The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identity – Book Review

Kwame Anthony Appiah’s book “The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity” 2is a dismantling of identity as a demographic and social construct. This book is a keen examination of many of the elements ordinary people consider to be essential parts of their identity— particularly religion, gender, and race.

Artfully, alliteratively arranged in chapters titled “Classification,” “Creed,” “Color,” “Country,” “Class,” and “Culture,” Appiah’s book deftly dismantles the central ideas of these constructs until we are left with a pile of rubble. He writes in the introduction, “Much of what is dangerous about [these ideas] has to do with the way identities—religion, nation, race, class and culture—divide us and set us against one another. They can be the enemies of human solidarity, the sources of war, horsemen of a score of apocalypses from apartheid to genocide” (xvi). This is a central theme of the book: we often cobble together these categories, accepting them as valid and real, and in using them to contribute to problems of the world—racism, Islamophobia, nationalism, and disregard for the poor, to provide a few examples.

The book is very accessible and intended for a broader readership than academics. So, while Appiah explores narrative and other topics that are frequently included in philosophical work regarding identity, this is not a book that refers to or uses vocabulary from that body of literature. That characteristic can be regarded a benefit in and of itself, but it is also likely to be the principal critique of the book by someone seeking a more scholarly approach immersed in modern literature. Appiah, on the other hand, expertly blends together personal experiences and anecdotes with examples from literature and history.

The book is an incendiary investigation of the nature and history of the identities that define us. It calls into question our beliefs about how identities function. We are all aware of identity conflicts, but Appiah demonstrates how conflict shapes identities. Religion develops strength, he argues, since it isn’t primarily about believing. Our everyday concepts of race are the leftovers from nineteenth-century science. Our beloved idea of the independent nation—of self-government—is illogical and insecure. Efforts to improve class hierarchies can perpetuate them. Even the concept of Western civilization itself is a glittering dream.

. He says that identities are labels that individuals care about because they influence assertions we make about suitable vs. wrong actions (for example, “I should do x because I am a y”). These notions set forth what Appiah refers to as “norms of identification”; they are basic and frequently essentialist beliefs we have. And they result in prejudices that we assume to reflect reality. Early in the book, Appiah gives instances from his own childhood, “when… the thought that someone might be properly English and not white seemed quite odd,” demonstrating that notions of “colour” and “country” are more ambiguous and complicated than one might think.

Thus, the inherent essentialist assumptions that humans employ to categorise objects and people is a useful subject throughout this work. Adults’ assumptions about the world may be traced back to their youth. “What essentialism implies is that youngsters feel that these apparent distinctions—the ones that lead to labelling—reflect deeper, interior differences that explain a great deal of how individuals act,” Appiah argues. Recognizing our inclination as humans to perpetuate essentialism—as inadequate and erroneous as its demographic categories may be—is critical in combating racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other kinds of oppression. Similarly, one of the book’s great merits is its underlying depiction of how we have handled various categories of identity as binaries—male vs. female, black vs. white, citizen vs. immigrant, and so on. These binaries are frequently oversimplified and do not correspond to reality. Consider the gender binary of “masculine” and “feminine.”

There is growing recognition of a part of the American population that falls outside of this dichotomy, falling into a third or fourth group. This is also true in other parts of the world. Appiah uses the example of two groups in India: kothis (guys who identify as more feminine) and hijras (men who reject this binary and consider themselves something other than the binary choice between man or woman). Neither of these groupings can be totally overlaid on our American conceptions of “transgender” or “gender neutrality”, demonstrating the complicated and perplexing nature of identity. Together, these two human tendencies (essentialism and binary thinking) demonstrate how simple our concepts of identity are. Furthermore, Appiah claims that many of the identification categories we employ are exaggerated in various ways. “We have a propensity to overstate the continuities of [identities like belief and nation] throughout time,” he says. We presently identify national identities such as German, Italian, and Pakistani, but these identities are newer, younger constructions. Germany was not unified until the late nineteenth century, therefore while Germans today may experience a sense of belonging to a larger German identity, this would not have been the case in the eighteenth century, prior to unification. The goal to homogenise a country’s population appears to be central to Appiah’s thesis. He correctly observes that “several of the twentieth-century genocides—against Turkey’s Armenians, Europe’s Jews, and Rwanda’s Tutsis—were committed in the name of one people against another with the goal of guaranteeing a homogeneous nation.”

