02 Alonso

OriginalPaperUDC316.61:808.5159.923.31:316.75

ReceivedDecember19th,2010

Martín AlonsoBakeazDocumentationandPeaceStudiesCenter,PlazaArriquibar3-1º,ES–48008Bilbao

[email protected]

Collective Identity as a Rhetorical Device

AbstractOf the plural dimensions of collective identity, this paper explores identity as a rhetorical device. The identity tag is a case in point of pragmatic effectiveness. To account for such a power a hypothetical model of identity categories is presented. Its constituent modules shape four basic dimensions: position, deindividuation, exclusion and cognitive shielding. Such delineated narrative identity becomes equivalent to an informal ideology (Halliday, 2005). As constitutive rhetoric (Charland, 1987), the narrative construction of identities converts self-referential tautology into strategies of discrimination, purification and exter-mination of exponents of otherness. Last century mass destruction – totalitarianism, coloni-alism, ethno-nationalism – has been tributary to the identity paradigm.

Key words

collectiveidentity,rhetoric,usvs.them,exclusion,moralobligation,politicalviolence

“Ogniidentitàèancheorribileperchéperesisteredebetra-cciareunconfineerespingerechistadall’alltraparte.”

C.Magris(Microcosmi,43)

“It isnot theattribute thatmakes thegroup,but thegro-upandgroupdifferencesthatmaketheattributeimportant(…)Whatcountsisnotwhetherobjectivedifferencesarepresent,butwhether theyareusedtomarkonegroupofffromanother.”

D.Horowitz(1985:50)

“Sitôtqu’unhommesecompareauxautresildevientnéce-ssairementleurennemi.”

J.J.Rousseau(Fragments Politiques,O.C.III:478)

“Noussommes tous frères,nousnoussentonscommeunseulhombre.(…)Àpresent,noussommesnous.(…)Nousvoulonsdenouvellesfrontières.Nousvoulonsunempire.”

V.Stevanović(La neige et les chiens,68)

Inthisarticle*Ilinktheconceptofgrouployaltywiththatofuncivilbehav-iour.Therefore, the scopeof this relationship shouldbequalified from the*IwouldliketothankJesúsCasquete,DanielO’Connell,MilagrosGárate,DianaMata,MartaMerayo, F. Javier Merino, Fernando MolinaandJavierRodríguez,fortheirsuggestionsandcommentsuponthemanuscript.Iamgrateful

to the Committee of the “Questions of Iden-tity” symposium (Cres, Croatia, September2010)andparticularlytoLinoVeljakandIva-na Zagorac for the opportunity of discussingsomeofthetopicsexploredinthispaper.

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA51(1/2011)pp.(7–24)

M.Alonso,CollectiveIdentityasaRheto-ricalDevice8

beginning. In principle, the concept of loyalty bears positive connotationsandjustifiablyso.Inthecollectiveexperience,loyaltyschemescancontrib-utetosocialcooperationthroughmembershipintegratorssuchasliberalna-tionalismorconstitutionalpatriotism.Buttheycan,reciprocally,inanotherinstanceoftheambivalenceofsocialprocesses,leadtointolerance,intransi-genceandexclusion,throughdestructivecompetition.Socialidentities“havebeenemployedtomobilizesupportforgenocideandcollectiveresistancetogenocide” (Reicheret al.,2005:621).Thisparadoxunderlies the thesisofDianaMutz:“Homogeneousnetworkscanbeaforceforpositivechangeorasourceofintoleranceandextremism”(2006:148).Thedeterminingfactorforshiftingtothenegativesideis,inmyview,thedegreeofemphasisonho-mogeneity/difference,ratherthanonthesideofheterogeneity/equality.Thisaccounts for the swing towards the exclusive and exclusionary componentofaffiliation(Gomez,2001;Ignatieff,1993;Reicheret al.,2005;Wamwere,2003).AsMaalouf states (2003:37,40), theconceptionof identityallowsmenofallcountries,conditionsandfaiths,tobetransformedintomurderersandfanatics.Identityisapolysemousconceptandoneofremarkablegenerativestrength.Ofitsmanyfacets,thispaperwillfocusonthecognitive-discursivesideofcollectiveidentity.Theprocessofidentityconfigurationcouldbedescribedasacontinuous.Ononeextreme,arhetoricaldeviceofconstituentproperties(self-categorization);ontheopposite,expressionsofsocialmobilizationlead-ingtouncivilpracticesandresultingintheconversionofrhetoricenergyintopoliticalpower.Thispaperdealsmainlywiththefirstpartofthecontinuum,leavingasidethecrucialaspectconcerningtheinteractionbetweenmeaningandcontext,mentalconstructionsandsocialcontingencies.Ifidentityshowssuchaninfluenceonsocialprocesses,itisreasonabletoin-quirewhereitsforcelays.WhenthehistorianTh.Mommsenrespondedattheendofthe19thcenturytothecallforacriticalcommentonSemitism:“Youarewrong,youassumethatbymeansofreasonispossibletogetsomething.But it isuseless,utterlyuseless” (inHorkheimer,1986:184,andMassing,1949:167–168);andP.Vilar(1977:156),WilkinsonandPickett(2009:58)remindwhatsocialpsychologistssinceS.Ashhaveobservedagainandagain–thatconfrontingsocio-evaluativethreatscanbeevenmoreterriblethancon-frontingthewar–then,oneisinvitedtoconsiderwhyparticularsystemsofbeliefsareinsolubleintheconventionallogicofrationality.Itseemsthere-foreconvenienttoinquireaboutthecoreofthisdifficultytocopewithsuchasocialforceofgravitation,soemblematicallyrepresentedbyIonesco’splayRhinoceros.Theanalysismustbeginbypointingoutabasicfact:ashumanswedonotusuallydealwithraworprimaryfacts,rathertheobjectofourcon-cernsareconceptuallymanufacturedrealities,forthereisnorealityoutsidethecognitiveframesthatshapedata,conformingthemintoacomprehensibleandmentallydigestivestuff(Melucci,1996:77).Toplacerhetoricinthefore-groundofthispresentationisdue,therefore,totherequirementsofexplana-tioninsocialsciences.Iwilladopttheso-calledsocialproblemsapproach.Itisamodalityofconstructivismthatdefinessocialproblems,accordingtoSpectorandKitsuse,as“theactivitiesofindividualsandgroupsmakingas-sertionsofgrievancesandclaimswithrespecttosomeputativecondition”,sothatthecentraltaskforatheoryofsocialproblemsisto“accountfortheemergence,natureandmaintenanceofclaims-makingandrespondingactivi-ties”(inBerger,2002:17).Whatconcernsthisinquiryisaparticularcaseinwhichtheputativeconditionisdeterminedbythecontentofthegenericallydenominatedidentityascriptioncategory(IAC).



Thisessayseekstooutlinetheanswertoacoupleofbasicquestions:i)whicharetheconceptualconstituentsofcollectiveidentityframes;ii)whyaretheysopowerful,soefficient,intermsofthesocialconsequencestheyprecipitate.Tobothquestionsunderliesthecontentionthatrhetoricremainsanessentialpiecetodecodetheriddleofpoliticalviolence(Alonso,2010).

