The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time

by Yascha Mounk

“The most comprehensive and reasonable story of this shift that has yet been attempted . . . Mounk has told the story of the Great Awokening better than any other writer who has attempted to make sense of it.” — The Washington Post

“Among the most insightful and important books written in the last decade on American democracy and its current torments, because it also shows us a way out of the trap.” —Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind , and coauthor of The Coddling of the American Mind

One of our leading public intellectuals traces the origin of a set of ideas about identity and social justice that is rapidly transforming America—and explains why it will fail to accomplish its noble goals.

For much of history, societies have violently oppressed ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. It is no surprise that many who passionately believe in social justice came to believe that members of marginalized groups need to take pride in their identity to resist injustice.

But over the past decades, a healthy appreciation for the culture and heritage of minority groups has transformed into a counterproductive obsession with group identity in all its forms. A new ideology aiming to place each person’s matrix of identities at the center of social, cultural, and political life has quickly become highly influential. It stifles discourse, vilifies mutual influence as cultural appropriation, denies that members of different groups can truly understand one another, and insists that the way governments treat their citizens should depend on the color of their skin.

This, Yascha Mounk argues, is the identity trap. Though those who battle for these ideas are full of good intentions, they will ultimately make it harder to achieve progress toward the genuine equality we desperately need. Mounk has built his acclaimed scholarly career on being one of the first to warn of the risks right-wing populists pose to American democracy. But, he shows, those on the left and center who are stuck in the identity trap are now inadvertent allies to the MAGA movement.

In The Identity Trap , Mounk provides the most ambitious and comprehensive account to date of the origins, consequences, and limitations of so-called “wokeness.” He is the first to show how postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory forged the “identity synthesis” that conquered many college campuses by 2010. He lays out how a relatively marginal set of ideas came to gain tremendous influence in business, media, and government by 2020. He makes a nuanced philosophical case for why the application of these ideas to areas from education to public policy is proving to be so deeply counterproductive—and why universal, humanist values can best serve the vital goal of true equality. In explaining the huge political and cultural transformations of the past decade, The Identity Trap provides truth and clarity where they are needed most.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Sociology, History, Psychology, Audiobook

401 pages, Hardcover

First published September 26, 2023

About the author

Yascha Mounk is a writer, academic and public speaker known for his work on the crisis of democracy and the defense of philosophically liberal values.
​
Born in Germany to Polish parents, Yascha received his BA in History from Trinity College Cambridge and his PhD in Government from Harvard University. He is a Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at Johns Hopkins University, where he holds appointments in both the School of Advanced International Studies and the SNF Agora Institute. Yascha is also a Contributing Editor at The Atlantic, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Moynihan Public Fellow at City College. He is the Founder of Persuasion, the host of The Good Fight podcast, and serves as a publisher (Herausgeber) at Die Zeit.

Yascha has written five books: Stranger in My Own Country – A Jewish Family in Modern Germany, a memoir about Germany’s fraught attempts to deal with its past; The Age of Responsibility – Luck, Choice and the Welfare State, which argues that a growing obsession with the concept of individual responsibility has transformed western welfare states; The People versus Democracy – Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, which explains the causes of the populist rise and investigates how to renew liberal democracy; The Great Experiment – Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, which argues that anybody who seeks to help ethnically and religiously diverse democracies thrive has reason to embrace a more ambitious vision for their future than is now fashionable; and his latest, The Identity Trap – A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, which tells the story of how a new set of ideas about race, gender and sexual orientation came to be extremely influential in mainstream institutions, and why it would be a mistake to give up on a more universalist humanism.

Next to his work for The Atlantic, Yascha also occasionally writes for newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs. He is also a regular contributor to major international publications including Die Zeit, La Repubblica, El País, l’Express and Folha de São Paolo, among others.

Reviews

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was first exposed to what Yascha Mounk calls the "identity synthesis" over twenty years ago when I was in college. I had grown up steeped in an unreflective liberal universalism that saw "past" injustice as "bad" but as aberrations in the vision of a better America and a better world rather than built inextricably and eternally into the fabric of our American culture and Western civilization more generally. I can truthfully say I did not think of myself in terms of my gender nor did I think of my friends as having deeply unrelatable experiences because many of them were not white. So the first time that I was told by other students that I couldn't speak on a subject because I did not belong to what was considered an "oppressed" group in the given conversation (and was in the "oppressor" group), the first time I heard a student say she could not relate to characters because they were not people of color, I was immediately thrown into a spiral of doubt, both ethical and epistemological, that has not managed to resolve itself over the previous two decades. Although there have been periods of relative respite from this tension - most of the time between leaving college in 2004 and circa 2016 - my deep ambivalence between liberalism and the "identity synthesis" never completely vanished. In the aftermath of Trump's election, I've often felt so left behind by what political discourse in this country has become that I've left social media for extended periods of time just so I don't have to be barraged with it. As an academic in the humanities, I've found my lack of adherence to the "identity synthesis" increasingly isolating to the point of being self-sabotaging. Obviously, no one is standing at my back and making me write about certain things from certain perspectives. Yet when your discipline increasingly coalesces around what is considered a moral use of narratives about the past and the subjects you research (and if you are not telling these narratives and researching these subjects, whose side are you on?), and yet even when you're researching a kind of related subject and cannot wholeheartedly agree with the narrative you know you're supposed to tell out of your evidence, well, it is pretty crippling.

I have tried to make myself believe in the "identity synthesis." I have read the books one is supposed to read. I know the lines one is supposed to take. Most of the very smart people I know believe in the identity synthesis, so I've long felt there must be something wrong with me that I just cannot get myself to accept it. I do follow it, logically speaking. But when I see what happens all too frequently in practice- not necessarily "as intended" but nevertheless as a predictable and logical consequence - my stomach just drops. When I read Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility for the first time, I understood what she was saying, but a huge part of me was like "the argument of this book is that all white people are unavoidably racist because we live in a white supremacist society. If you don't accept this, that is a sign of just how racist you are (you are a "fragile white" unable to take responsibility for that racism)" so it becomes a tautological truism. But this way of handling critique seems like a logical fallacy. It also seems, my enlightened friends aside, like a real invitation for the ugliest forms of white supremacy to emerge triumphant - if you are told that you and someone of a different race are always going to be different *and* that you should feel shame for it? Well, regardless of whether this was a truthful description, most people don't handle that well.

I won't get into the full breadth of life and professional experiences I've had that have only added to my philosophically-based misgivings. I have been part of one of those "left-leaning institutions" (in this case, a history department), referenced by Mounk in the book, which was torn apart for several years because of "identity synthesis" thought. Usually when I recount the full details of this story, my identity synthesis friends will label the particular instigator as "unhinged" - which may be the case, but she is "unhinged" and mobilized their discourse for two years of absolute paralysis when we should have been thinking together about the challenges of a global pandemic and the death of our discipline.

