Identity Politics: Transitioning from Community to Society

It is difficult to determine what constitutes a ‘root’ or ‘branch’ in the foundation and meaning of societies (or what are considered societies) in the region, as well as the ‘most influential factors’ or ‘favoring factors’ for their formation at a specific moment or within a particular geographical, human, social, economic, and political context. This complexity, along with other factors, explains the difficulty in predicting the forms these societies may take or the response patterns they exhibit, especially in times of crisis and conflict.

The social formation and meaning of a community are characterized by two main levels of ‘heterogeneity’: First, capturing meaning is problematic. Second, understanding the dynamics of formation and transformation is also challenging. New perceptions and identity directions may emerge that were neither recognized nor anticipated. There is always an element of surprise in identity, particularly regarding its social, political, cultural, and value-based ‘representations,’ especially during internal or civil conflicts. This leads to various tensions, overlaps, and divisions between an ‘imagined,’ ‘assumed,’ or ‘pretended’ national community that is more conceptual than it is embodied in social and political reality, and subnational groups or identities, some of which are ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘non-state,’ which are deeply divided against one another. Additionally, global influences and flows play a role in shaping these dynamics.

1- The Meaning of Identity

Identity determines an actor’s understanding and perception of their ‘self’ and the ‘other,’ their interactions and behavior, as well as their position and role in a specific temporal and spatial context—whether as an individual or a group. Identity has both material and symbolic sources, typically characterized by ‘relative stability’ or shaped by dynamics of stability and change. At the same time, it is the result of numerous interactions, overlaps, and interconnections. While the term ‘identity’ suggests a certain degree of ‘relative stability’ in the understanding of the ‘self’ and its distinction from the ‘other,’ identity ultimately arises from a continuous process.

If an actor (individual or group) seeks to position themselves within the framework of a particular idea, value, or affiliation, or decides to ‘embody’ it and act within its scope, this inclination may transcend other material and symbolic determinants. However, this is not the whole story; identity is neither solely a subjective choice nor merely a product of objective factors. The dynamics of identity point to an indefinite number of actors and determinants, remaining open to an endless array of influences, trajectories, representations, and stakes. In fact, identity acts as both an input and an output, simultaneously constructive and constructed!

One can discuss an ‘archaeology of identity’ or ‘layers of identity’ that do not simply replicate or negate each other. Some layers may emerge prominently at certain moments, while others might recede, rendering identity a complex phenomenon of overlapping and accumulated ‘deposits’ or ‘formations’ that can be rearranged under various influences. Additionally, it is possible to speak of ‘parallel identities,’ analogous to the concept of ‘parallel universes’ in physics, which applies at both individual and group levels, making it challenging to determine what is coherent and what is similar.

2- Identity Politics

The issue of identity is often a ‘political matter.’ Political actors are interested in ‘engineering’ or even merely asserting the existence of a national identity. They seek to propagate their ideas and perspectives on ‘society’ and ‘state’ through institutions of education, media, and culture, as well as through various coercive institutions. However, the situation is more complex; political actors and governing systems can fail to create or engineer a ‘national identity’ for various reasons, including reliance on ideological constructs and narratives that do not align with social reality, ideologization that contradicts actual conditions, corruption or dysfunction in implementing policies, and the imposition of values upon society (or what is deemed society).

Conversely, shifts can occur in the value patterns of individuals and groups that may counter the wishes of those in power, influenced by interactions and flows with other actors and spheres. Additionally, external interventions and coercive pressures exert a significant and complex influence.

3- Structures or Interactions?

The ‘origin’ of ‘social formations’ and the ‘national community’ is not found in structures, numerical weights, relative blocs, or social configurations—such as majorities and minorities in the context of group dynamics—but rather in the ‘dynamics of interaction’ among them. It is not merely about formations, identities, ideas, ideologies, beliefs, and languages as entities within society; it is primarily about the dynamics of social interaction and communication in various patterns and forms, which are open to the understanding that everything within the boundaries and framework of the state is a ‘social formation,’ a ‘collective spirit,’ and a ‘foundation of the state.’

The ‘dynamics of interaction’ encompasses not only social structures, configurations, and segments among themselves, along with individuals’ ability to form networks and institutions beyond their group, religion, or society, but also includes interaction patterns between these groups and the authority and the state. This perspective extends to transnational dynamics of interaction as well.

4- Origin or Role?

The discussion focuses not on the ‘origin’ of social structures and formations—ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.—in terms of their roots, whether their existence is ancient or modern, and whether they are ‘indigenous,’ ‘immigrant,’ or ‘imported.’ Instead, it is about their ‘role,’ their position and direction, and their aspirations. Are there any ‘self-centered’ identity trends that come at the expense of or contradict the main line of meaning of national identity?

This presents a relatively sharp paradox. The favoring or questioning of who is ‘native’ and who is ‘immigrant’ contradicts the ‘primacy of the nation’ in the religious sense over territory and geography, as is evident in societies in the Middle East, for instance.

