Identity and Possibilities

In his closing statement, Heiner Bielefeldt argues that cultural identity should not be overestimated in politics. He says human rights can open the doors to different life models.

It is a complicated question; it turns out that your questions are no easier than mine to grapple with! I agree with what you seem to indicate, that the pendulum seems to be swinging back. This has to do with the crisis of identity in these societies. I have always had strong reservations about the organisation of politics around issues of identity. ‘Identity politics’, whether defined in religious or national terms, can so easily adopt authoritarian features. So, ‘we’ define ‘our’ identities – sometimes by alighting on invented ‘roots’ – against what is seen as distorting influences from outsiders, threatening us. This guarantees us our sense of authenticity.

The reality of life in all societies has become very complex. There is no possibility any more of ‘authentic cultural identity’ in that sense. We live in a global society in which forces of various cultural origins interpenetrate. The notion of identity can too easily accompany a false notion of cultural purity that generates a highly dangerous form of authoritarianism. Authenticity, identity, purity, are very dangerous concepts when society is viewed, not from a personal or even sociological standpoint – because in those perspectives they are understandable – but from the point of view of its core norms and values.

You say that people feel values are being forced on them from outside. In making sense of human rights, it has been very important to emphasise that they do not constitute a comprehensive value system. Human rights are not collectively a religion, nor a Weltanschauung (world view), nor a closed ideology; nor even a complete set of values – if values are understood as a way to shape one’s life according to ideals of what a good life is.

A person can, for example, become a monk, and understand his life in a very ascetic way. Human rights do not preclude this option or any other particular lifestyle either. Instead, their whole programme is about establishing the conditions which ensure that everyone has basic equal rights, and can make their own choice, independent of any form of domination by others. These are basic principles for peaceful co-existence in public life.

It is also important to emphasise that the programme of human rights is a way of structuring an open debate that can help us explore the possibilities of different ways of living. Sometimes our American friends tell us that they are fighting for human rights, and, in the next breath, for the American way of life. This can lead to absurdities. In considering human rights, we have to make clear distinctions and base our discussions on principle.