So all this being said, I was very glad that Mounk wrote The Identity Trap. I think it does a fine job of highlighting many of the concerns I've long had as well as articulating clear liberal universalist replacements for these concerns that still take the very valid issues of discrimination based on race gender, and sexual orientation into account (because even worse than the pressure to think along identity synthesis lines in and of itself has been the feeling that, if you don't, you're effectively supporting Ron DeSantis and the anti-woke crusaders). I do not think this book is sufficiently compelling to win away adherents of identity synthesis - and I really don't know if that is possible. Ultimately values are always about what unfortunate consequences you find too chilling to allow, and I think mine are probably just different from those of my friends who believe in identity synthesis thought. It does, however, offer an effective road map for those of us who think that despite the many, many past failings of liberal universalism there is something of practical value in its message going forward (or really, that it's just the least evil abstract political principle of the lot). I no longer believe in the unreflective universalism in which I was raised. I am far more conscious of the different experiences of people based on their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other factors now. But a reflective universal liberalism, I think, that prioritizes human life, rights and happiness in general while also paying special attention to work the hardest for those who have suffered the most, still has hope for the future.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s hard to write a slightly negative review of a book when I basically agree with everything in it! I mean that should be kind of gratifying to my ego, right? It’s not written poorly, either. But for me at least, it’s way too simplistic and repetitive.

If you’re a little troubled by “identity politics” but haven’t thought much about it, and you aren’t familiar with liberal theory, then by all means get this book! I don’t mean to dissuade you.

But if you’ve already read and thought about these topics for a while, this may a refresher course at best.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yascha Mounk describes the history of “woke” philosophy and explains why it is wrong and harmful. Only he doesn’t call it “woke”, he calls it the “identity synthesis”. The relabeling is his attempt to be even-handed and describe the philosophy in more neutral terms since “woke” is now mostly just used by its detractors as an insult term.

This attack on “woke”, or “identity synthesis”, or whatever you want to call it, comes from a liberal perspective. Maybe this will make it persuasive to people attracted to this philosophy. But probably not. It’s just too difficult to change people’s minds on these issues. Sometimes it seems like they are hard-wired in us.

I found Mounk’s description of the philosophical history of the “identity synthesis” to be really interesting and my favorite part of the book. Mounk argues that right-wingers who make simple attacks on “woke” as being an extension of Communism are wrong. Mounk describes the “identity synthesis” as having rich intellectual roots. It starts with the Postmodernism of Michel Foucault, who was a critic of Communism. This will get belabored if I describe all the other intellectual roots, but I’ll just reiterate that it was very interesting and is a much deeper discussion of “wokeness” than you will typically find.

The rest of the book, where he argues against the “identity synthesis”, was solid. I agree with him, but nothing really surprised me. He made the arguments I thought he would make and made them well. I hope my pessimism is wrong about how intransigent people are, and I hope people read this book and consider the arguments.

[Andrea McDowell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Uneven. In parts Mounk seems determined to misunderstand concerns and analyses by identity politics writers and activists and other philosophers, other parts he introduces shocking anecdotes without any analysis of their frequency then builds an argument on them, and then on occasion introduces a valid point about the downsides of identity politics.

I'm not sure he even read the people he criticizes. Michael Sandel, for example, goes to great lengths to state in The Tyranny of Merit that you want qualified people to get jobs needing those qualifications, you just don't want them to be told that this is due to "merit" as a thing that makes them better than other people, nor unduly rewarded for it so that others without those skills live in poverty for which they are blamed. Mounk appears largely to agree with these points, but criticizes Sandel and defends the concept of meritocracy anyway, without appearing to realize that any "ocracy" defies the equality and levelling of hierarchy he champions elsewhere in the book. He criticizes Ibram X Kendi for stating that America fought racism during the cold war to win a propaganda battle with the Soviet Union rather than out of any genuine concern for black people -- without saying himself why then the US agreed to civil rights gains at that time and what evidence he brings to bear for that view. There are other examples, but you get my point.

On the other hand, he does raise at least one valid concern: that identity politics can and has been co-opted by existing elites to maintain the status quo as it is relevant to them. As Mounk says, equity can be interpreted as equal outcomes for all groups, and therefore can technically be achieved if you have a handful of black billionaires and still hundreds of millions of poor white and black people, and this does seem to be the tack taken by the powerful. Have we been racist? Goodness gracious me, let's promote a few black people to the c-suite and maybe a trans person, and not worry about paying our workers fairly. Of any identity.

I remember a BLM activist I followed on social media (and still do; I don't think they're posting anymore though) following the 2020 protests who had some really inspiring things to say. And I guess a lot of corporate sponsors agreed, because they started getting sponsorship deals and invitations to participate in fashion shows. This was justice and equity in action, according to them. To me (admittedly as a cranky middle-aged white lady, but still) it was the same old same old handing out plums to a chosen few to change the appearance of something while not actually cracking into the profits of the companies in question or, presumably, the wages and labour conditions of their sweatshop staff. There is still a boot heel on a human neck, it's just the identity labels of who wears the boot and whose neck is one the ground that have changed.

These few decent points are lost in the muddle, though, and the whole fails to convince, particularly if you have read the source material he criticizes.

[Tim O'Neill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many years ago I read the Humanist motto, taken from the Roman dramatist Terrance: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto" (I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me). This summarised a universalist philosophy that resonated with my philosophical and political outlook: the idea that we should focus on the things that unite us as we strive for equality together. Liberal values like free speech, the acceptance of a plurality of views, vigorous and respectful debate and discussion and a belief that we can respect and celebrate cultural and ethnic differences and benefit from doing so were things I thought most people shared. Constraints on what should or shouldn't be said, dogmatism and sanctimony seemed to be mostly seen on the extreme fringes of both sides of the political spectrum, but more on the right than the left.

So it's been jarring in the last 15 years to increasingly find "my" (i.e. progressive left) side of politics seeming to became stridently intolerant, dogmatic, censorious and sanctimonious. One friend told me she would not explain why a certain joke was sexist because, as a cisgender white male, I was simply incapable of understanding. Another took it on herself to yell at a bewildered perfect stranger at a dance party because he was wearing a vague approximation of a Native American feathered war bonnet. A Facebook post by a third friend urged me to join her and her friends in blocking access to a cinema showing a documentary they disagreed with. Identity politics seemed to be taking some people who I knew were good, kind and well-intentioned down some very strange paths.

Unfortunately, much of the criticism of this turn in progressive politics has come from the right and is less than rigorous let alone well-intentioned. Right wing polemicists decry this tendancy as something they call "Cultural Marxism" and recommend a reactionary conservatism or Alt-Right alternative, often with an attendant identity politics of its own. Or the reaction has just been blanket condemnation of anything progressive as "woke" regardless of whether it's related to this tendency or not.

So Mounk's sensible, fair but impassioned plea for the left to turn away from this "identity synthesis" was a welcome find. In noting that this approach to politics is counter-productive and leads to disturbing outcomes, Mounk makes a strong case that a return to universalist liberalism is essential for progressives to achieve genuine outcomes, not bitter balkanisation and a zero sum competation between divided identity groups. As I read, I found myself thinking of counter arguments and objections, only to find Mounk addressing them convincingly.

People with a strong ideological commitment to this identity-based approach to politics will probably find some of Mounk's examples or arguments unpersuasive, but the overall argument he makes has strong merit. Hopefully this book and others like it will propel us to a better approach that acknowledges the injustices that motivate the Identity Synthesis in a way that unites us to tackle them rather than dividing us against ourselves. Because I think we desperately need less division.