Loyalty, identity and exclusionary practices

Whatkindofelectiveaffinitiesprefigurethescriptsgroundedoncollectiveidentitycategories?Acentralissueforsocialinteractionisthatofthosewhomakeupthe“we”,creditorofmoralobligations,andthosewho,bycontrast,constitutethe“they”deprivedofsuchattributions(Gamson,1991:3).HelenFein,inherschemetoexplainthegenocideandotherformsofviolencecol-lectivelyapproved,coined theconceptofuniverse of obligation torefer tothesphereofpersonstowhomwehavecommitmentsandagainstwhichweconsiderourselvesresponsibleforouractions(1979:7).Sheaddsthatsuchuniversescanbeconceivedinaninclusivemanner,inwhichcasethelimitsoftheuniversevirtuallycoincidewiththeboundariesofsociety,orexclusive,whenonlyapartofsocietyisaccommodatedwithinthebordersprotectedbymoralimperatives.Itseemsthatidentity-basedcognitiveframestendtofa-vourthesecondtype.Accordingly,conceptualsystemsarecreatedthatassigndifferentialvalues tobehavioursdependingon thepositionof the referent.Therefore,anunfailingcharacteristicofthemainstreamofpoliticalviolenceis its transitiveness: the targetsof aggression are invariably locatedon theothersideofthedemarcationline.Theprocessofjustificationofviolenceis,asitwere,dissolvedintheprocessofmanufacturingtheotherintheworkofhetero-definition.TheincisivepenofMigueldeUnamuno(1991:25),witnessofthehorroroftheSpanishCivilWar,sumsuptheargumentinasimplephraseofunneces-saryattribution:

“–Butwhat?Notantipatriotics,here?–No–Whatapity!Towhomshallwekill?”

ThemasterofsociologistsCh.Tilly (2003:11)addresses thequestion thatmotivatesthissectionwiththissummarystatement:theempiricalevidenceshowsthe“surprisingprominenceof‘us-them’categoricaldistinctionsinallthevarietiesofcollectiveviolence”.Thisremarkinvitestoinvestigatewhoholdsthestatusofsubject,asitishimwho,atthesametime,issuesthepro-tectivedefinitionandpromotestheuncivildrifts–whichsometimesremainatthelessseverepointofinvisibilisation(asinthenovelofR.W.Ellison),whileothersreachtheoppositeextremeofdestructiveaction,ofextermination.Be-causethenarrativeofself-aggrandizementinvolvesasymmetricalcounter-partofhetero-degradationanddehumanization(Alonso,2009a;Horkheimer1986:182;Wamwere,2003),assuggestedbyI.Buruma(2002:12),“identityisabloodybusiness”.Nextsectionwillexplorehowcollectiveidentitylabelsaremanufactured.

An identity model: dimensions and modules

Forclarificationpurposesitseemsappropriatetosketchthegeometryofthefigure inorder to isolate the ideologicalproductsbelonging to the identityparadigm.Afterrecallingitsstronggenerativecapacity,itshouldbepointed



outthat,ingeneralterms,anidentitymatrixcreedtypicallyincludesasetofdimensionsor,asMelucci(1996:76)putit,“asystemofvectorsintension”,incorporatingeachofthemaclusterofinterrelatedfuzzilyseparatedmodules.Thehypotheticalidentitymodeltobesuggestedcontainsfourbasicdimen-sions:position,deindividuation,exclusionandcognitiveshielding.Iwillout-linethembydescribingtheconstituentmodules.

Positiondimension

Thepositiondimensionreferstotheprocessesandstrategiesaimedatdefiningadominantaffiliation–dominantinthedoublesenseofpowerful,superior,orprivileged,andprimary,principalorprevailing.Fourbasicmodulesmakeupthisdimension:topological,axiological,stratigraphicandpsychological.1. Topological module.Thestartingpointofidentityconstructionprocesses

isthelayoutofadividinglinethaterectsaprotectivegatearoundthein-groupand that, conversely,placesoutside itswalls themembersof theout-group.Attheoriginofidentityconceptionswealwaysrecognizethecraftworkofsynecdoche,thefigurethatdividesthesocialspacebymark-inganareaofexclusiveuseforanincumbent“we”previouslyconstituted.Incandescentidentitiesproduceasocialgeographyoftrenchesor,inlessextremecases, a juxtapositionof homogeneous enclaves– a federationofisomorphicentitiesorpluralmonoculturalisms(Sen,2006:157)–asanantithesisofpluralism,forinthiscasepermeablespacesforthemul-tiplecategoriesofcommoncitizenshipdistributedalongthesocialactorsarerequired.S.Arana(1999:346),thefounderofBasquenationalism,astrand of which encourages ETA violence even nowadays, managed tocondense the knot of the module into a successful formula: “a coloredclothandan imaginary linemark thebeginningofhate”,although it isworthrememberingthathesaidnothingabouttheVordenkers callingtowavingflagsanddrawingthelines.Thescriptinitsnakeddualisticsim-plicityisalreadyvisibleinPlato’sMenexenus (245).Socialmarkersareformidablepolarizingtoolsculminatinginacompleteseparationofpeo-pleintoclear-cutgroups.Identityascriptioncategoriesfulfilthefunctionoftheword‘civilization’in the ideograph‘clashofcivilizations’: foreshadowacollisionand theprevious manufacture of the belligerent actors.Through categorization,boundarymarkersimpingeonindividuals.Thenarrativesofidentitybearserious social implications; compared to a constitutional topology (anopenspaceinthedoubledimensionsofdemocracyandlaw),theidentitymapsrepresentwalled,gated,pigeonholedandcompartmentalizedspaces(Bowman,2003;M.Margalit,2010;Ron,2003),tomentionjustoneofavastrangeofimplicationsfortwoparticularcontexts,IsraelandformerYugoslavia.

2. Axiological module. The divide creates ontological differences, assignsvalues based on the respective location, so that membership confers a“strongsenseofsuperiorhumanvalue”(Elias,2003:242).RememberthewordsoftheFührer:“Itmustbeagreaterhonortobeastreet-cleanerandcitizeninthisReichthanakinginaforeignstate”(Hitler,Mein Kampf,II,3).Thisfeaturemarkstheplutocracyofbelonging.Thebiggestdiffer-enceisachieved,asevidencedbytheminimalgroupparadigminsocialpsychology, with a dual interdependent map of the identity trench: theexaltationofone’sowntribebythemechanismsofself-affirmation–Her-



renvolk – in the advantageous side, the dysphemisms of dehumanisingdegradation–Lebensunwert – in theopposite; thenegativeprejudice isa single thingwith thepositive (Horkheimer, 1986: 182). “Without thedark Jew there would never have been the shining figure of GermanicNordic”(Klemperer2001:254);ifsomeonereferstotheEvilEmpire,hebecomesipso factoself-ascribedtotheGoodEmpire.Inpracticalterms,theclashof(multiple)civilizationsisreducedtoaduelbetween“West”and“Islam”,thatis,between(theone)civilizationandbarbarism,inthesametermsJamesMillopposedcolonialistBritaintocolonisedIndia(inSen,2006:87).Ifthereisanunequivocalindicatoroftheidentitygapitishumiliation,anemblemofasymmetryinherenttoanyformofdominationfor it entails thedeepest treatmentofdispossessionandplundering, theoneaffectingdignityandhonour(Margalit,2007:17;WilkinsonandPick-ett,2009:156).Andthisidentityditchofhaughtiness/humiliationcontin-ueseveninsidethegrave,wherethoseoutsidethegroupareburiedfacedown,followingawidespreadcustomsinceprehistorictimes,accordingtoarchaeologistInésPregeiro(El País,22/7/2010).SuchisthecasewhenAchillesdeniesHectorthefuneralrite,draggingandprofaninghiscorpse.“Thetrajectorythatbeginswiththenarcissismofminordifferencescanend with utter moral abjection” (Ignatieff, 1997: 62).And when moralsubstanceisaddedtothepolarizedsocialfield,thenManichaeismisthepredictableoutput.