It’s hardly strange, therefore, that Appiah wonders, “What holds countries together?”, since countries are typically more of an invention than we have previously thought. His investigation of the phenomenon of race is analogous here. Modern concepts of race may frequently be traced back to the nineteenth century, when various white thinkers sought to both categorise individuals by phenotypes they believed were caused by genes and to demonstrate the superiority of the white race. Their categorizations, like country (and religion), relied on a form of continuity that does not exist. “Another thing became obvious during the course of twentieth-century genetics,” Appiah correctly observes. The great majority of our genetic material is shared by all normal human beings, regardless of ethnicity.”

It is increasingly clear that even beliefs about human biology are intertwined with concerns and conceptions about states. We are left with stereotypes that do not correspond to reality and are plagued with delusions. Similarly, Appiah’s religious diagnosis is spot on. He illustrates that the world’s major faiths are riven with complications that divide what we typically consider to be a coherent totality. “If by religion you meant a single cohesive collection of beliefs, precepts, and practises, then none of the recognised worldwide religions—let alone the world—would be one religion,” he argues. Religion is frequently vulnerable to what he refers to as “who’s out” vs. “who’s in” thinking; this arises directly from how religions have been prone to split from the birth of religion itself. Furthermore, who belongs to the “in-group” is subjective and open to change. There is no consensus on whether followers of the Bahá’ faith are a sect of Islam. Similar concerns exist when it comes to whether Mormons are Christians. To assert that Hinduism is “a single cohesive totality” is also difficult, according to

Appiah, because of the many scriptures, gods, festivals, rituals, and temples that exist across the Indian subcontinent. He also emphasises that the term “Hinduism” was first used in the nineteenth century, and that some believe this was the beginning of the religion itself. This assertion runs counter to how most people believe about religions, particularly ones with well-known ancient scriptures like Hinduism. As a result, one can ask what exactly ties a religion together. He also emphasises that the term “Hinduism” was first used in the nineteenth century, and that some believe this marked the beginning of the religion itself. This assertion runs counter to how most people believe about religions, especially ones with well-known ancient scriptures like Hinduism. As a result, one may ask what exactly ties a religion together.

The perplexing idea of “Western culture” or the “West” is perhaps the most egregious error scholars have made in this manner of thinking. This is also a nineteenth-century innovation that arose from imperialism. The fundamental notion of “Western culture” is believed to go back to a region technically beyond its own borders (namely Mesopotamia, technically in the Middle East). If this phrase is meant to represent “Christendom,” it is still a misapplication because Christianity is currently practised on every continent and did not originate in Europe or any other region of “the West. “This debate is one of Appiah’s book’s finest achievements. He explains the “identification myth” that holds us together, the other driving elements of categorising people into binary groupings (us vs. them; Christian vs. non-Christian), and how imperialism and colonialism have wreaked havoc on our entire perception of the world. Appiah’s chapter on class is an anomaly in the book in the sense that class does have continuity, and frequently more than we expect.

The chapter is replete with examples of how social classes, based on monetary wealth and family background, exist cross-culturally and historically, contributing to strong associations with norms of behaviour and proper treatment of class members and acknowledging class differences between them This chapter is critical because it acts as a counterpoint to the jumbled conceptions of nationality and race. Because strict class divisions have persisted in certain locations since before the eighteenth century, they have had long-lasting consequences on how we expect individuals to behave in a variety of circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Finally, I suggest this fascinating, comprehensible work to anybody interested in learning more about social ontology. Exploring the imprecisions, inaccuracies, and oppressive forces that have shaped the borders of many of these categories is difficult work, but it is necessary if we are to face truth and escape the lies, we have received. Since philosophers are in the business of distinguishing between appearances and reality, what is real and what is not, this is work we should all be undertaking for our own benefit.

REFERENCES

1. Kwame Anthony Appiah. In: Wikipedia. ; 2022. Accessed December 2, 2022.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kwame_Anthony_Appiah&oldid=112256705 3 

2. The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identity by Kwame Anthony Appiah | Goodreads. Accessed December 2, 2022.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38321385-the-lies-that-bind