[Massimo Pigliucci · Rating 5 out of 5]

I approached this book with trepidation, given the delicate subject matter. But I was quickly taken by Mounk’s solid research and cogent reasoning. He traces the cultural history of what we today call identity politics, clearly demonstrating that it has nothing to do with Marxism (as some of its critics maintain) and everything to do with postmodernism. Unlike detractors hailing from other quarters of the political spectrum, Mounk makes it clear that the intentions of the authors of what he labels the “identity synthesis” are good, and that the problems they point to (i.e., systemic racism and sexism) are very real and need to be tackled. But he also explains very cogently why emphasizing identity at the expense of universalist aspirations like reason, equal justice, and free speech, is a crucial mistake. A mistake, one may add, that has very recently come to bite the US Democratic Party in the arse, witness the recent triple catastrophe suffered by the party in the 2024 elections. Mounk’s book is not just about criticism, though. He also mounts a compelling defense of classical liberalism, Mill-style, and goes on to provide a practical program for taking action against racism and sexism without giving up the fundamental principles that have made liberal democracies by far the most successful (if of course imperfect) system of government ever practiced by a human society.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sometimes I make the mistake of reading a book that I agree too much with. This was one of those books.

Any time a group proscribes a value that you must hold, ideas you must not think, I’m suspect. Even when they are ideas and values that I sympathize with. And it’s these sorts of value litmus tests that Mounk critiques.

I grew up with 1970s Sesame Street MLK universalism. The idea that we are equal, and can work to understand each other and enjoy our differences. Kendi would surely label me a racist for my beliefs.

The MO of the current day is division. And Mounk explores how the left has made their own nightmare of this in the antiracist woke CRT rhetoric, whether it’s on issues of race, sex, heritage.

Good book. Just agreed too much with it to really enjoy it. The echo chamber is not a place that expands my worldview.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mounk gives a really interesting history of anti-racist movements, and how their goals or strategies have evolved. Basically, he describes a tension between either trying to overcome racism by seeking to remove social barriers and integrate racial groups, or else by trying to build solidarity within racial groups so they can organize as interest-groups. The first strategy has involved emphasizing the shared humanity of all groups, and the second strategy has involved affirming the unique gifts and needs of particular groups. The first strategy has called for transcending racial identity through adopting “universal values,” and the second has called for affirming the particular identities of each social group.

Before reading this book, I found the rising attacks on “woke-ism” and affirmative action for inclusivity to be basically incomprehensible. It seemed to be nothing but resentment of equality, by people who felt their superiority endangered. But Mounk shows how frustration has grown among both majority and minority racial or cultural groups. By the 1980s, many black leaders in the USA were exasperated over the minimal results from their civil rights movement. For example, activist educator Derrick Bell concluded that “The interests of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites.” For such frustrated idealists, a far tougher approach to rooting out racism seemed obviously necessary. Rather than just removing some barriers between racial communities, an underlying racism had to be confronted and invalidated at both the institutional and personal levels.

So in an emerging age of “standpoint epistemology” and “critical race theory,” many educators began calling for “affinity groups,” where children of particular ethnicities could find an affirming environment. Defenders of ethnic uniqueness began denouncing “cultural appropriation,” by which people of the wrong culture or race presumed to share in the practices or traditions of other groups. What Mounck calls “the identity trap” emerged. The movement against racism began to look like a movement for each group to stay in its own box. If the ideal of universal equality was just a hypocritical smoke screen for racism, then it seemed that people should dump the illusory ideal, and engage in the inevitable power struggle between groups.

Mounk focuses on the progressive side of this growing culture war, and he basically ignores the white ethno-nationalist blowback that conquered Washington in 2024. His book was published the previous year. But he urges a course-correction for the anti-racist, equal rights movement. Basically, he makes a strong case for a re-emphasis on the basics of liberalism: equal rights and equal accountability for all individuals, not particular rights for each racial or cultural identity-group.

[Allen Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the book:

”It is, I argue, a mistake to give up on the hope that members of different ethnic groups can come to have empathy for each other; to put forms of cultural influence between members of different groups under a general pall of suspicion; to underestimate the dangerous consequences that stem from giving up on a genuine culture of free speech; to embrace calls for a supposedly progressive form of separatism that undermines efforts at general integration; and to make race-sensitive public policies the government’s default mode of operation.
…
It is possible for citizens to develop genuine empathy for each other if they make the time and effort to listen to the experiences of their compatriots. We can address genuine exploitation or ridicule without stigmatizing healthy cultural exchange as a dangerous form of ‘cultural appropriation.’ Politicians and leaders of key social institutions can express their passionate disagreement with racism or other forms of bigotry without giving up on the First Amendment or undermining a culture of free speech. Society can respect the freedom of association and encourage members of minority cultures to take pride in their heritage without succumbing to pernicious forms of progressive separatism. Finally, public policies can protect citizens against discrimination, and address persistent inequalities, without routinely making the way the state treats people depend on markers of their identity such as the color of their skin.” p. 153

I concur. This is a very sensible and well-argued book. Highly recommended. Five stars.

[J TC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yascha Mounk - A Armadilha Identitária

Não é um bom livro. Começa bem, começa por traçar o percurso percorrido das ideias nucleares do que o autor nomeia como “Síntese Identitária”, desde o seu aparecimento enquanto teoria critica da raça, teoria de género, Interseccionalidade, do ponto de vista e da apropriação cultural, e de que forma estes conceitos surgiram no meio universitário, primeiro enquanto constructos teóricos e políticos, para depois fermentarem e crescerem nos meios académicos e impregnaram a juventude de finais do milénio passado e início do presente, e dessa forma passaram a “mainstream” e núcleo formativo desses meios universitários. Ao contrário do que aconteceu com a juventude do Maio de 68 que inevitavelmente ficou capturada pela sociedade neoliberal que se lhe seguiu, no caso dessa juventude formada nas ideias libertadoras, o choque com o mundo real não lhes abalou as convicções e muitos destes conceitos teóricos e universitários acabam por impregnar a sociedade, as associações sociais, as empresas, os partidos políticos, as corporações, os quadros destas, e as redes sociais, consubstanciando muitas das bizarrias que hoje lhes reconhecemos.
Yascha Mounk começa bem este livro ao levar o leitor nesta viagem, mas quando comparado com um outro que li recentemente, “Everything, All the Time, Everywhere: How we Became Postmodern” de Stuart Jefferies, este tem uma abordagem mais centrada na relação entre a teoria “woke” e o movimento cultural do pós-modernismo, a teia económica urdida pelo neo-liberalismo. Toda esta miscelânea foi possibilitada por uma internet inicialmente tomada como libertadora, mas também por dispositivos eletrónicos, portáteis e pessoais e redes sociais, o que explica, a meu ver, de forma mais convincente como se transitou de um mundo que inicialmente se anunciava utópico mas que rapidamente se revestiu de distopia.
Yascha Mounk , na sua “A Armadilha Identitária” começa por indicar um importante conjunto de personalidades que em sua opinião marcaram esta viragem de milénio e estão subjacentes aos movimentos anticolonialista, antirracista e antidiscriminação: Michel Foucault (relação entre poder, identidades e comportamentos); Judith Butler (apresentação do género como expressão performativa e influencia no conceito moderno de feminismo); Frantz Fanon (colonialismo, impacto psicológico e cultural da dominação colonial); Simone de Beauvoir (feminismo, e noção de género); Jacques Derrida (a identidade enquanto construção algo instável e mutável); Edward Said (estudos sobre pós-colonialismo, identidade e poder em contextos globais; Herbert Marcuse (movimentos igualitários enquanto garante da liberdade); Kimberlé Crenshaw (conceito de interseccionalidade); Jean-Paul Sartre (importância da liberdade individual na construção da identidade); Paulo Freire (importância da educação crítica para a construção da identidade); Rosa Parks: (figura icônica no movimento pelos direitos civis nos EUA); Ibram X. Kendi (apresentação do racismo enquanto questão estrutural e sistêmica); Richard Delgado (importância de um movimento revolucionário como forma de eliminar uma discriminação racial profundamente institucionalizada); Alasdair MacIntyre (acusa o liberalismo como causador de perda de identidade e na génese dos conflitos raciais e de género); e os movimentos pós-estruturalistas e pós-modernos (Jacques Lacan, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari) enquanto forças de desconstrução das noções fixas de identidade.
É uma longa lista de autores e contribuições e nesta revisão, Yascha Mounk fez um bom trabalho. Fez ainda um bom trabalho quando explicou como noções saidas do meio académico e acabaram por impregnar a sociedade e as redes sociais. Fez bem este trabalho mas no final fico com dúvidas se percebeu bem aquilo de que falava. E digo isto porque sempre ao longo do texto apresenta uma posição de critica depreciativa em relação aos movimentos que estes pensadores e as suas ideias originaram. E faz esta critica sempre apelando à defesa de uma democracia liberal, sem nunca a definir. Fá-lo como se tivesse uma agenda. Em momento algum o autor parece entender que os conceitos genericamente conhecidos por “woke” e o que apelida de “síntese identitária”, é o resultado de como essas pessoas sentem a liberdade e a igualdade. E digo sentem porque é disso que se trata. Todo resto é um constructo em cima desses conceitos. Podemos discordar da forma como expressam alguns dos aspectos que apontam, mas essa é a sua forma de sentir e ver o mundo que os rodeia, e ninguém convence alguém de que o que sente está errado. Não é possível. Teorias como a do ponto de vista e a da apropriação cultural não podem ser contrariadas. Devem ser apoiadas de forma a que quem as defende experimente viver de acordo com as mesmas. Têm razão quando defendem que o conhecimento é sempre determinado pelo ponto de vista de alguém. Na realidade é sempre determinado dessa forma, mas esquecem o reverso desta afirmação que é de apesar de transmitir um ponto de vista também permite fazer previsões. É com a realidade que têm de ser confrontados e não na forma como sentem o mundo. Essa é a sua e é inabalável.
Dito isto, o autor passa quase dois terços do livro à procura de fragilidades na “síntese identitária”, não entendendo que se as encontrar só vai convencer quem já está do outro lado. Não entendeu isto, e como não conseguiu essa quadratura do círculo perdeu-se num texto demasiadamente longo, repetitivo e maçador.

