Identity and Conflict

Isaac Levi Identity and Conflict IDENTITY AND VALUES AMARTYA SEN WISELY R EM IN D S US OF A FAMILIAR FACT: ALL AGENTS carry m any different “identities.” X may be a US citizen, a Democrat, a secular hum anist, a father, a husband, a grandfather, bureaucrat, and a great m any other things.1 As Sen recognizes, to say that all agents carry m any different identities should not be equated with the banal observation that each of us possesses m any different characteristics at a given time and over time. An agent identifies only w ith some of the groups w ith whom the agent shares traits in common. These are the groups who have an influ­ ence “on w hat we value and how we behave” (Sen, 2006: 20). Sen has long been a critic o f attitudes am ong econom ists concerned w ith explaining and predicting behavior in term s of selfinterest even if such interest is generous enough to include interest in the welfare of others or interest in prom oting the goals of others. The values prom oted by decisionmakers can vaiy. They may become affili­ ated w ith institutions, ethnic or religious groups, w ith their country, profession, their families in ways that run counter to their personal goals no m atter how altruistic the latter may or may not be. They may conform to the requirem ents of some m oral code or code of honor. Doing any one of these things may entail considerable self-sacrifice. We need not insist on a view as to how widespread this behavior is in order to acknowledge that such behavior counts for a considerable portion of both routine and deliberate behavior. According to Sen, having an iden­ tity is an affiliation with a group and com m itm ent to a code of conduct or system of value com m itm ents associated w ith the affiliation. social research Vol 74 : No 1: Spring 2007 25 Sen points out that the classical m odel of rational economic m an may be described as urging a m onom aniacal insistence on a single affili­ ation. Rational Xaffiliates w ith the group (typically a unit set) com m itted to prom oting X’s self-interest. Affiliating w ith the value com m itm ents of a single group is a feature rational economic m an shares in common w ith fundam entalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews of the m ore fanati­ cal varieties who express loyalty exclusively to their religious groups or to the God who is the alleged object of adoration. According to Sen, m ost of us have m any affiliations. In some contexts, some are m ore salient than others. Even w here loyalty to several affiliations is called for, it is often feasible to gratify the demands of all of them. W here it is not feasible, the need to prioritize the several identities can lead to conflict w ithin a single individual or group or to violent struggle betw een groups. Sen denies th at violent struggle is inevitable. He contends, however, that recognition of the m ultiple affiliations that agents have presents an opportunity to replace violent struggle w ith deliberate choice of resolutions of conflict based on reasoned deliberation w here the conflicting dem ands of com peting identities are weighed and evaluated. This is not an excessively optim istic view of identity politics. Sen does not predict that agents w ith m ultiple affiliations will seize the opportunities for avoiding violent struggle and choosing the path of reasoned deliberation. He points out that the m any identities that agents have is an opportunity for exercising reasoned choice. And he seeks to encourage the exercise of such opportunities. But he does not predict that agents will take advantage of these opportunities. Some aspects of Sen’s admirable attitude call for closer scrutiny. One way of “seeing oneself” is, as Sen points out, through an appeal to history and background. It is not the only way, but it is one way. However, it is far from clear that this way of seeing oneself entails devotion to any particular...