3. Stratigraphic module.Thecombinationofthetwomentionedmodulesre-sultsinastratified,hierarchicalworldview,headedbyanelectedgroupholderofexclusive rights. It shouldbe recalled that theconstructionofpyramids,asfigureheadoftheartefactslegitimisinginequality,isahistori-calconstantandthattheparticularlocusassignedtoanindividualproduc-escrucialeffectsonhislifeopportunitiesintermsofwhatmightbecalledlawofsocialgravitation;alawthatgeneratesaconsequenceofrhetoricna-ture:thoseatthetopnormallypresenttheirprivilegesasrights.Weshouldaddthat,asisthecaseforidentities,independenthierarchicalsystemscancoexist–classandgenderprovideanexampleathand.Thesocialcon-sequencesareobvious: identity framesoperate functionallyasavariantoftheprocessesofstratificationthatexpressthelogicofdomination,ofsocialdiscrimination.InitsextremeformstheyareequivalenttoverticalsegregationevokingtheascriptiveclosedestatesoftheAncientRégime.Identityprogramsareoneoftheredistributivepoliciesavailabletopoliti-calelites;investmentonnationalismispartortheopportunitystructureinthepoliticalcompetitionforconstituencies.AccordingtoHitler,the“folk-ishphilosophy” serves thebasic aristocratic ideaofNature… [andwillpreparethewayinorderthat]atlastthebestofhumanityhavingachievedpossessionofthisearth,willhaveafreepath…(Mein Kampf,II,1).

4. Psychological module.Thebasisofbeliefandvaluesupportingtheidentitycomplexisamentalstatedefinedbyapositiveenvelopingaffectivity.Thefeelingassociatedtotheaffiliationcategorytowhichyouascribetakesamotivationaldimension:achievingpositivedistinctiveness–narcissismofsmalldifferences–asashareinahighcorporateself-esteem.Thedistinc-tivenessneedscontrasttobeconsolidated,andsuchacontrastproducestheemotionalasymmetryunderlyingthecognitivelevel(Melucci,1996:83).Membershipincorporatesanendogenousrewardsystemcapableofovercoming the conventional utilitarian criteria, so that the individualmaysacrificevaluablematerialgoods–evenlifeitself–toachieveother



imaginaryonesassociatedwiththecognitive-emotionalmentalstatede-scribed.Suicidebombersdonothingbut toredeemlifefor identityandobtainasawardthecrownofmartyrdom,thehighestdegreeofbeinginthe ranksof themembershipcategory.Theyarenotalone,asshown inJesusCasquetemonographonthepoliticalreligionofradicalBasquena-tionalism.IfImentionedanendogenousrewardsystemitisbecause:a)“it is intrinsically reassuringand rewarding forpeople to see thatothersharetheirperspectives”(Mutz,2006:148),andb)“hisegoisinflatedbythefactofbelongingtothegoodrace;theplaceoftheindividualmeritsistransferredtothefeelingofbelongingtoacommunity”(Horkheimer,1986:182).WhenLt.GeneralWilliamBoykinevokedhisbattleagainstMuslimsassertingthat“IknewthatmyGodwasbiggerthanhis”andthatwhiletheChristianGod“wasarealGod,[theMuslim’s]wasanidol”(inSen,2006:13),itexpressedatthesametimetheconvictionofahighercollectiveself-esteemandtheexclusionarypragmaticsofhumiliation.Buttheconvictionofahighervalue–ofan inflatedself-esteem–doesnotlimititsimpacttothepsychologicallevel,foritforeshadowsagradeofexpectationsandanincentiveschemecoextensivelyhigh,proportionaltothesuperlativeselfconceptrepresentedbythenotionof‘thechosenpeo-ple’.And, in this point, the social effects mimic the psychology of thespoiledchild:thelowthresholdoftolerancetofrustrationbecauserealityandsocialinteractionswillbehardlyuptosuchexpectations.Fromthismindsettothemelancholyofirredentism,thestolendestinyandtheex-altationofvictimhood,thereisaveryshortstep(Alonso,2009b).Suchacomplexyieldsconsequencestothecognitivesphere(seeepistemologicalmodule,below).Ineffect,itcontradictsthefunctioningofthebinarylogicbywayofaninversionarydevice;forifyouagreewith,yousupportthebeliever’sposition–theconvictionthatheisright–whileifyoudisagreeitmeansthatthereareenemies;ergo,heisalsoright.Inthelanguageofgamestheory:iftheywin,theyareright;andiftheylose,thereisacon-spiracyagainstthembecausetheyareright.Thisisthekindofdilemmapresentedwhentryingtoconvinceahypochondriac.

Deindividuationdimension

Whenthesalientfeatureofidentityisofacollectivekind,processesofcom-pactingparticularindividualsintosocialblocksarerequired.Fourmodulescooperateinthatend:genealogical,organismic,essentialistandteleological.Whilethepositiondimensionprovidesan“usvs.them”picture,thedeindi-viduationdimensioncommandsthethickrelationsportrayingthetribalim-age.AsM.Ignatieff(1995:188)writesaboutthemainpoliticalexpressionofidentity:“Beingonlyyourselfiswhatanethnicnationalismwillnotallow”.ThewholeworkoftheculturalhistorianGeorgeL.Mosseisasuperbexem-plificationoftheprocessofdeindividuationor,inhisownterms,the‘deper-sonalizationofman’,anditsconsequences.5. Genealogical module.Thereferencegrouphasmaintainedacontinuous

existencethroughouttherelevanttimesegment,i.e.theonewhichispar-allelwiththeallegedlifeofthecollective.Itmaysoclaimtheattributeofancestral, primitive, historical, atavistic, primordial, native, indigenous,original, legendary, traditional, ancient, foundational, and soon.Antiq-uityisnotonlyabirthcertificate;itbecomes,moreover,equivalenttoadeedofassignmentoftheresourcesatstake.Thediachronictractfromaconstructedorreconstructedpastgivesthestoryitsnarrativelegitimacy



(Bruner,1991:20)andprovidethepoliticalspherewithnormativeworth,for“thefurtherbackyougothegreaterthevalidityoftheclaimortradi-tion”(Halliday,2000:168).AsMosseputit(1987:205):“Onlyhewhohastieswiththegenuinepastcouldhaveatruesoul,couldbeanorganicandnotamaterialistichumanbeing”.Genealogytransfusestemporalsub-stanceintotheidentityhypostasis.Confirminghismottoofthe(Croatian)“thousand-year-old dream”, according to F.Tuđman (1996: 325), “his-torical continuity was manifested in the most impressive way in 1984,whenattheclosingpartofthecelebrationofThirteenCenturiesofChris-tianityamongCroatians(…),acrowdofabout400.000devoteescongre-gated…”.Conceptualformationsofthiskindrefertothe“mandateofthebeginning”(Heidegger)or,moreprecisely, thepaleo-politicsor tyrannyoforigin,thatstatesthatitistheatavisticimaginedcommunitywhaten-gendersthepoliticaltieandclaimssovereigntyintherealmoflegitimacy–alegacyofRomanticismco-optedbymanyvarietiesofidentitypolitics.Theimportanceoforiginliesinthatidentity’sdefinitionsfavourstratifi-cationthroughdescenttothedetrimentofachievement(acquiredstatus).Again,theuseofascriptiveandpre-modernformsofstatus.NowIwilltake an example not usually associated with the paradigms of identity;theCommunistPartyofKampucheaunderPolPotestablishedtwobroadcategories,the‘newpeople’,theinhabitantsofcitieschosenfordeporta-tion–mainvictimsofKhmergenocide–and‘oldpeople’,thetraditionalfarmerswhoexpressedoriginalideologicalpurityassumedasakintotheidentityoftheparty(Hinton,2002:15).Fromthepointofviewofthetex-tureofdiscourse,genealogyprovidestheillusionofdepth,countervailinginthatmanneritscontingentandmanufacturedcondition.