[Per Kraulis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and illuminating analysis of what the author Yascha Mounk calls the "identity synthesis", which the author describes as a set of ideas encompassing several themes: A radical skepticism concerning the possibility of rational discourse and the search for objective truth, the impossibility of the universalist stance against racism and oppression, and radical politics strangely combined with a pessimism about the possibility of political reform. Mounk thinks the terms "identity politics", "critical race theory" and "woke" have been so thoroughly laden with rhetorical baggage that he wants to stay away from them, and therefore uses "identity synthesis" instead.

The analysis is very well structured, and traces the evolution of these ideas from Michel Foucault, Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Donna Haraway, and others, to the more recent texts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi. The earlier influences from Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt are not included in this analysis. Intriguingly, Mounk proposes that a lot of what is now known as "woke" standpoints and phraseology was born in discussions on the social media site Tumblr, rather than on Facebook or Twitter.

Mounk's criticism of the "identity synthesis" is that it becomes a trap, since by rejecting universalism and the ideal of a society that has moved beyond racial categories, the supposed radical stance actually becomes regressive. For instance, so-called standpoint theory facilitates tribalism, it is not an antidote.

The book concludes with a kind of manual: "How to escape the identity trap". It posits three possible scenarios for how the identity synthesis might fare in the public debate: First, that it is too late to escape the identity trap. We are condemned to tribalistic fights for group-based privileges and woke purges of so-called "violence", i.e. disagreement. The second scenario is that there will be increasing push-back against moral panics and performative acts, which will discourage the "woke" movement into retreat. The third scenario is that some, but not all, of the concepts and ideas of the identity synthesis will become entrenched in the general debate, and cause continued clashes for many years to come. This is what Mounk believes will happen, unless a principled stance against the identity synthesis can grow strong.

So what to do? Mounk says that the reason he wrote the book was to help ordinary people point out the dangers of the identity trap, as a way to counteract its most dangerous effects. He gives some advice: do not apologize for believing in the universalist position, do not vilify those who disagree, remember that some who agree with some of your arguments may disagree with others (and that is fine), and finally, do not become a reactionary just to be in opposition to the identity synthesis.

The analysis, criticism and description of the liberal alternative are very clearly stated, and the text can be used a a handbook. However, even if the author is clearly very engaged in the issue, the text does have a tone of a university lecture. Somehow, it is a bit too restrained.

[Emily · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yes, 'The Identity Trap' really got under my skin with its broad-brushed conclusions and abundant misinformation. Yascha Mounk, the author, leans too much on the same old stories, especially that one about Covid vaccines in Vermont given first to Black people. He drills into it every chapter without peeping once at the fact that Black folks are just about 1% of Vermont's population. The Governor was actually trying to fix some serious health gaps, but Mounk misses that point entirely. Maybe because he cites an article from The Hill instead of the actual government website which addresses the issue and its intent. What kind of academic rigor is this!?

I was expecting a lot more meat on the bones of this book, considering Mounk's fancy academic creds. But nah, it's like he's just tossing words around without backing them up. His idea that America just needs to go back to its liberal and equality roots is just... useless. Like a therapist telling a couple who's been at each other's throats for centuries to 'you just need to listen to each other.' No real solutions, just a lot of talk.

Some of what he says isn't total nonsense, but the book is a hot mess, saying one thing and then another, with no real answers. And let's be real, if those old-school ideals he's pushing worked, we wouldn't be in this mess. The book ends up feeling like conservative fear-mongering in polite clothes. Honestly, I'd take those Marjorie Taylor Green space lasers over this any day.

Edit 2/1/24: I enjoyed Mounk on this podcast today and have been listening to his podcast since reading this book. Mounk’s commentary on this specific podcast is richer and more balanced in terms of references and sources and ultimately easier for me to get behind: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

[Martin Riexinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

A center-left critique of the phenomenon now commonly known as "woke", while Mounk addresses it as "identity synthesis".

For me the first part was more convincing. Here the author traces the identity synthesis back to Foucault, Spivak, Said, Hook, Crenshaw and Marcuse. In the case of Foucault he highlights how strongly the recent appropriation on American campuses differs from original intentions. Thereafter Mounk sketches the rapid spread of this ideological conglomerate in American society. The impact on other Western countries is at best mentioned in passing.

The larger part is more moralistic, or at least normative. Mounk claims that classical social policies designed to relieve from poverty would improve the life of African Americans to a considerably higher degree than identity based approaches from which higher status members of minority groups tend to profit. Furthermore Mounks tries to formulate a liberal counter discourse respecting free speech and avoiding the division into identity groups.

That every chapter closes with "key takeaways" like a first year primer is a bit patronizing. And if you use endnote, do not use them for lengthy digressiins.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mounk coins the ungainly phrase "identity synthesis" to replace terms he feels are too polarizing, "identity politics" and "woke." The identity synthesis aims to achieve social justice for marginalized groups by putting everyone into categories defined by race, gender, sexual orientation, and more. Where the left once saw the world in terms of universalism, in the late 20th century it began to prioritize tribalism.

In part this book is a sort of intellectual history but written in a disconcertingly smooth, bland, corporate style, with bulletpointed "Key Takeaways" at the end of every chapter which smell AI-generated. The intellectual history part of it is the most interesting, in particular postmodern academics' awkward attempts to reconcile their theory that identities are socially constructed with leftist political movements' need to rely on essentialist conceptions of identity.

