It is a truism that group identity is the fused identities of the individuals that make up the group. But Whitehouse is proffering the following theory:
As Whitehouse details, individuals largely undergo identity fusion as a result of shared biology or/and shared experience, especially in the light of extreme or episodic pain, whereas the group is the outcome.
Facts inherited from the past, surely go a long way to support group identity. However, at first approximation, the causality might be the reverse:
Indeed, this comment registers that people first choose the group, given that all choices are forward looking. Facts inherited from the past are ultimately backward looking and, hence, cannot ultimately determine how people choose their group identity. As they look forward, people choose groups that suit their needs and consequently search their past for motifs, anecdotes, and memories to manufacture group identity that cements the chosen group.
To demonstrate the reversed causality, it is important to distinguish between two broad kinds of group identities: politics-based group identities and community-based group identities. People choose politics-based groups to advance collective interest and aspiration, which is defined by a territory and its natural resources. In contrast, people choose community-based groups – such as families, temples, and gender- and ethnic-based organizations – to fulfill the need for friendship, communal solidarity, sense of belonging, and emotional comfort.
Adam Smith observed the difference. He identified “the love of country” as the emotion that cements the politics-based group, whereas he identified “the love of humankind” as the emotion that cements the community-based group (Khalil Reference Khalil2018; Smith Reference Smith, Raphael and Macfie1982, pp. 228–230).
Let us examine the proposed reversed causality with respect to the politics-based identity, the love of country, with respect to the rise of the American Republic and its 1776 Declaration of Independence. The British people and their colonial subjects had shared biology. They also had shared experience, as attested by the recent French and Indian War, led by no less than George Washington. Still, people in the American colonies chose a separate group from the “motherland” and became very busy in creating a new past.
The history of international relations is replete with instances of how people create new group identities in accordance with changing economic and strategic conditions. To make sense of this history, we should start with forward-looking decision makers as they assess their collective interest and aspiration; then we can make sense of why people are ready to fight for the chosen group while defending its territorial integrity and are even ready to die to further its imperial boundary at the expense of other people.
Let us examine the proposed reversed causality with respect to the community-based identity, the love of humankind, with regard to aiding other people in the case of earthquakes or other natural disasters. The criterion for the commonality of the interacting individuals is the set of human features. But the criterion need not be always cosmopolitan. The criterion can be more limited, such as sharing a common language, love of some ethnic cuisine, a hobby, communion (i.e., common religious faith), gender, age and race. Such community-based groups do not necessarily require a territory to subsist. The expected benefit is usually the emotional comfort of belonging, to have friends, and to call a place home.
At first approximation, again, the person chooses the community-based group that suits his or her needs the most. The past history cannot be determinant because the past holds enormous repertoires, and one has to be selective, especially as one grows older. To wit, the example of hazing, which Whitehouse discusses at length, supports the thesis that shared experiences are not essential for the group. Once one determines the best community group, and if the group members do not have much shared experience but still want to bond, hazing rather acts as a substitute for the missing history.
Besides illustrating the reversed causality, there is another payoff of distinguishing community- and politics-based identities. The benefit from community-based groups varies according to the scale: one usually benefits more from identifying with the local church or the local sports club than from the worldwide church or club. Scale seems to be relevant for community-based groups.
Scale, however, does not seem as relevant to politics-based groups, such as the nation-state. The benefit from such a group arises from the collective action to defend against outsiders, take advantage of common resources, and so on. The benefit is the outcome of the effort of abstract citizens, where such citizens are important for their effort and not for the friendship or comfort that they afford.
Whitehouse somehow senses the asymmetry of the relevance of scale. He invokes the terminology “local fusion” and “extended fusion” to capture this scale asymmetry. For him, local fusion is bottom-up fusion of identities at the local level, whereas extended fusion, or what he calls “identification,” is top-down fusion that takes place in the abstract when the person identifies with a belief or an ideology.
The local/extended terminology is confusing, however. There are gradations of community-based identity along the scale of distance from local to global, where the “global” can be confused with “extended.” So, it is not clear whether Whitehouse's “extended fusion” is simply global church or denotes what is called here politics-based groups.
Besides illustrating the reversed causality, there is another payoff of distinguishing community- and politics-based identities: how to deal with terrorists dying for the group. Let us take Islamic-inspired suicide terrorists. Are they upset at the perceived threat to their religion, that is, community-based identity? If so, it is easy to undermine their ideology by pointing out how the targeted governments permit the building of mosques and so on. Or, are they upset at the perceived threat to their autonomy, that is, politics-based identity? If so, this requires a totally different response, a response that points out that the targeted governments actually respect their autonomy.