6. Organismic module.Thegroupinitsbiologicalessencehasremainedcon-sistentlyhomogeneous,andthereforepureanduncontaminatedthrough-outitsexistence,andthishomogeneity–thatrequiresimperativelydein-dividuationboth in the in-and theout-group–andpurity,are theveryconditionsofitssurvival;bothcommandahygienicandsurgicaldutyasacategoricalimperative,asasupremeguideforgroupbehaviour.NationalSocialism employed the term Gleichschaltung to describe this process,whichforananonymousGermanmeant“thatthesamecurrentmustflowthroughthepoliticalbodyoftheVolk”(inKoonz,2003:93).Thenational-istdiscourse,writesM.Thompson(1992:198),“compactsallSerbsintoa‘we’thatcreates‘they’,whoareforeverdoingallmannerofevilthingstoSerbia”.Organicismisusuallyaccompaniedbythreecorollaries.First,theParmenideanfixityofimmutableessences(Gómez,2000:31);second,theuseofanthropomorphicmetonymiesmanifestedintheattributionofhumanfeelingsandmoralqualitiestorelatednaturalfeatures,especiallytheterritoryas“sacredland”(Halliday,2000:168)–hence,themobilizingforceofirredentism–andthirdandforemost,thedenialofthesphereofautonomyandindividualself-determination,thatis,ofresponsibilityandmoralconscience.Itistheorganicismbiaswhichaccountsforthetransferofagencyfromindividual tocollectiveentities,conceiving the lastoneashomogeneous,builtof interchangeable identicalpieces,whosevalueisjustfunctionofthefactofbeingbitsofthewhole.Therelevantactorisnotconsequentlytheindividualbutthequalifiedbearerwhichincarnatesthemysticbody(v.soteriologicalmodule).

7. Essentialist module.Althoughapparentlyverydistantfromthelexicalrep-ertoireofthepreviousfeature, infactit is intertwinedwithit,sincethe



holisticstructureisofanidealnature.Idealistreductionismisacurrentdriftintheidentitydiscourse,whichisexplainedbyacompulsivesearchforthedifference.But,aswereadintheOxford Companion to Philoso-phy,“thehighergradesofessentialismgiverisetopuzzlingconundrums”.Usualwaysof escapeare tautological fallacies.Oneof themhas todowithwhospeaksonbehalfofthecollectiveactor.Anotheroneconfinesinself-referentiality:theself-constitutedpeopleistheverygroupbelievingintheexistenceofsuchself-constitutedpeople(Charland,1987).Ama-jorconsequenceofbothistheperversionofpoliticalrepresentationbyatautologicallyinducedsynecdoche:“we”–thebelieversinthecollectivesubstance–arewe–theentitledpoliticalactors.Asforitssocialimplica-tions,essentialistpreferencesentailaparallelprocessofdematerialization,devaluationormaskingofeconomicandsocialfactorsunderthecoverofinstancesofhighervalue–anendemicstrategyofsocialconservatism.

8. Teleological module.Whathasalwaysbeenmustremainsoinitsveryim-mutability.Tothechronologicaldepthofthepastcorrespondsaparallelprojectionofnecessityonthefuture.Identitynarrativesconveythetextureofatimelesscontinuity.Theideogramsofthethousand-yearsReich,Al-Quaeda’sAl-Andalus,oreternalSpain,aregoodexamples:theinventionofessencescreatestheannexedfeelingofeternityandthuspreventanyfeebleness arising from the perception of its ephemeral historicity.Thedreamsofacommunitybecomeself-fulfillingprophecies.AsthecreatorofthefascistSpanishFalangeproclaimed,nationsarefoundations,notcon-tracts–astatementinvolvingtherepudiationofpolitics.Repudiationofthepolitical,contingencyandfreedomrealms,resultsfromthebeliefthatidentitydictatesadestiny,aprescribedunalterabletrajectory.AsstatedbyBeveridgeinthemelodyofManifest Destiny,“sincetheNorthAmericanRepublicispartofthemovementofarace–theracethathistoricallypos-sessesthebiggestspiritofdomination–thehandofmancannotholdthemovementsoftherace.Theyarestrongresponsestogodlydictates”(inWeinberg,1968:259).Thedeterministicflavourofidentitypoliticsisusu-allyascribedtoright-wingideologies;theleftisnotcompletelyfreefromit,however.AshasbeenstatedforKampucheaKhmersinthegenealogicalmodule,classoriginwasforStalinandStalinistsasstrongadestinyaswasraceforsocialDarwinists(A.Margalit,2010:191).Itcouldthereforebearguedthatsuchsimilarityingrammarisoneoftheelementsaccountingfortherelativelyeasyconversionfromcommunismtonational-socialism(Sternhell,1983),orethnonationalism,fromthirdworldsocialismtoreli-giousfundamentalism.

Exclusiondimension

When a group consolidates its cohesiveness by a strong consciousness ofbelonging–deindividuationdimension–andconsidersitselfendowedwithexclusiverights,theperspectiveforthosenotincludedintheprotective“us”isexclusion,initspolymorphousphenomenology.Thereverseofcollectiveidentity arrogance,ofnationalgrandeur, is heterophobia.The sociological,ethicalandsoteriologicalmodulesprovidetherhetoricalmaterialstotheex-clusionarypolitics.

9. Sociological module.Theconvictionofsuperiorityculminatesinanunre-strictedapplicationmotto:“wehavetheright”(theobjecttobeattacheddoesnotmatteratall),whichisexpressedinprogramslikeLebensraum,



the manifest destiny, la mission civilisatrice, theFull Spectrum Domi-nanceoftheAmericanneoconservativePNAC(ProjectforaNewAmeri-canCentury),Greater Serbia,Eretz Israel,ImperialSpain,thepoliticalEuskalHerria,or,ingeneral,themegali idea;realorperceivedrebuttalofthatrightisframedasinjusticeorgrievance,andwillvindicateavenge-fulirredentistresponse.Thismoduleistheextensionofthespoiledchildsyndromereportedinthepsychologicalvector.Itreflectstheappealofvictimhood(Chaumont,1997)inthemultiplevariationsofthe“Al-An-dalussyndrome”(Alonso,2009b),the“chosentrauma”(Volkan,1998),the“cultureofdefeat”(Lieven,2005:88;Molina,2010:251;Schivel-busch,2003),“defensivenarcissism”(WilkinsonandPickett,2009:199),“perceivedinjustice”andsoon.AllofthemindebtedtotheassessmentofRenanwherebysufferings,realorperceived,havemorepowerthanjoystocompactindividualsintosocialblocks,ontheoneside,andtothecomparativeadvantageofnegativeemotions,ontheother.Ontheotherhand,thegroupprovidesacontextthatrendersaggressivebehaviourso-ciallyacceptableandnormativelyappropriate(Mummendey,1988:284).ItwouldamounttoaHerculeantasktocollecttherepertoireofslogansinvokedtobackupexclusion.SufficeittomentionasexamplesDenton’s(1670)“[d]ivineHand…removingorcuttingofftheIndians”,Kipling’s“whitemanburden”,Conrad’scharacterformula“[e]xterminateall thebrutes”,andSpencer’ssevereconviction–“[b]ehehumanbeing,orbehebrute,thehindrancemustbegotridof”(Lindqvist,2004:29,158).

