Ignatieff and Maarouf, Research Paper Example

Questions of globalization suggest a tension with traditional national conceptions of identity, while concomitantly evoking the possibility of new forms of identity that a global community may create. It is precisely these issues that are investigated by Amin Maalouf and Michael Ignatieff in their respective texts In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong and “Nationalism and the Narcissisms of Minor Differences.” Both thinkers discuss the structure of national identity and contrast it with the possibility of an identity founded in globalization. In the following, we shall present the accounts of Maalouf and Ignatieff, summarize their similarities and differences, and offer a critical analysis of their respective views.

Michael Ignatieff’s text discusses globalization in terms of its potential to overcome identities that are formed by nationalism. The article, written against the backdrop of the 1990s Yugoslavian war, attempts to delineate how identities produced from nationalistic, ideological and political sources are essentially negative phenomena, which engender conflict and violence. In one of the key junctures of the text, Ignatieff offers a synopsis of the relationship between nationalism and identity; which he summarizes according to three main premises: “Identity is relational”, “Identity is divided” and thirdly, that nationalism “constitutes” identity. (Ignatieff, 92) While all these three points are interrelated; each point nonetheless speaks to a precise aspect of identity. Firstly, the relationality of identity suggests that identity is not merely individual, but rather that the conceptual support for identity formation, always comes from another, what may be termed the not-I.  That is to say, one can assert identity in an essentially negative manner, by affirming what one is not. In consequence, however, this demonstrates the necessity of the other to the formation of any identity whatsoever. This point foreshadows the divided nature of identity, as identity is never absolute but relational; moreover, as Ignatieff notes there are many types of identity that a person may assume, such as “personal” or “nationalistic” (Ignatieff, 92), which may contrast with each other and produce a certain dissonance within identity. With these two points in mind, we can begin to situate the specific third point of nationalism and identity: since the national identity does not exist beforehand, nationalism takes these divided and relational forces and in essence subdues them to “constitute” (as Ignatieff puts it) or form an identity that is complete in an illusory manner. This definition leads Ignatieff to formulate his fundamental thesis as follows: “Nationalism is the transformation of identity into narcissism” (Ignatieff, 96), a narcissism that is “a language game that takes the facts of difference and turns them into a narrative justifying political self-determination.” (Ignatieff, 96) In other words, nationalism transforms the differences inherent to identity while also suppressing them, in order to create a chauvinistic identity that has an appearance as complete, non-relational and absolute. It follows then that Ignatieff’s vision of globalization is one in which this nationalistic narcissism is eliminated. This is possible, for Ignatieff, insofar as globalization itself conflicts with the idea of nationhood. Ignatieff stresses what is crucial is “to help people see themselves as individuals.” (Ignatieff, 101) Thus, globalization recalls the notion that “humanity is primary and difference is secondary” (Ignatieff, 101), as globalization satisfies the primacy ascribed to general humanity: it directly opposes nationalisms that create conflict, while also offering an alternative form of individual identity.

Maalouf also views globalization as an opportunity for the constitution of new identities. Maalouf differs from Ignatieff, however, as he is more cautious towards globalization, warning that the globalization process does not ensure that positive identities may be created. Maalouf writes: “In the age of globalization and of the ever-accelerating intermingling of elements in which we are all caught up, a new concept of identity is needed, and needed urgently.” (Maalouf, 35) It is the notion of “urgency” that is central to this account of globalization and identity: if globalization is not accompanied by this “new concept of identity”, the negative corollary is that some groups may experience “the loss of their identity altogether.” (Maalouf, 35) In other words, if globalization does not create a universal concept of identity, those excluded will fall back on traditional, nationalistic identities, in order to cling to some shred of identity within the overall context of globalization.

Both Maalouf and Ignatieff thus view globalization as an opportunity to move away from traditional, limited conceptions of identity and towards greater human identity consistent with an inclusive global community. In both authors, identity is something that globalization may radically re-structure; although Maalouf is more cautious of the possible negatives of globalization. Nevertheless, both Maalouf and Ignatieff seem to support a typical Western Liberal or neo-Liberal approach to globalization, although Maaloof may be termed a “soft” liberal, whereas Ignatieff is a “hard” liberal. For example, Ignatieff’s account of the Yugoslav war recalls the image of the traditional liberal outsider, criticizing and denouncing the “minor differences” in a local culture as insignificant and banal. (furthermore, Ignatieff misspells the Zastava pistol as Zastavo) Maalouf, in contrast, emphasizes a certain local, Arab perspective in his analysis of globalization, nevertheless only to the extent that these rights coincide with the universal human rights. (Maalouf, 58) Hence, both thinkers essentially endorse a Western ideology, assuming the alleged non-universal character of a particular Western dogma, in which notions such as human rights and globalization are infallible. Certainly, what is absent here is a critique of liberal ideology. While Igantieff explicitly notes that liberalism is a “fiction”, (Ignatieff, 101) he still emphasizes that it is the best fiction; Maalouf will reject tradition in the last instance, according to this same fiction. Neither thinker provides a radical engagement with the Western intellectual horizon, such that their solutions remain merely variations of this horizon’s founding ideology. It would seem that what is required is a more dynamic conceptual framework, one conscious of the founding norms of Western society as an ideology in itself, as opposed to merely assuming the a priori validity of neo-liberal global capitalism.

Works Cited

Ignatieff, Michael. “Nationalism and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” Theorizing Nationalism. Ed., Ronald Beiner. Albany, NY: State University Press of New York, 1999. 91-102.

Maalouf, Amin. In The Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2001.