It's not a bad book and anyone who was paying attention could see the backlash to excessive identity politics coming. But there are too many passages burbling glib cant of the type you hear in TED talks. A little more rigor would have been nice.

One small note, Mounk is wrong to assert that "people of color" is a new identity label (p. 67). I assumed it was too until I read up on the Supreme Court citizenship case of 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That case references "persons of color" as do other 19th century court cases. A google book search from the 18th century to 1950 finds countless examples of "people of color."

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author does a good job of taking the philosophy he calls "the identity synthesis" (Mounk's wording for the worldview(s) which is(are) often associated with and called, usually pejoratively, "wokeism" or "critical race theory" for lack of better terms) seriously as a viewpoint and explaining why he does not agree with it, while offering his own philosophical perspective (which Mounk describes as "liberalism", but which consists of political equality, individual freedom, and collective self-determination). The identity trap is the author's term for how the identity synthesis makes certain promises/goals with alluring arguments, but then creates conditions that (Mounk argues) will make it impossible to achieve those promises/goals. Regardless of whether one agrees with the author on his philosophy, Mounk carefully looks at the history, delineates what the main motivations, goals, and tenets of the identity synthesis are, and gives arguments against some of the ideas that he believes will be either counterproductive or self-defeating.

Mounk puts his arguments forward well, and even has short bullet-point lists at the end of most chapters with the key points, which is extremely helpful for understanding the basics of what the book is getting across. I would still recommend reading the chapters, which contain the actual arguments. I think the author comes across as someone who has tried to take a fair-minded approach to the subject (always possible others disagree, but Mounk comes across as extremely polite to the identity synthesis idea and open about what he agrees and disagrees with about it). His recommendations appear to be motivated by what the author has found to be the most persuasive way to create a better society, and I think that even for those who disagree, that there is plenty of food for thought to engage with. For those who agree with the author, the book provides some good guidance on how to engage respectfully with those who wish to argue for the identity synthesis.
[Edit on October 14: fixed a typo in last sentence from "argue against" to "argue for"]

[Mackenzie Pond · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros: challenged my thinking, nice refresher of some of my fav theorists (namely Foucault, Spivak & Crenshaw), raises an important point about group think & conformity that I needed to hear, beautifully organized (key messages at the end of chapters, clear introductions of sections, etc.)

Cons: felt a bit dismissive of some minority groups, simplistic & surface level at times, and felt like the author was running around in circles.

Overall I enjoyed this book, but there were definitely some points that felt iffy for me. Not for someone who is extremely well versed in progressive social theories (I.e. if you know Spivak, Bell, Crenshaw, & Said inside out), but also definitely not for someone who has never heard those names. It was an in between that worked well for me, but I can’t get past the cons enough to give it more than 3 stars.

[Stetson · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a few books that have attempted to plumb the intellectual origins of today's iteration of social justice and/or identity politics. Mounk's account, although simplified, is probably the most persuasive intellectual history of this ideology, something he calls "The Identity Synthesis." He traces how certain ideas from three different (and marginal) intellectual movements originating in the academy (postmodernism, post-colonialism, and critical race theory) have been synthesized by activists and hobbyists in journalism and internet subcultures. Now, these once marginal ideas dominate both the academy and discourse. The Identity Trap is worth a read to get a quick download on the ideas that roiled discourse throughout the 2010s into the early 2020s.

*More review to come

[Mehtap exotiquetv · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Identity Trap setzt sich Yascha Mounk mit einer der zentralen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Dynamiken unserer Zeit auseinander: der zunehmenden Fixierung auf Identität als primären Maßstab politischer Debatten. Sein Buch ist keine Abrechnung mit Identitätspolitik an sich, sondern eine differenzierte Analyse ihrer problematischen Auswüchse.

Mit dem Begriff der „Identity Trap“ beschreibt Mounk die Gefahr, dass gesellschaftliche Diskussionen nicht mehr über Argumente, Werte oder gemeinsame Prinzipien geführt werden, sondern zunehmend darüber, wer spricht statt was gesagt wird. In dieser Logik verlieren universelle Werte wie Meinungsfreiheit, Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz oder offene Debatten an Bedeutung. Das Ergebnis ist eine wachsende Polarisierung, in der sich Lager verhärten und extreme Positionen gegenseitig verstärken.

Als Gegenentwurf entwickelt Mounk das Konzept der „Identity Synthesis“. Dieser Ansatz erkennt die reale Bedeutung von Identität und Diskriminierung an, ohne sie absolut zu setzen. Stattdessen plädiert Mounk für eine Verbindung von Identitätsanerkennung und universalistischen Prinzipien. Identität soll Teil der politischen Analyse sein, aber nicht ihr alleiniger Maßstab.
Besonders überzeugend ist Mounks Betonung der Meinungsfreiheit. Er argumentiert nachvollziehbar, dass offene Debatten, auch mit unbequemen oder kontroversen Positionen,essenziell für eine demokratische Gesellschaft sind. Zensur, unabhängig davon, von welcher politischen Seite sie ausgeht, wird als kontraproduktiv dargestellt, da sie nicht zu mehr Gerechtigkeit, sondern zu weiterer Radikalisierung führt.
Das Buch bietet eine wichtige Perspektive für den Umgang mit extremen Ansichten: nicht durch Ausgrenzung oder Schweigen, sondern durch argumentativen Austausch und klare, gemeinsame Werte. Gerade in einer Zeit zunehmender gesellschaftlicher Fragmentierung wirkt dieser Ansatz besonders relevant.

Fazit:
The Identity Trap ist ein kluges, differenziertes und hochaktuelles Buch. Es fordert dazu auf, politische Debatten wieder stärker an universellen Prinzipien auszurichten, ohne reale Ungleichheiten zu ignorieren. Für alle, die sich mit Demokratie, Meinungsfreiheit und gesellschaftlichem Zusammenhalt beschäftigen, ist dieses Buch eine klare Leseempfehlung!ein echtes Must-read.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

A remarkable book exploring, from a philosophical and practical perspective, the “identity synthesis”: the combination of postmodernism, post-colonialism, and critical race theory that have absolutely swept all before it over the last 15 years. Very tightly written, very clear, and Mounk is at pains to point out that many of the issues that proponents of the identity synthesis address are real and need to be remedied. Nonetheless, he labels this view a trap for a reason.

This book manages to (1) review the philosophical origins of the synthesis, including how the popular version has moved beyond the original philosophy; (2) largely explain how the synthesis swept through Western institutions so quickly; and (3) demonstrate, both philosophically and practically, how the synthesis is a trap—how it is not able to accomplish what it aims to do and, in fact, will likely end up harming the causes it goes for. Instead of arguing for better keeping of (philosophically) liberal ideals, the identity synthesis largely rejects these ideas with consequences to individuals, to organizations, and to society that we are already starting to observe.