10. Ethical module.Practicesperformedbymembersofthein-grouparepro-tectedbyimpunity–nomatterhowcriminaltheymaybecome–fromtheassumptionthatpotentialvictimsarebydefinitionoutsidetheuniverseofmoralobligation,whichcoincideswiththeenclaveofaffiliation(ex-tragrupalamoralism).Iwanttobackthisviewwithtwostatementsfromthefieldofsociology.AsR.K.Merton(1968:514)putit,“itisonlythattheuglyfencethatenclosesthein-groupexcludesindividualswhoformtheout-groupstobetreatedwiththedecencyusuallygiventohumans”.ToW.Gamson(1995:17),thecommondenominatorofalltheprocessesofexclusionis“thecreationofan‘other’whoisoutsideoneormoreuni-versesofobligation”.Thethesiscanbesupportedfromtheoppositeside,consideringthedifficultytoasserttherightsofthoselabelledas‘others’.Accordingtotheethicalmodule,virtueisaprerogativeofthein-group,sothattheactionsaccomplishedbyitsmembersareintrinsicallymoral,despiteitseventualmurderousnature(Koonz,2003:228).Thisco-optedethics composes a stuffed historical fresco of paradoxical behaviours,againepitomizedbyNaziGermany:“anethicalsocietywithregardtoitsfellowGermansandadeeplyimmoralsocietywithregardtohumanityatlarge”(A.Margalit,2010:122).OncetheIAChasbeencrownedasthe“highestmoralreferent”,theterritorialityofobligationbecomesnorma-tive:moralvaluesendatthefrontier(Halliday,2000:165,161).And,asM. Ignatieffhaswritten(1995:188):“Whenpeoplecomeby terrororexaltation, tothinkof themselvesaspatriots,first, individuals,second,theyhaveembarkedonapathofethicalabdication”.

11. Soteriological module.Thelinkbetweenidentityandsalvationisatleasttwofold.Ontheonehand,securityismonopolisticallycircumscribedtotheinsideofthegate:extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Ontheotherhand,theblendofessentialist,organismicandexclusivistelementsaswellastheexaltationoftheloyaltycategory,accountfortheproclivityofsuchdoc-



trinalagglomeratestodeveloppalingeneticprogramsaimedattheregen-erationandsalvationofthecommunity(Tismaneanu,1998).Amessianicdynamicthatendsinmillenarianintransigence(Mosse,1987:165).Warbecomesholyoncemaceratedinthisblend.Again,politicalimplicationsare obvious. Perhaps the most evident is the preference for messianiccharismaticleadershipprofilesthatbypasstherepresentativemodelsofliberaldemocraticinspiration.Messianismisusuallyassociatedwithanidiosyncraticvisionandthefunctionofmediatortorevealthesynecdo-chialcategorytothecommonpeople.Theproclivityofidentityqueriestothevariegatedcanvasofesotericmaterialsexpresses,ononeside,thelust for transcendence,and,on theother, theneed to infusecontent intheghostlyidentitylabels.Historyisoverwhelmedbythecopiousnessoftheseirrationalmaterials,fromtheenthusiasticoccultismofnational-socialistleaderstothecharlatanryandsuperstitioninMilosevic’sSerbia,fromtheexuberanceofholyapparitionsinFrancoistSpaintotheTorahfetishismofthesettlermovement.Thereseemstobeanelectiveaffinitybetweenidentityruminationsandvölkishtaste.Partofthissemanticcon-stellationexhibitsatendencytomanufactureconspiracytheories,which,correlatively, appeal to redemptive schemes. Soteriology replicates, inthetranscendentsphere,thefinalityofthetopologicaldivide:fences,sal-vations programs and Messiahs, share the common imperative task ofprotectinganassetofthegreatestworth.Thereverseoftheprocessesisthedestructionofthe“other”,asaradicalparadigmofzero-sumgamestrategies.Consequently,manyexpressionsofexistentialdilemmasre-sultinthe“neutralization”ofreal,potentialorimaginaryfoes.Salvationprojectsdisplaytherepertoireofusefulmeanstosurvivalend–terminat-ingastateofaffairswhichisfeltasaversiveandforwhichan“other”isheldresponsible(Mummendey,1988:286).

Iwillconcludethisratherformaldescriptionwithaprimarysourcematerialexemplifyingtheterminalphaseofidentityrhetoricwhenbackedbythesuf-ficientamountofmilitarypower(M.Margalit,2010:21–22):

“Asinglehouseoranentirecompoundbecomesafortifiedsiteinthefinestcolonialtraditionsofthenineteenthcentury–agatedcommunityinthe21stcentury.EveryJewishsiteinEastJerusalemrequiresasecurityfence,guard-postswitharmedsecuritypersonnel,projectorsandoftenclosedcircuitcameras,accompanied,ofcourse,byaprovoca-tiveIsraeliflag.[…].Spaceiscrucialtotheexerciseofpower,butpoweralsocreatesaparticularkindofspace(Ko-skela,2003).Thesettlementcreatesacartographyofexclusion,organisesthespaceinaccordan-cewithstructuresofpowerandcontrol,andtransformsitfrom‘aspace’intoazoneofconflict.Thesettlementsdividethespaceintotwogroups–thosewhoexercisepowerandthosewhoaresubjugatedtoit.”

Cognitiveshieldingdimension

Weknowthatremorseishardlyfoundinpoliticalcriminals(Maaluf,2003:39).Howtowhitewashanobjectivelypatentimmoralbehaviourandexhibitapeacefulmoralconscience?Toharmonizetheseconflictingstrandsisane-cessityforpsychologicalconsonance.Thisfunctionisimplementedbywhatcouldbedenominatedacognitiveshieldingdimension.Itconsistsmainlyofanepistemologicalmodule,verycloselyrelatedtosomeoftheformermod-ules,particularlythepsychologicalone.Epistemicexclusionistheextremeconsequenceoftheidentitydivide,definingspheresoftruth-valuesaccordingtotheaffiliation.“Ifyouarenotpartofthe‘us’youcannotunderstandour



problems,thereforeyoureventualdisapprovalisdiscardedasirrelevant;andifyouareaformalmemberofthe‘us’youcannotdisapproveunlessyoube-cameatraitor,i.e.,excludingyourselffromthecluboftruth-valuesholders”.This isnotacasualvariationof thewinorwinstrategy;bothare indebtedtowhatHalliday(2000:167)callsthefallacyoftheautogenicculture.Theframeofepistemicinvulnerabilityexploitsavastrepertoireofmaterials,from“fairytales”narratives(Mosse,1987:164),to“carnivalofmendacity”(Hal-liday,2000:168).

12. Epistemological module. I place this module at the end of the picturebecauseitisofahigherorderandconditionstheotherdimensions.Thisitemseekstothrowlightonarecurringpointwhenconfrontingconcep-tualframeworksofthismodality:theinsidiousviscosityoftheunderly-inglogicandasimilarrefractorinesstotheusualtoolsofconventionalargumentation.Themostbitter identitybeliefsareorganized incloseddogmaticsystems,impervioustocriticism,andendowedwithepistemicimmunity. Identity narratives lead to a circular and tautological logic:assertions reverberate in the rhetoric vault of the identity bubble (Ap-piah, 2005: 137).Any dissenting or heterodox will be disqualified ontheverybasisofidentitycategories(Jewvs.Arian,Masonvs.Catholic,Spanish nationalist vs. abertzale, Islamic fundamentalist vs. Christian/Western faithful), or by an attribution of intention dissolving the con-tentsof theobjections in the flaskof thead hominem fallacy. Identityconstructionsaretypicalexamplesofself-consistencysystemsofbeliefs.Insuchsystemsthevalueofabeliefdoesnotdependonthedegreeofcorrespondencewithanystandardoffacts,butonhiscongruitywiththeworldviewingrainedintheself-conceptstory.Negationismisbutoneconsequenceembodiedinamechanismofdefenceaimedatthe a poste-rioriprotectionofcollectiveidentityimage.Thismarksacriticalpointforthemanagementofbeliefsofthisbrand,asrefractorytoconventionaltoolsofdialogicaltransactionsandpublicdeliberationthatcharacterizecommunitiessocializedintothevaluesofliberalpluralism.Thesearethedarkwatersoffanaticalintransigence,withtheterriblecorollarytothehumanist rationalism so accurately stated by Camus: “It was in Spainwheremygeneration learned thatonecanbe rightandbebeaten, thatforcecandestroythesoul;andthatsometimescouragegetsnoreward”.

