothing like what he meant. He claims to have used a completely different meaning for the word “end” as in “target” or “objective”. Similarly, “history” is actually a word from “Hegelian-Marxist terminology” meaning “development” or “modernization”. Finally, the original use, as an essay title, had a question mark at the end (the later book of the same title did not). So apparently, Fukuyama was saying “The Objective of Modernization?” but it came out End of History. Our bad. It all reminds me of the Rodney King trial, in which police lawyers made the jury review every frame of the beating video until they “proved” that no beating ever took place.

With that out of the way, Identity settles down into a treatise on identity through the ages. From Socrates lecturing on choices to Rousseau on how the first man to have found a use for minerals claimed the land it was on as his own private property – and everybody acquiescing. Next up is Martin Luther, who disintermediated the Catholic Church – or thought he did. Through it all, identity kept changing.

Fukuyama’s current thinking is that there are three parts to identity – thymos, or need for recognition, the recognition of the inner self as opposed to the outer, and dignity, which touches on respect and equality.

His excuse for the disappearance of the left worldwide, particularly in an era of increasingly outrageous inequality is that the message was “misdelivered by the post office”. It went to religions and to nationalists instead of classes. Later, he adds that the left abandoned the masses for specific groups, thus losing the support of the many. Meanwhile identity became enormously fashionable in elections.

Identity is a non-economic analysis of how we got where we are, replacing the rise of capitalism and neoliberalism with the rise of active government and isothymia- the need for recognition by individuals.

Identity reads like a TED talk. An awful lot on one subject, a lot of top line headlines, with not much new information, and little in the way of new insight. Fukuyama deals with the tribalism of Man by ignoring it. He skips straight to nation-states, where borders move, governments change, and international agreements all make keeping a consistent identity difficult. This is a very old frustration for citizens all over the world. Mort Sahl used to say that anyone who kept a consistent foreign policy position in America would eventually have to be tried for treason. Identity is the same kind of moving target. (Or end.)

What Fukuyama misses completely is the splintering back into tribes. There was an era when it was thought bodies like the League of Nations or United Nations could unite us and actually speak for us. But the opposite is happening. Countries are riven by independence movements of tiny enclaves. Nations bristle at the thought of regional associations like the European Union having jurisdiction over them. Everyone seems to be identifying with smaller and smaller groups.

Identity is in a constant flux of redefinition. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. That’s all that need be said. It’s not really worth a whole book.

David Wineberg

This is required reading, because with this book, Fukuyama is clearly on to something. At the core, he discusses how we can overcome political polarization and strenghten our democratic systems. In order to grasp the underlying current that drives today's discussions and gave rise to Trumpism ("With regard to character, it was hard to imagine an individual less suited to be President of the United States." ), Fukuyama tackles identity politics - and you know what? My guess it that most people who read this review will have a strong emotional response to the expression alone - welcome to the heart of the problem.

To say it right at the beginning: Fukuyama agrees that discrimination, inequality and injustice must be fought, that the goals of #metoo, #blacklivesmatter, and comparable social movements deserve support ("No critique of identity politcs should imply that these are not real and urgent problems that need concrete solutions."). His point is that on top of that, we need to fight the particularization of society into a mere conglomerate of interest groups. When the economically disenfranchised who are disregarded (e.g. in the Rust Belt) and those who have long been deprived of recognition and acceptance start to fight each other, who will win...ähem...bigly? Democratic political entities need meta-narratives that bring people together, and these meta-narratives must be based on ideals and virtues like the rule of law or the belief in human dignity, concepts that people can share and incorporate in their identities no matter their personal background: "One does not have to deny the potentialities and lived experiences of individuals to recognize that they can also share values and aspirations with much broader circles of citizens."

This is of course only the rough outline of Fukuyama's elaborate argument. In a highly interesting chapter dedicated to the rise of identity politics, Fukuyama shows how the concept of dignity is closely connected to the spread of modernity in the 19th century, but was already discussed in Ancient Greece as an inherent urge in all people. This deeply human factor is exploited by the "politics of resentment": "In a wide variety of cases, a political leader has mobilized followers around the perception that the group's dignity has been affronted, disparaged or otherwise disregarded. (...) A humiliated group seeking restitution of its dignity carries far more emotional weight than people simply pursuing their economic advantages." Yes, the rise of fascism, radical Islamism and Trumpism are of course also rooted in identity politics, and this touches on a neuralgic point: People shouldn't get recognition simply for who they are, for showing their inner self, Fukuyama argues, because this is the door through which radicals step to promote the "politics of resentment". Instead, all people should be held up to certain moral standards.

And there's one more argument that I'd like to point out here, because I think it's a very important one: "The tendency of identity politics to focus on cultural issues has diverted energy and attention away from serious thinking on the part of progressives about how to reverse the thirty-year trend in most liberal democracies toward greater socioeconomic inequality." That's true, especially in the States and in Britain. Has the left given up in the fight for a more social economy? Has class been replaced by culture?

There are many things that Fukuyama writes that I don't agree with, e.g., I think that his derogative postulation of a " new religion of psychotherapy" is missing the potentials of therapy, I don't share his skepticism regarding dual citizenship, his assessment of postcolonial studies seems a little dubious, and I think he misrepresents the debate about the "Leitkultur" (leading culture) in Germany - and there is much more. But that's not the point here - the point is that Fukuyama wrote a book that can propel the current discourse forward, that brings up many ideas for discussion and that maintains that identity politics and solidarity are both important.

He aims to bridge the gap in order to defeat the "politics of resentment" and to save liberal democracy - and we should listen to his ideas and debate them with people we agree with, and especially with people we don't agree with.