I’ve needed a book like this for a while, one that summarizes the real underlying philosophies of this movement without inflammatory rhetoric or name calling. Highly recommended.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling arguments debunking the left’s “counterproductive obsession with group identity” that quite frankly have traditionally swindled me (as an unapologetic enjoyer of ‘White Fragility’, ‘Imagining Decolonisation’ and ‘How to Be An Anti-racist). Mounk’s analysis both deserves and wants further enquiry.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

There were some important ideas about this book in the review by Zoe Williams in The Guardian on September 13th last year. I think the perspective Ms. Williams provides is important so post the review in its entirety below:

"Political scientist Yascha Mounk begins his fifth book with a story about an elementary school in Atlanta that, in 2020, began segregating classes by race on supposedly progressive grounds. “This story sounds depressingly familiar,” he writes, while in fact it sounds very unfamiliar, and made headlines across the world as a result. It is still a matter of open investigation, so it is impossible to know what exactly was going on. Nonetheless he pulls Mary Lin Elementary into a constellation that includes schools and universities that have healing spaces, affinity and advocacy groups – some of them just sound like workshops – based on race, and concludes: “In place of universalism, parts of the American mainstream are quickly adopting a form of progressive separatism.”

"It’s a terrific introduction in the sense that it distils Mounk’s intellectual methodology: accusation slides effortlessly into fact; events are yoked together on the atmospherics, described in shorthand, as if the phrases “safe space” and “white privilege” are all you need to know to understand what went on. And if you don’t, by the end, have a clue what happened, whether a black school principal really did segregate seven-year-olds into black classes and white classes or what her rationale was if so, no matter: you’re just in an identity trap. We all are, because of Michel Foucault, and the author can lead you out.

"If we prioritise identity over universalism, we make the world worse both for the dominant and the marginalised, Mounk contends. His argument has four parts: first, how what he calls “identity synthesis” originated; how it spread from abstruse corridors of academe into the mainstream and claimed victory over all institutions; what’s wrong with it; and how to put it all right. By “identity synthesis” he means the “role that identity categories like race, gender and sexual orientation play in the world”. It’s a coinage made necessary by the fact that: “Nowadays, anybody who talks about identity politics or describes an activist as woke is liable to be perceived as an old man yelling at the clouds,” he writes.

"Well, hang on a second: as Mounk himself writes 100 pages later, the pejorative use of the term “woke” was coined, by a journalist, to describe how white liberals had got so anti-racist that they were anti-racister than the typical black voter (forgive my paraphrase). The absolutely feverish backlash by the right against the left, via a term that was devised as a critique of the left in the first place, is thus reframed by the author as an unfortunate site of discord because the woke have become so binary and intolerant you’re not even allowed to call them woke any more.

"He sticks a lot on postmodernism, fine, we all do: but to get from Jean-François Lyotard and Foucault’s rejection of the meta-narrative to the assertion that their disciples “are forced to reject the most fundamental assumptions that ground our practices and institutions, from the veracity of science to the value of democracy”, seems like a reach. Maybe I’ll run the numbers on the anti-vax, anti-government forums to find the ratio of Trump voters to Foucauldians. Or maybe I won’t, because it is so obvious. “The rejection of stable identity categories, like ‘woman’ and ‘proletarian’,” Mounk presents as the rot setting in, when actually it was quite a useful waypoint in the understanding that not all women and proletarians think the same thing.

"Probably the most befuddled element of the entire hypothesis is that Mounk seeks to examine the trap and its escape in isolation, without context. In his telling, it’s just feverish leftists chasing their own misconceptions to logically flawed conclusions, then railing at the common-sense bystander for failing to keep up with the vocab. He puzzles over communism and its collapse only for its impact on the leftwing intelligentsia, not considering or indeed even mentioning what it did to free-market capitalists. The popularisation of race-critical and post-colonial narratives from academia apparently occurred in a bell jar, with accelerating race-based inequality beside the point. He references freedom of speech as a liberal value that we’ve unaccountably lost sight of; it’s as if Elon Musk and Twitter and Donald Trump and the Capitol insurrection had never happened; as if Peter Thiel and Andrew Tate didn’t exist; as if nobody had ever had cause to wonder about the tension between preserving freedom of speech and extinguishing incitement to violence.

""Reading Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap is like going round the Hermitage. If you stopped for one minute in front of every contestable statement, you’d be there for 11 years. But I think it would feel like longer."

[Conor Hartnett · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a dispassionate description of opposing ideologies--mainline liberalism, the "identity synthesis," even Marxism--this is quite good, and probably contains the first and only evenhanded and accurate definition of "wokeness" I've ever seen. That's why it gets four stars. But for all that Mounk can see clearly what's in front of and around us, he lacks any real vision of where to go next.

Liberalism is in crisis, and people are turning to alternatives (Marxism, various flavors of identitarianism, religious fundamentalism in certain places), for a reason: people see the world around them getting worse. Life for most is becoming more impoverished and precarious, we're all becoming more isolated and atomized, and the community of liberal democracies is simply failing to deal with incipient crises like global warming in a rational way. Mounk correctly points out that liberalism is the least-worst of alternatives that humanity has tried so far, but his prescription--doubling down on and ironing out the kinks of what works--rings hollow when we see some of the core institutions of liberalism (markets, the press, political parties, etc.) exacerbating these negative conditions and hence accelerating its demise. Mounk is clearly self-consciously limiting his political plan in an effort to create a broad front against the illiberalisms of the left and the right, but in doing so he robs us of any animating hopes. He even fails to be universalist in anything but a milquetoast way, expressing skepticism of the idea (expressed in Karen and Barbara Fields' excellent 'Racecraft') that we can destroy the great lies of race and nationality.

Many people will read this book and nod their heads as Mounk trenchantly explains why the "identity synthesis" is incoherent, irrational, and destructive. But this book doesn't aspire to solve our problems, only to tell us that what looks like a path out of them is an illusion. It's likely that no one will be talking about it in six months (except possibly to block-quote the several-page definition of 'wokeness' in online arguments), because as much as we might say 'yes, yes', there's never an 'and', only a full stop.

[John Arundel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reads as though written by a relatively dim first year undergrad who has an hour to hand in a 4000 word essay and has written 0 words. Some reasonable points were made, however I spent a lot of time contemplating gouging my eyes out.

Points out that identity politics has limits, then spends the final section defending universalism and liberal democracy with "gay rights, women's rights, and racial equality in the eyes of the law were achieved under liberal democracy :)" without acknowledging the fact that liberal democracy existed (in the US, France, UK, etc) for about 200 years concurrently with slavery, colonialism, segregation, patriarchy, homophobia.

Doesn't worry about the fact that the US constitution was never meant to apply to anyone other than property-owning white men (liberal democracy!). Doesn't worry enough that, after the French revolution, Napoleon very liberal democratically tried to take over the whole world.

Points to some metrics about quality of life, life expectancy, etc, in liberal democratic countries, and says "Look, they're better than in China and Vietnam, neither of which are liberal democracies :)" as though 1) colonialism never happened and 2) China hasn't lifted hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty over the last 40 years.

Says that he spoke to some CEOs who said that they were growing concerned about increasingly "activist" employees. Author claims to be a leftist.

Upset that the ACLU used to defend in court the right of neo-nazis to free speech but no longer does. At what point do you accept that neo-nazis do not care about "the marketplace of ideas :)" and will not magically stop being neo-nazis through rational debate and persuasion?

[A B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yascha Mounk's The Identity Trap is a far better book than the political pablum I finished reading earlier today.

It offers a systematic account of what Mounk calls the "identity synthesis,” the transformation of a healthy appreciation for minority culture and heritage into an ideology that places group identity at the heart of all social, cultural, and political life. His earlier sections, particularly the critique of Foucault's influence on contemporary progressive thought, are excellent intellectual history.