Twoconsequencescanbedrawnfromit.Ontheonehand,theneedtotem-per theexcessive relianceon intellectualism.On themoodput forwardbyMommsen,Horkheimer(1986:183)remindstheevidencethat“it’sfutiletoargueagainstrigidprejudices”.Thisstatementrequiresanauxiliaryobserva-tion:politicsofidentitydisplaysagreateraffinitywithwhatwemightcallthe logic of emotions; hence, its comparative advantage over programme-likeideologies.PoliticalscientistsasB.NyhanorJ.Kuklinskiconfirmtheage-oldintuitionthatfactsdonotnecessarilyhavethepowertochangeourminds,burrathertheopposite;therefore,“it’shardtobeoptimisticabouttheeffectivenessoffact-checking”(Keoane,2010).Kahnemanandcolleagues’studieson thepsychologyofpreferenceshave reachedsimilarconclusionsvalidatingthestrengthofegocentrism:itisnottheextrinsicvalueofathingwhatdeterminesthepreference,butthesubjectivepreferencethatdeterminestheassignedvalue.Academicprofilesdonotscorebetterthancommonpeo-ple,rathertheopposite(Keoane,2010).Anoldclassicaldictum–corruptio optimi pessima–enclosedthemorals:cultivatedpeoplearenotmorerationalbutmore skilful to rationalise the actions– right orwrong–of thegroup



theybelongto.Ontheotherhand,anequivalentrequirementtoidentifythepremisesinspiringourpartnersbeliefsisnecessary,owingtothefactthatitismanifestlyinappropriatetoconformtotheparametersofdialogueandnego-tiation–assomemoreorlessself-proclaimedpacifistshaveexperiencedandexperience–when thecounterpartyshowsnocommitment tosuchvalues.Theissuehereisnottobeblindtotheimperativeofpoliticalrealism,evenifdisguised in the languageof thehighestvalues.Weshouldnotoverlookthatwhereethnicandcivilloyaltyconflict,thefirstusuallyprevails(Connor,1994:196); similarconclusionapplies to theconflictbetween identityandreason.Itisunrealistictoclaimdialoguewithanarmedspeaker.Iwouldliketoputanendtothiscentralpointconcerningthewaytodealwithidentityis-sueswiththeinspiredwordsofMarkLilla(2009:38,40):

“But[theliberalmentality],owingtoitsopenness,alsotendstoassumethateveryonesharesthesevalues.Itissoopenthatitfindspsychologicallydifficulttorecognizetheexistenceofot-herclosedmentalities.Andwhenitdoes,itisharderstilltodecidehowtorelatetothem.Thereisacleverdefinitionofaliberalas‘someonewhorefusestoputitsownsideinadiscussion’.Thejokeisfunnybecauseweknowthatistrue,perhapseveninourselves.Butitstopsbeingfunatthetimethatclosedmentalitiesarewillingtouseforcetoreachilliberalends.Whathappensin thiscase?Whatabout tolerancewhenthosewetolerateare intolerantofothers?(…)Theliberalpluralistsareinterestedinthehappinessofindividualsandsocieties,butremainmutedwhenconfrontedwithoptionsorculturalhabitsthatareobviouslyself-destructive.Eventheyfinditdifficulttorecognize,letalonecondemn,thoseexplicitlydeclaringthemselvescontrarytoliberaltolerance.”

Three final notes should be appended to complete the hypothetical modelofthissection.Thefirstisobviousandcommittedtotakeoverthedoseofarbitrarinessintheallegedresultingtetragram.Inanycase,therelevantpointcomestodeterminewhetherthecharacteristicsattributedtothelisteddimen-sionsportrayornotidentityscripts(forotherapproaches:Appiah,2005:66;Melucci,1996:70).Thesecondbearsamoresubstantivetone.Therhetoricofidentityperformsthefunctionofprovisionofsymboliccapital.However,asfarasidentityissuestendtobeindivisible(Hirschman,1995:244)andtofollowzero-summodels–becauseoftheiressentialistnature–theyinvolveasymmetricalrepertoireofnegativeuncivilpracticesaimedatthesymbolicandmaterialdispossessionofthetenantcircumscribedbythehetero-defini-tion.Fromthis,inthethirdplace,veryconcreterisksfollowtothesustain-abilityofpluralism.Theyaffect thoseprograms thatplace identityas theircornerstone,particularlyinitsmostmonolithicall-engulfingexpressions.

Ubiquitous discriminatory strategies

These dimensions draw a template or formal structure, capable of accom-modatingdifferentmarkerscriteriasuchasrace,faith,tribe,clan,nation,eth-nicity,class,genderorcivilization;notwithstanding,itsformulationleanstothepoliticalside.Suchastructurewouldbeakindofdeepgrammarcapableof encircling surfaceconstructionsasdifferent as theones justmentioned.Buttheanchoringofsuchastructureisofapsychologicalnature,astateofmind(Orwell,1968:418),recurrentlydisplayed(Sen,2006:9).Whatmattersforpurposesofidentitypotentialisthepsychologicalactivationofthebasicscript–integrated,roughlyspeaking,bythedimensionsreferredtoaschar-acteristicscapabletobegeneralizedtoanyothermarker,inotherwords,anidentityascriptioncategory–beingsecondarythespecificcontentofthepro-gram.TheartificialnatureofthecriterionissomethingthatsocialpsychologyfromLewinonhasshownwithsolvency.Thefunctionalover-determination



explainsbiographicalconversions,suchasfromtheclasspatternincommu-nismtotheethnicpatternofnationalism(MerinoandAlonso,2010).LinkingmentalstateswithpowerfulsocialforcesrequirespayingattentiontothetheoremofW.I.Thomas–“Ifmendefinesituationsasreal,theyarerealintheirconsequences”–especiallyifweconsiderthatmembershipisakeyelementofthedefinitionofthesituation(Merton,1980:509),andthatpoli-ticsisnothingbut“astruggleforthearticulationofidentityitself”(Weeks,1994:12).AsN.Eliaswrote(2003:239,247):

“Theproblemliesinhowandwhyhumanbeingsperceivethemselvesasbelongingtothesamegroupandincludethemselveswithinthegroupborderstheyset todesignate, intheirmutualcommunications,toan‘us’,while,atthesametime,excludeotherhumanbeingstheyperceiveasmembersofanothergroup,referredtocollectivelyas‘them’.”