You have
Access
It is a truism that group identity is the fused identities of the individuals that make up the group. But Whitehouse is proffering the following theory:
As Whitehouse details, individuals largely undergo identity fusion as a result of shared biology or/and shared experience, especially in the light of extreme or episodic pain, whereas the group is the outcome.
Facts inherited from the past, surely go a long way to support group identity. However, at first approximation, the causality might be the reverse:
Indeed, this comment registers that people first choose the group, given that all choices are forward looking. Facts inherited from the past are ultimately backward looking and, hence, cannot ultimately determine how people choose their group identity. As they look forward, people choose groups that suit their needs and consequently search their past for motifs, anecdotes, and memories to manufacture group identity that cements the chosen group.
To demonstrate the reversed causality, it is important to distinguish between two broad kinds of group identities: politics-based group identities and community-based group identities. People choose politics-based groups to advance collective interest and aspiration, which is defined by a territory and its natural resources. In contrast, people choose community-based groups – such as families, temples, and gender- and ethnic-based organizations – to fulfill the need for friendship, communal solidarity, sense of belonging, and emotional comfort.
Adam Smith observed the difference. He identified “the love of country” as the emotion that cements the politics-based group, whereas he identified “the love of humankind” as the emotion that cements the community-based group (Khalil Reference Khalil2018; Smith Reference Smith, Raphael and Macfie1982, pp. 228–230).
Let us examine the proposed reversed causality with respect to the politics-based identity, the love of country, with respect to the rise of the American Republic and its 1776 Declaration of Independence. The British people and their colonial subjects had shared biology. They also had shared experience, as attested by the recent French and Indian War, led by no less than George Washington. Still, people in the American colonies chose a separate group from the “motherland” and became very busy in creating a new past.
The history of international relations is replete with instances of how people create new group identities in accordance with changing economic and strategic conditions. To make sense of this history, we should start with forward-looking decision makers as they assess their collective interest and aspiration; then we can make sense of why people are ready to fight for the chosen group while defending its territorial integrity and are even ready to die to further its imperial boundary at the expense of other people.
Let us examine the proposed reversed causality with respect to the community-based identity, the love of humankind, with regard to aiding other people in the case of earthquakes or other natural disasters. The criterion for the commonality of the interacting individuals is the set of human features. But the criterion need not be always cosmopolitan. The criterion can be more limited, such as sharing a common language, love of some ethnic cuisine, a hobby, communion (i.e., common religious faith), gender, age and race. Such community-based groups do not necessarily require a territory to subsist. The expected benefit is usually the emotional comfort of belonging, to have friends, and to call a place home.
At first approximation, again, the person chooses the community-based group that suits his or her needs the most. The past history cannot be determinant because the past holds enormous repertoires, and one has to be selective, especially as one grows older. To wit, the example of hazing, which Whitehouse discusses at length, supports the thesis that shared experiences are not essential for the group. Once one determines the best community group, and if the group members do not have much shared experience but still want to bond, hazing rather acts as a substitute for the missing history.
Besides illustrating the reversed causality, there is another payoff of distinguishing community- and politics-based identities. The benefit from community-based groups varies according to the scale: one usually benefits more from identifying with the local church or the local sports club than from the worldwide church or club. Scale seems to be relevant for community-based groups.
Scale, however, does not seem as relevant to politics-based groups, such as the nation-state. The benefit from such a group arises from the collective action to defend against outsiders, take advantage of common resources, and so on. The benefit is the outcome of the effort of abstract citizens, where such citizens are important for their effort and not for the friendship or comfort that they afford.
Whitehouse somehow senses the asymmetry of the relevance of scale. He invokes the terminology “local fusion” and “extended fusion” to capture this scale asymmetry. For him, local fusion is bottom-up fusion of identities at the local level, whereas extended fusion, or what he calls “identification,” is top-down fusion that takes place in the abstract when the person identifies with a belief or an ideology.
The local/extended terminology is confusing, however. There are gradations of community-based identity along the scale of distance from local to global, where the “global” can be confused with “extended.” So, it is not clear whether Whitehouse's “extended fusion” is simply global church or denotes what is called here politics-based groups.
Besides illustrating the reversed causality, there is another payoff of distinguishing community- and politics-based identities: how to deal with terrorists dying for the group. Let us take Islamic-inspired suicide terrorists. Are they upset at the perceived threat to their religion, that is, community-based identity? If so, it is easy to undermine their ideology by pointing out how the targeted governments permit the building of mosques and so on. Or, are they upset at the perceived threat to their autonomy, that is, politics-based identity? If so, this requires a totally different response, a response that points out that the targeted governments actually respect their autonomy.