Mounk's explanation of Standpoint Theory was especially compelling. Reading it, I found myself picturing a dystopia where no one can see commonality with anyone else, all of us locked in hermetically sealed epistemological bubbles, each person's "truth" inaccessible to those outside their identity group. What struck me—and what I wished Mounk had developed—is that this ideology's insistence on deferring to the "lived experiences" and narratives of the marginalized coincides precisely with the precipitous decline in novel-reading. I don’t think this is accidental. Novels train us to inhabit perspectives radically different from our own, to achieve exactly the kind of imaginative empathy that Standpoint Theory declares impossible. If you believe that a white person cannot understand Black experience, that men cannot grasp women's realities, that the able-bodied are forever locked out of disabled perspectives—then why read fiction at all? This should have been in the book.

The Universalist Problem

Mounk makes a clear-eyed, philosophically liberal case for desegregation and against the return to race-based sorting that now characterizes many elite institutions. As he documents, progressive schools now routinely divide children by race from first grade onward, teaching them to "embrace race" and identify primarily as racial beings. This is marketed as anti-racism; it is, in fact, a repudiation of the entire civil rights tradition that sought to make race matter less, not more.

But here Mounk's universalism confronts a difficulty he doesn't adequately address. My girlfriend, when I enthusiastically recounted his arguments against segregation, asked the obvious question: How does all this square with your advocacy for distinct Jewish educational spaces? How can you oppose race-based affinity groups while supporting Jewish day schools that separate children along ethnic-religious lines?

This is not easily dismissed.

The answer, I think, lies in understanding what American universalism has actually meant for Jews—and what James Baldwin understood about it decades ago. In his 1984 essay "On Being White... and Other Lies," Baldwin wrote:

"It is probable that it is the Jewish community—or more accurately, perhaps, its remnants—that in America has paid the highest and most extraordinary price for becoming white. For the Jews came here from countries where they were not white, and they came here, in part, because they were not white; and incontestably—in the eyes of the Black American (and not only in those eyes)—American Jews have opted to become white."

Baldwin was writing about a specific phenomenon: America's mechanism for absorbing immigrants required them to abandon their particular ethnic identities and assimilate into whiteness. For Jews, this meant accepting a redefinition of Judaism from a thick ethnic-cultural-religious identity to a thin denominational preference, merely one more variation of American religious pluralism, no different in kind from being Methodist or Presbyterian.

This transformation nearly succeeded in annihilating Jewish distinctiveness in America. By the 1960s, intermarriage rates were climbing toward 50%. Jewish literacy was collapsing. Yiddish, Ladino, and Judeo-Arabic—languages that had sustained Jewish civilization for millennia—were dying. What remained was an attenuated "Judaism" shorn of ethnic content, reduced to a private religious preference, exactly as the universalist model demanded.

Jewish day schools and distinctive Jewish educational spaces exist precisely because universalism, as it has been practiced in America, proved to be a mechanism for ethnic erasure. If Jewish culture and ethnicity have any chance of survival in America, it can only be through educational particularism, spaces where Jewishness is not something you do for an hour on Friday night, but a comprehensive cultural inheritance.

This is importantly different from the race-based affinity groups Mounk rightly criticizes. Those groups reinforce America's existing racial categories and embed them more deeply into institutional life. They teach children that their skin color is their primary identity, that race is destiny. Jewish education, by contrast, resists American categories. It insists that Jews are not simply "white people who go to synagogue," but members of a distinct civilization with its own languages, literatures, histories, and modes of thought. It refuses the assimilationist bargain Baldwin diagnosed.

Can liberalism accommodate particularity?

Here is where Mounk's argument becomes difficult. He is a liberal in the philosophical sense, committed to individual rights, rule of law, freedom of conscience. He is also a universalist who believes identity categories should matter less, not more. I share his liberalism. But his universalism makes me uncomfortable because I have seen what American universalism does to minority cultures. It reduces them. It offers inclusion at the price of distinctiveness.

Can the two coexist? Can philosophical liberalism make space for the survival of particular cultures and communities without sliding into the identity trap Mounk describes?

I think the answer is yes, but only if we distinguish between institutional segregation based on race (which is what Mounk rightly opposes) and voluntary cultural communities that preserve threatened traditions. The former is imposed by power; the latter is chosen by those who refuse to let their inheritance die. The former entrenches existing American racial categories; the latter challenges them.

Mounk's book would be stronger if it grappled with this tension. As it stands, The Identity Trap offers a brilliant critique of the identity synthesis and a powerful defense of philosophical liberalism. But it does not adequately address how liberal societies can permit—indeed, must permit—the survival of particularist communities without abandoning liberal principles. The Jewish question, which has always complicated liberal political theory, remains unresolved here.

This does not diminish the book's achievements. It is the most comprehensive intellectual history of wokeness that I’ve read. Mounk takes the ideas seriously and traces their genealogy through Foucault, Said, Spivak, Bell, and Crenshaw, showing how academic theories migrated into pop culture and then into institutional practice. He writes with clarity and restraint, even when his material is enraging.

But on the hardest question—how universalism can accommodate the legitimate desire of minority cultures to survive—he offers no answer. That is perhaps the real identity trap: not the one facing progressive institutions, but the one facing liberalism itself.

[Catharina Kremer · Rating 4 out of 5]

incredibly insightful and important analysis of identity politics and the trap it creates. as someone who most definitely is in this trap, the book first repelled me and i almost put it down as it first seemed to go into a direction in which it defended the western political right’s views. but that’s exactly why i needed to continue reading. as we are deep in a post-liberal world - both on the right as well as the left - i have often stopped to wonder where the current political debate it heading. it seemed to have steered so far away from my personal views of empathy and the finding of truth in nuance. however, the policing of free speech no matter the intent and an unbearable (and at times oppressive) cancel culture have scared me off to even dare to think about alternatives as i and many others were led to believe that the mere act of questioning the purpose of identity politics is giving power to oppressive systems of power such as white supremacy or the patriarchy. this, of course, is not true. this book has allowed me to explore the critiques of this system which so many leftists have taken to become a core truth and solution to many conflicts of racist and sexist nature. while i am still undecided whether or not i agree with everything here, i will give it a 4/5.

if you read one non-fiction book next year, make it this one.

[Leonie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Update: Ich fand das Buch auch nicht besonders interessant geschrieben und hab mich zeitweise sehr beim Lesen gelangweilt.
___

Mal im Voraus: Ich habe mit dem Lesen angefangen bevor ich von den Anschuldigungen gegen den Autor erfahren habe und würde mit meinem jetzigen Wissen auf keinen Fall dazu raten, das Buch zu kaufen (zumindest nicht bevor der Sachverhalt eindeutig geklärt ist).
Glücklicherweise habe ich ein Rezensionsexemplar erhalten, so bekommt Mounk von mir wenigstens kein Geld mehr.

[Ka'i NeSmith · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mounk has a huge stake in his identity that he conspicuously does not disclose. There is no way he can provide an objective analysis of his subject, much less prove his claims. He does seem to achieve the goal of making his readers distrustful of others.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Repetitive
Circular logic, non sequitors, ignoring that correlation does not equal causation, lack of evidence for claims, etc
Whole sections are just word salad with no solid claim or coherent message.

[Simona B]

It's genuinely disquieting to me that books such as this are so necessary.