Elias insists that the rightquestion iswhywehavebecomeaccustomed toperceive individuals with certain characteristics as members of a differentgroup.ThesameideaisreflectedinHorowitz(1995:50).Theworsttragediesofthetwentiethcenturywerecarriedoutonthebasisofdiacriticaldefinitionssupportedbyhetero-phobiccategorizations:theOtherastheJewofanti-Semitism,theOtherasan“enemyofthepeople”inpeople’sdemocracies,theotherasbarbarianorindigenousincenturiesofcolonialism,theOtherasethnicornationalfoe.Whatweperceiveinthe21stcentury,withtherecentrecordsofkilledUzbeksinKyrgyzstan,showsadisturbingconti-nuity.Seriousepisodesofviolencereflectaconsistentpatternofintolerancetobothothernessandplurality.Identitysalienceincreasestheflammabilityingroupcontention,ashasrightlywarnedMoore(2001:178)explainingthedestructivepotentialofmonotheisms.These reflections show that the constitutive power of identity is displayedsimultaneously ina tautological logic, inaself-referential ideology,and inapleonasticandahistorical framework foraction–despite the incontinenthandling of the lexicon of historiography (Halliday, 2000: 166). However,symmetriccontinuityrevealsitspoliticaldimensionandmotivationalimpe-tus;dissatisfactionwiththepresentdrawsananomalyordiscontinuity–pseu-domorfosis,grievance,irredentism–toberedirectedsoasnottosuccumbtotheexistential threat: thedisappearanceof theessence(IAC),whichby itsveryconditionisformulatedasanexistentialproblem.Suchanomaliesoftenencourage thesearch for fathersof theentity,charismaticguidesasHitler,Franco,Stalin,Milošević,PolPot,Mussolini,Mao,Codreanu,Tuđmanandmanyothers,readytoloadontheirshoulderstheburdenofrestoringthefoun-dationalsoulofthenationbypurgingitfromtheobnoxious“other”guiltyofitsdecadence.Theamountofviolencecausedbytheaforementionedleadershelpstocountervailtheideathatconceptions(aspartofagency)aresufficientconditions; it isnot thecase, contextplaysavery important function.Theconfigurationof adivide is a common factor in identityparadigms,but toerectaseparatingwall,asinIsrael,apowerfularmyandadegreeofinterna-tionalcomplicityareneeded.Rhetoricalmaterialsaretheenergeticelementsfortheeffectivemobilization,forcognitivedefinitions–thefieldexploredinmypresentation–areconditionsforcollectiveaction(Melucci,1996:70);inthiscaseactionscontributingtoanopportunitystructureinwhichiniquityischeaperthandecency.Therefore,ifidentityliquefiesrhetoricallyinthetauto-logicalsolventontheoneside,itallowsneverthelessincubatingthecompletearsenalofexclusion,ontheother.Iwouldappeal,toconclude,toametaphoricalexhortationbythepropheticversesorSpanishpoetLeónFelipe:“poetsneversingthesamepeople’sstory



/norasingleflowergarden/letallpeopleandallgardensbeours”.Comparethisattitude,toencompasstheambivalencementionedatthebeginning,withtheparallelbotanicalinjunctionofthefatherofBasquenationalism,SabinoArana(1999:374):“TheTreeofGernikaisasymbolofthewelfareofourpeople,notanyoneelse’s.Notinoursoilcancoexistwithanyothertree.”

References

Alonso,Martín(2009a).La razón desposeída de la víctima. La violencia en el País Vasco al hilo de Jean Améry.Bilbao:Bakeaz.

Alonso,Martín(2009b).“ElsíndromedeAl-AndalusRelatosdeexpoliaciónyviolenciapolítica”.InJ.Casquete(ed.).Comunidades de muerte.Anthropos:Barcelona:19–54.

Alonso,Martín(2010).“Estructurasretóricasdelaviolenciapolítica”.InA.RiveraandC.Carnicero(eds.).Violencia política. Historia, memoria y víctimas.Madrid:Maia:101–165.

Appiah,KwameAnthony(2005).The Ethics of Identity.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Arana,Sabino(1999).Antología.EdicióneintroduccióndeJ.Eyara.SanSebastián:Roger.

Berger,RonaldJ.(2002).Fathoming the Holocaust. A Social Problems Approach.NewYork:AldinedeGruyter.

Bowman,Glenn(2003).“ConstitutiveViolenceandRhetoricsofIdentity:AComparativeStudyofNationalistMovementsintheIsraeli-OccupiedTerritoriesandFormerYugosla-via”.Social Anthropology11(2),December:37–58.

Bruner,Jerome(1991).“TheNarrativeConstructionofReality”.Critical Inquiry18(2),autumn:1–21.

Buruma,Ian(2002).“TheBloodLustofIdentity”.The New York Review of Books,April,11th:12–14.

Casquete,Jesús(2009).En el nombre de Euskal Herria. La religión política del naciona-lismo vasco radical.Madrid:Tecnos.

Charland,Maurice(1987).“ConstitutiveRhetoric:TheCaseofthe‘Peuple Québécois’”.The Quarterly Journal of Speech73(2),May:133–150.

Chaumont,JeanMichel(1997).La concurrence des victimes. Génocide, identité, recon-naissance.Paris:LaDécouverte.

Connor,Walker(1994). Ethnonationalism. The Quest for Understanding.Princeton:Prin-cetonUniversityPress.

Elias,Norbert(2003).“Ensayoacercadelasrelacionesentreestablecidosyforasteros”.Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas104,October–December:214–251(traddeJ.Casquete.The Established and the Outsiders. A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems.London:FrankCass&Co.Ltd.,1965).

Fein,Helen(1979).Accounting for Genocide: National Response and Jewish Victimiza-tion during the Holocaust.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Gamson,William,A.(1995).“Hiroshima,theHolocaust,andthePoliticsofExclusion”.American Sociological Review60:1–20.

GarcíaMorente,Manuel(1947,3ª).Idea de la Hispanidad.Madrid:Espasa–Calpe,S.A.

Glover,Jonathan(1999).Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century.NewHa-ven–London:YaleUniversityPress.

Gómez,Pedro(2000).“Lasdesilusionesdela‘identidad’.Laetniacomoseudoconcepto”.In id. (coord.). Las ilusiones de la identidad. Madrid: Frónesis-Cátedra–Universitat deValencia:29–54.



Halliday,Fred (2000). “ThePerilsofCommunity:ReasonandUnreason inNationalistIdeology”.Nations and Nationalism6(2),April:153–171.

Halliday, Fred (2005). The Middle East in International Relations Power, Politics and Ideology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Herzberger,DavidK.(1995).Narrating the Past. Fiction and Historiography in Postwar Spain.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Hinton,AlexanderLaban (2002).“Introduction:GenocideandAnthropology”. InA.L.Linton(ed.).Genocide: An Anthropological Reader.Oxford:Blackwell:1–23.

Hirschman,AlbertO.(1995).A Propensity to Self-Subversion.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Hitler,Adolf(1971).Mein Kampf.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.

Hobsbawm,Eric,E.(1993).“TheNewThreattoHistory”.The New York Review of Books16,December,16th:62–63.

Horkheimer,Max(1986).Sociedad en transición: Estudios de filosofía social.Barcelona:Planeta–Agostini.

Horowitz,DonaldL.(1985).Ethnic Groups in Conflict.Berkeley–LosAngeles:Univer-sityofCaliforniaPress.

Huntington,SamuelP.(1996).The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Ignatieff,Michael(1993).Blood and Belonging.London:BBC.

Ignatieff,Michael(1997).The Warrior’s Honor. Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience.NewYork:HenryHoltandCo.

Jackson,Gabriel(1999).“Hacerfrentealodio”.El País,April,24th.

Keoane,Joe(2010).“HowFactsBackfire”.The Boston Globe,July,11th.

Kiš,Danilo(1992).“Nationalism”.AppendixtoM.Thompson. A Paper House: The End-ing of Yugoslavia.NewYork:Pantheon:337–340.

Klemperer,Victor(2001).LTI.La Lengua del Tercer Reich.Barcelona:Minúscula.

Klemperer,Victor(2003).Diarios 1933–1945. Quiero dar testimonio hasta el final.Bar-celona:GalaxiaGutenberg(2vols).

Koonz,Claudia(2003).The Nazi Conscience. Cambridge,MA:BelknappPress.

LeBon,Gustave(1895,1981).Psychologie des foules.Paris:PUF.

Lieven,Anatol(2005).America Right of Wrong. An Anatomy of American Nationalism.London:HarperPerennial.

Lilla,Mark(2009).“¿Quéeslacontrailustración?”.Revista de Occidente339–340,July–August:25–41.

Lindqvist,Sven(2004).“Exterminad a todos los salvajes”.Madrid:Turner.

