{"id":208,"date":"2020-05-03T20:32:54","date_gmt":"2020-05-04T00:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/?p=208"},"modified":"2020-05-03T20:47:58","modified_gmt":"2020-05-04T00:47:58","slug":"book-review-kwame-anthony-appiahs-the-lies-that-bind-rethinking-identity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/book-review\/book-review-kwame-anthony-appiahs-the-lies-that-bind-rethinking-identity\/","title":{"rendered":"Book Review: Kwame Anthony Appiah\u2019s The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Response to the \u201cLabels are for Soup Cans Not People\u201d Mentality<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The worst bulletin board I\u2019ve ever had the displeasure of seeing in the halls of my high school featured an array of Campbell\u2019s Soup cans and the pithy phrase \u201clabels are for soup cans not people.\u201d Each construction paper can stapled up on the crinkled blue backdrop featured a label, among them \u2013 gay, fat, and nerd. I think that I was supposed to take offense to these terms, and get the impression that I shouldn\u2019t use them to describe other people. I just saw myself. How, I thought, could the well intentioned bulletin board makers get it so wrong? I\u2019m not disagreeing with what I take to be their underlying point: labeling other people and reducing them to a singular aspect of their being is wrong. I am just as upset as anybody else when identifiers are used as terms of abuse. But, identities and labels aren\u2019t <\/span>inherently<\/span><\/i> bad! I didn\u2019t get how anyone could completely discount the joy and unity that come with finding another person who shares your identity, who labels themselves the same way. I know that when I was struggling to understand and come to terms with my sexuality I felt less alone when I found the words to describe my attraction. Having the language to talk about my self helped me find both resources and community.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, every time I see a debate about identity politics I think about that bulletin board. And I think of two of the ways we can choose to see identity, as something that separates us and alienates us, or as something that brings us together, sometimes powerfully, in efforts to organize for our collective needs. Unfortunately, I have found that most commentary on identity follows the first route to the complete neglect of the second.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, when I picked up Kwame Anthony Appiah\u2019s <\/span>The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identity <\/span><\/i>I was primed to be disappointed. I was pretty sure, from the title, and the prominence of the word \u2018lies\u2019 in it, that Appiah was going to dismiss identity outright. He calls them lies after all!? But, I was pleasantly surprised. Appiah offers an incredibly careful and measured approach to thinking through identity. He chooses to see value in it, highlighting the way that identities unite us and make it possible for groups of people to do things <\/span>together<\/span><\/i>, while also attempting to levy a critique.<\/span><\/p>\n

In each of the six chapters in the book Appiah argues that we often fall into the error \u201cof supposing that at the core of each identity there is some deep similarity that binds people of that identity together. Not true, I say; not true over and over again.\u201d Take national identity, for instance \u2013 in chapter three \u201cCountry,\u201d Appiah turns to cases that push our notions of national identity. From the complicated national identity of one writer, <\/span>Italo Svevo<\/span><\/a>, to the story of an emerging national identity, and its plurality, in <\/span>Singapore<\/span><\/a> \u2013 Appiah labors to show, \u201cthe truth of every modern nation is that political unity is never underwritten by some preexisting national commonality. What binds citizens together is a commitment … to sharing the life of a modern state, united by its institutions, procedures, and precepts.\u201d National identity, doesn\u2019t pop up fully formed, it\u2019s invented and continually reinvented.<\/span><\/p>\n

That brings us back to the crucial insight in Appiah\u2019s title; identities <\/span>are<\/span><\/i> lies; they are things we construct and make up. They are not necessary facts of our lives, they are things that exist and come to be important because of the circumstances of our lives. But, the fact that identities are constructed isn\u2019t grounds to dismiss their importance. They can crucially inform our views of the world. \u201cIdentities work only because, once they get their grip on us, they command us, speaking to us as an inner voice; and because others, seeing who they think we are, call on us, too.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Appiah is suggesting that we ought to accept that identities have import in our world while recognizing that they do a poor job conveying information about beliefs. Identity cannot, Appiah emphasizes, stand in for discussions with other people. You can\u2019t know someone\u2019s beliefs from knowing how they identify. I think we all make this mistake sometimes \u2013 I certainly have. I tend to believe that other LGBT+ people will support more liberal policies, and I am frequently proven wrong. <\/span>Twinks for Trump<\/span><\/a>, and their viral campaign featuring shirtless gay men wearing Make America Great Again hats, was prime evidence of that folly. If I had taken the approach to identity that Appiah suggests, I never would\u2019ve made that mistake, because I wouldn\u2019t have assumed anything at all upon knowing one of someone\u2019s identities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Appiah suggests that we talk with others and let them tell us what they believe for themselves, without making assumptions. Right now, he says, we are giving up chances to find common ground. Some Republicans and Democrats may agree on some policies. They could work together, making progress in a mutually desirable direction. This portion of Appiah\u2019s thought strikes me, personally, as overly optimistic. I can agree that it\u2019s best to let people identify themselves, and articulate what their identity means to themselves. Yet, I find that political identity, tends to be pretty reliable in giving me a general sense of what other people believe. After all, there is a reason why a person chooses to align themselves with one group or another. Even if they don\u2019t hold all the beliefs that their party does, they are letting you know that their priorities lie in that direction. Is the issue really as simple as a lack of communication? Or is it something more difficult, like a clash of values?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite my misgivings about Appiah\u2019s incredibly hopeful tenor toward the power of conversation in healing divides, I found this book to be a valuable read. It is carefully argued, brings in a variety of examples, and has a very approachable tone. Mostly, though, I liked the book because it was nice to see someone holding proper respect for the ways that identities work in our lives, not merely suggesting that labels ought to be left to the soup cans. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Response to the \u201cLabels are for Soup Cans Not People\u201d Mentality   The worst bulletin board I\u2019ve ever had the displeasure of seeing in…<\/p>\n

Continue ReadingBook Review: Kwame Anthony Appiah\u2019s The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":924,"featured_media":210,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-review","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/924"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":213,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208\/revisions\/213"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/phi345-sp20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}