[Robert Jeens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yascha Mounk is a moral philosopher who has had the same revelation about the illiberal left as many of us, and he has the background, vocabulary, and skills to make an honest assessment of the “trap” that we fall into if we succumb to its ideas. He is writing about identity politics, the idea that people are defined principally by their race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and that we need to give people differentiated political rights and rewards based upon these characteristics. He writes about the evolution of the ideas, an intellectual history with its roots in postmodernism, postcolonialism and critical race theory; and then how these ideas took over the institutions; and then how to fight back. A trap has a lure, a snare, and then it subverts the goals of those caught up in them. In this case the lure is to fight injustice. This snares smart people with good intentions. However, the trap is that an embrace of the identity politics will make the world worse for everyone, historically dominant groups as well as those who are not.
His history is similar to the one I found by Pluckrose and Lindsay in “Cynical Theories”. It starts with Michel Foucault and postmodernism: the idea that power permeates everything, the rejection of metanarratives, progress, science, morality, and rationality. This was transformed into something called “strategic essentialism” by Chakravorty Spivak. Foucault did not think that progress was possible, but Spivak said we should dismantle oppressive power structures but not those of the oppressed. For example, Westerners might define a woman as someone who can have a baby. Women might reject this intellectually but embrace it for political reasons to fight for power. Derrek Bell was a lawyer who worked for the NAACP integrating schools, but he gave up after he became disillusioned by the results. He concluded that there was a conflict between desegregation and the instructional improvement of Black students. The former was more important than the latter, so desegregation was not necessary or could even be problematic. He accepted some of the criticisms of the racists who had formerly opposed the Supreme Court’s separate cannot be equal arguments. Critical Race Theory likewise systematically rejects the core tenets of the Civil Rights Era. Any legal progress is made because it in the Whites’ self-interest, and racism is enduring and does not decrease. The left moved from an emphasis on economics and class to identity and culture.
This has resulted in what the author labels “The Identity Synthesis”, “a rejection of the existence of objective truth; the use of a form of discourse analysis for explicitly political ends; an embrace of strategic essentialism; a deep pessimism about the possibility of overcoming racism or other forms of bigotry; a preference for public policies that explicitly distinguish between citizens on the basis of the group to which they belong; an embrace of intersectionality as a strategy for political organizing; and a deep skepticism about the ability of members of different groups to communicate with each other.” Oh, and they don’t believe in free speech. Finally, intersectionality has been perverted to mean that if you want to work on any progressive issue then you need to agree with a whole host of other issues and the stances are constantly changing, e.g. that is why you see “Queers for Palestine” flags. Probably many of the academics who birthed parts of these theories would have been deeply appalled at what they have wrought.
The author then turns to how these activists marched through the cultural institutions after 2015. He says it was caused by social media, the maturing of student activists as they got jobs, and the rise of Donald Trump. Proponents of the identity synthesis gained control of most of the media, academia, non-profit organizations and even many corporations’ HR departments. On day one of the Biden administration, he signed an executive order implementing these ideas in the federal government. As an aside, the Trudeau government in Canada has implemented the same agenda. The author gives good examples. Covid medicine was given out to some younger people from minority groups before senior citizens (who were mostly white), thereby increasing the number of people who died. Coca Cola has given training asking white people to “be less white.” A half-Chinese student received an enraged call from a museum curator after she submitted Chinese-themed art. I am sure anyone who is reading this can think of many other instances of people being “cancelled” or other toxic behavior.
Then the author goes through the claims and refutes them: why is standpoint theory wrong, that is, why can we actually understand people who are different than us; why is cultural appropriation good and necessary; why do we need really free speech, why is progressive separatism, “safe spaces”, wrong; why is identity-sensitive public policy wrong.
I agree with his points but quibble with the details. I will give you an example. He is a free speech absolutist, which is a policy position I can respect, but I agree more with Karl Popper’s proposition that we should tolerate everything but intolerance. To dig deeper into what Popper meant by that, he watched the Nazis and Communists fight with each other, eroding the majority in the center and leading to civil war in Austria in the 1930s before Hitler finally occupied the country. Popper believed that there comes a point when the state must intervene to prevent that erosion. It must muzzle dangerous demagogues. I understand that “dangerous demagogue” is not an objective term, and that such a person will be a hero to many. I also understand that this is a situation that can obviously be abused. However, when we look at a concrete example, a state spiraling into civil war, with extremists on the streets fighting with their opposite extremists while the majority cowers afraid in their homes, marches on the legislature with violent intent to overthrow the will of the majority, I guess you know what I mean.
Mounk wants to put limits on the ability of private organizations to limit free speech, which I also think is a good idea, for example, your credit card company should not refuse you service because you espouse some unpopular ideology, or you should not be fired from your job for your ideology. On the other hand, when it comes to social media, I find myself more in line with the thinking of people like Sam Harris or Jonathan Rauch rather than Mounk. Mounk wants the government to force the social media companies to censor less, but I have a different view. He points out that Section 230 in the United States means that social media companies are regulated like utilities rather than media. I would take that away, so, if someone libels or slanders me on social media, I not only sue that person but also the platform. Further, social media companies are responsive to their advertisers. Disney does not want to be on a platform that is espousing politically unpopular views. It is just a reality that the social media companies must respond to. On the other hand, we all now know how social media companies manipulate algorithms to promote addiction and division. That should be regulated.
Traditional liberals need to think about our predecessors’ response to communism. Strong liberal leaders like John F. Kennedy or Pierre Trudeau were willing to fight against what they knew to be a dangerous ideology and to ally with figures on the right to do so. They would not let the right take their strength away from them. Our generation has been slow to see what was arising amongst us. We generally like shiny new things and fights against injustice and this ideology qualifies on both counts, so we tolerated it and even encouraged it either out of fear that it would get us or because we thought it might be useful to beat our ideological opponents on the right. Neither of those things is true. Like the communists before them, proponents of the identity synthesis see their main opponents as the center left because they need to take over the movement completely before they can move on. And their ideas, besides being wrong, are generally not popular. If people have to choose between their ideas and the populist right, the populist right will win. We actually need better ideas on the left to defeat the threat on the right.
“But the likely outcome of this ideology is a society in which an unremitting emphasis on our differences pits rigid identity groups against each other in a zero-sum battle for resources and recognition.” It is a recipe for disaster in a modern, diverse democracy. For people who are trying to “decolonize” everything, proponents of the identity synthesis are reproducing how empires work. Empires differentiate peoples with different relationships with the sovereign. Then the sovereign picks favorites and pits groups against each other to keep himself at the top. Democracies are about citizens. The French Revolution abolished both the nobility and slavery. The left is about universal principles. Human rights for all. The identity politicians have stolen their ideas from the right and repackaged them to appear left. It is not just the outliers, the stories of it going too far, that are wrong, but the whole idea is rotten.
As good liberals, we need to be aware of injustice. And some of the scholars who started the critical race theory movement had some good ideas: I think that systemic racism and intersectionality are both legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, However, we also need to be aware of the best ways to combat injustice. Universal liberalism is the best known principle upon which to form governments. This ideology has been at the root of the richest, most free societies that the world has ever known, and not just in the West. Japan and Korea have adopted it and we can see the results. Individual rights and collective self-government. The identity politicians are right that we need to call out racism, sexism, and homophobia. Just because someone has a disability doesn’t mean that they can’t do anything. But we need to focus also on class: help poor people. Much of what the identity politicians are arguing about is who gets to sit on the board of Harvard University or represent us at the United Nations. When the answer is a very affluent, well-educated member of a minority, that does not help poor people.
Mounk is Michael Sandel’s former student, and it is good to see Sandel’s student lining up against him and with people like Steven Pinker. The book has short chapters with useful summaries. Well-organized, matter-of-fact writing. It is not scintillating but easy to digest. The average educated person can understand what he is saying easily. There have been many books like this lately, and I am not sure that his will stand out, but it is good to see it as part of a movement.