Maalouf,Amin(2003).Identidades asesinas.Madrid:Alianza.

Magris,Claudio(2001).Microcosmi.Milano:Garzanti.

Margalit,Avishai(2007).“HumanDignitybetweenKitschandDeification”.The Hedge-hog Review9(3),fall:7–19.

Margalit,Avishai(2010).On Compromise and Rotten Compromises.Princeton:PrincetonUnversityPress.

Margalit,Meir(2010).Seizing Control of Space in East Jerusalem.Jerusalem:SifreiAliatGag.

Massing,PaulW.(1949).Rehearsal for Destruction. A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany. NewYork:Harper&Brothers.



Melucci,Alberto (1996).Challenging Codes. Collective Action in the Information Age.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Merino,F.JavierandAlonso,Martín(2010).“Abdicacióndelaconciencia.Laizquierdaantelaviolencia”.Papeles109:67–78.

Merton,RobertK.(1968).Teoría y estructura sociales.Mexico:FCE.

Molina,Fernando(2010).“TheHistoricalDynamicsofEthnicConflicts:ConfrontationalNationalisms,DemocracyandtheBasquesinContemporarySpain”.Nations and Nation-alism16(2):240–260.

Moore,Barrington(2001).Pureza moral y persecución en la historia.Barcelona:Paidós.

Mosse,GeorgeL.(1987).Masses and Man. Nationalist and Fascist Perceptions of Reality.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress.

Mummendey,Amélie(1988).“AggressiveBehaviour”.InM.Hewstone,W.Stroebe,J.-P.CodolandG.M.Stephenson(eds.).Introduction to Social Psychology.Oxford:Blackwell:263–287.

Mutz,DianaC.(2006).Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Demo-cracy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Namier,LewisB.(1942).Conflicts. Studies in Contemporary History.London:Macmillan&Co.

Orwell,George(1968).“NotesonNationalism”.InThe Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell,vol.III,“AsIPlease,1943–1945”.Harmondsworth:Penguin:410–430.

Reicher,Stephen;Hopkins,Nick;Levine,MarkandRath,Rakshi(2005).“Entrepreneursofhateandentrepreneursofsolidarity:Socialidentityasabasisformasscommunication”.International Review of the Red Cross87(860),December:621–637.

Ron,James(2003).Frontiers and Ghettos. State Violence in Serbia and Israel.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Schivelbusch,Wolfgang(2003).The Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery.London:Granta.

Sen,Amartya(2006).Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny.NewYork:Norton.

Stevanović,Vidosav(1993).La neige et les chiens.Paris:Belfond.

Sternhell, Zeev (1983). Neither Right nor Left: Fascist ideology in France. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Tajfel,Henri(1975).“Lacategorizaciónsocial”.InS.Moscovici(ed.)Introducción a la Psicología Social.Barcelona:Planeta:349–387.

Thompson,Mark(1992).A Paper House. The Ending of Yugoslavia.NewYork:Pantheon.

Tuđman,Franjo(1996).Horrors of War. Historical Reality and Philosophy.NewYork:Evans&Co.

Tilly,Charles (2003).The Politics of Collective Violence.Cambridge–NewYork:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.

Tismaneanu,Vladimir(1998).Fantasies of Salvation. Democracy, Nationalism and Myth in Post-communist Europe.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Unamuno,Miguelde(1991).El resentimiento trágico de la vida. Notas sobre la revolu-ción y la guerra civil españolas.EstudiodeCarlosFeal.Madrid:Alianza.

Vilar,Pierre(1997).Pensar históricamente.Barcelona:Crítica.

Volkan,VamikD.(1998).Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism.Boulder:WestviewPress.



Wamwere,KoigiW.(2003).Negative Ethnicity: from Bias to Genocide.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress.

Weeks,Jeffrey(1994).“Introduction”.InJ.Weeks(ed.).The Lesser Evil and the Greater Good.TheTheory and Politics of Social Diversity.London:OramPress:1–13.

Weinberg,AlbertK.(1968).Destino manifiesto. El expansionismo nacionalista en la his-toria norteamericana.BuenosAires:Paidós.

Wilkinson,RichardandPickett,Kate(2009).The Spirit Level. Why More Equal Societies Almost Always do Better.London:AllenLane(ReferencestotheSpanishversion:Madrid:Turner,2009).

Martín Alonso

Kolektivniidentitetkaoretoričkialat

SažetakMeđu mnoštvom dimenzija kolektivnog identiteta, ovaj rad istražuje identitet kao retorički alat. Identitetska oznaka je upravo primjer pragmatične učinkovitosti. Kako bi se objasnila ta moć, izložit će se hipotetički model identitetskih kategorija. Njegovi konstitutivni moduli oblikuju četiri osnovne dimenzije: pozicija, deindividualizacija, isključenje i kognitivna zaštita. Tako ocrtan narativni identitet postaje ekvivalentan neformalnoj ideologiji (Halliday, 2005). Kao konstitutivna retorika (Charland, 1987), narativna konstrukcija identiteta pretvara autorefe-rencijalnu tautologiju u strategije diskriminacije, pročišćenja i istrebljenja nositelja drugosti. Masovna uništenja u prošlom stoljeću – totalitarizam, kolonijalizam, etno-nacionalizam – pro-izvodi su identitetske paradigme.

Ključneriječikolektivniidentitet,retorika,mivs.oni,isključenje,moralneobveze,političkonasilje

Martín Alonso

Kollektive Identität als rhetorisches Werkzeug

ZusammenfassungVon der Mehrzahl der Dimensionen kollektiver Identität erkundet diese Arbeit die Identität als rhetorisches Werkzeug. Die Identitätsmarke steht für einen für die pragmatische Effektivität relevanten Fall. Um eine solche Macht zu erläutern, wird ein hypothetisches Modell der Iden-titätskategorien dargeboten. Dessen Bestandsmodule formen vier Basisdimensionen: Position, Entindividualisierung, Ausschließung sowie kognitive Abschirmung. Eine so deskribierte nar-rative Identität wird zum Äquivalent der informellen Ideologie (Halliday, 2005). Als konstitutive Rhetorik (Charland, 1987) überführt die narrative Identitätskonstruktion die selbstreferenzielle Tautologie in die Strategien der Diskriminierung, Säuberung und Ausrottung der Anderheitsver-treter. Die Massenvernichtungen des zurückliegenden Jahrhunderts – Totalitarismus, Kolonia-lismus, Ethnonationalismus – sind Fabrikate des Identitätsparadigmas.

SchlüsselwörterkollektiveIdentität,Rhetorik,wirvs.sie,Ausschließung,Moralverpflichtung,politischeGewaltakte



Martín Alonso

L’identité collective en tant qu’instrument rhétorique

RésuméParmi les nombreuses dimensions de l’identité collective, cet article examine celle de l’identité en tant qu’instrument rhétorique. Le repère identitaire est précisément un exemple d’efficacité pragmatique. Afin d’expliquer un tel pouvoir, un modèle hypothétique des catégories d’identité sera présenté. Ses éléments constitutifs forment quatre dimensions principales : position, désin-dividuation, exclusion et protection cognitive. L’identité narrative ainsi définie devient équiva-lente à une idéologie informelle (Halliday, 2005). En tant que rhétorique constitutive (Char-land, 1987), la construction narrative de l’identité transforme la tautologie autoréférentielle en stratégies de discrimination, d’épuration et d’extermination du porteur d’altérité. Les violences massives du siècle passé – totalitarisme, colonialisme, ethno-nationalisme – sont tributaires du paradigme identitaire.

Mots-clésidentitécollective,rhétorique,nousvseux,exclusion,contraintesmorales,violencepolitique

Documents

02 Alonso