For example, when Kurds are regarded as ‘arrivals’ in certain areas of the region, such as Jazira in Syria, this serves as a ‘justification’ for ‘excluding’ them, as Kurds, from the political dynamics in Syria, or to assign them a ‘lesser status’ in the dynamics of meaning and power in the country and the region. Conversely, there is a concerted effort to ‘enable’ groups and individuals ‘arriving from both far and near’ to engage in these dynamics and politics while granting them exceptional comparative advantages and privileges.

5- Past or Future?

Of course, what matters is not what was in the “past,” but the present that lays the foundation for the future. It is not possible to “sever” or “cut off” from what has been, but rather to “manage” and “transcend” it, not through repression, oppression, and domination, nor through policies aimed at erasing memory, commemoration, and impact, as this creates extremely dangerous injustices and an environment of internal and civil conflict, which may open up to external “penetration dynamics” and divisive tendencies. Instead, we must manage memory, history, and perceptions regarding the “self” and the “other” for each community or formation, so that the foundation for “Coexistence” is established—despite the ambiguity in the expression—in the hope of a pluralistic society and state, in the modern and democratic sense of the word.

6- Traditional or Modern?

The countries of the region have struggled to form societies in the modern sense; rather, they exhibit a hybridization or overlap between traditional and modern elements. While modern currents, ideologies, structures, institutions, and political parties have emerged, the deep structures of interaction and social-political dynamics remain not entirely modern but rather hybrid, characterized by the predominance of traditional and pre-national elements (such as religion, sect, tribe, family, etc.) over the societal and state frameworks in the region.

This situation has not deterred political actors and authorities from continuously discussing a ‘national community,’ a ‘society,’ and a ‘state,’ albeit without fulfilling the legitimate requirements for such concepts. ‘Communities’ and ‘national identities’ have not formed in the region as understood traditionally; politics has not yet been established on the principle of citizenship, and the current situation remains quite distant from this ideal.

Achieving the ‘formation of a society’ in the modern sense and building a ‘national community’ based on social and political pluralism requires a “major transition” or “shift” from traditional to modern patterns of values and interactions. This entails moving from vertical relationships, interactions, and formations rooted in sect, tribe, and religion to horizontal relationships, interactions, and formations based on citizenship and national parties that transcend groups, formations, and classes. This also means transitioning from traditional religious and tribal structures to modern, institutional, civic, professional, and class-based organizations. The relationship between citizenship and the individual-state should serve as the foundation of politics, accompanied by various other factors and considerations that cannot be elaborated upon here.

7- The Real and the Imaginary

The relationship between the real and the imaginary is ambiguous; social formation and national identity require a degree of both. Often, reality governs, considering social, economic, and political conditions, the level of internal cohesion, prevailing value orientations, and so on. As for the imaginary, it is important for the establishment of the idea of a nation and a state, for the formulation of a general framework, and for expressing the “spirit of society.” This spirit is not merely the “sum total” of social formations, nor is it “separate” from them.

“Society” or “the national community” is not formed solely on the basis of real data; there must also be an imaginary and conceptual dimension, as well as the embodiment of ideas and propositions for the “engineering,” “creation,” and “construction” of society and state. However, this should not be exaggerated, as an increasing gap between the real and the imaginary threatens the social phenomenon and the concept of a nation and state. It is important to transcend stereotypical perceptions of “homeland,” “nationality,” “nation,” and “nationalism” towards more discursive and pluralistic understandings, which build bridges between social formations, peoples, identities, and so on, rather than destroying them. This aids in shaping a space or framework for awareness and thought regarding reality, politics, living, working, and production, with an eye toward justice, participation, and democracy.

8- The Constant and The Variable 

The constant and the variable in the concepts of homeland, society, and state, whether in their determinants or their manifestations, are central to our discussion. In fact, we are addressing what constitutes ‘homelands,’ ‘societies,’ and ‘states.’ The concept of ‘homeland’ in the history, culture, anthropology, and sociology of the region does not hold the status of a supreme value in politics, nor does it constitute a social consciousness. Consequently, it is not one of the stable factors and determinants of identity. The relative weight of the concept of homeland is lesser when compared to other fundamental factors and determinants, such as community, tribe, sectarian divisions, and others, which represent constants in perceptions and attitudes within consciousness and thought.

In general, the concepts of ‘community’ and ‘national group’ are inherently linked to the notion of the ‘state.’ However, the state itself does not hold a favorable position, as it has not gained legitimacy or acceptability and cannot be established stably. It resembles ‘power’ more than a ‘state’ in the sense defined by social sciences and by the most developed and advanced countries in the world. From this perspective, it is challenging to derive a ‘constant’ from a ‘variable.’ This situation illustrates a highly complex dynamic within social formations in the Middle East and, more broadly, in societies outside of Europe, where religious, cultural, social, economic, political, and anthropological factors are intricately interwoven.

9- Parallel Identities!

When social formations engage in mutual interaction within the framework of a pluralistic and democratic state, they do not lose their ‘identity’ or ‘self.’ Instead, they construct and establish it by creating a ‘parallel identity,’ referred to as a ‘national identity.’ As previously indicated, this process neither ‘breaks from’ these identities and formations nor completely ‘merges’ with them. This concept serves as the foundation for forming a balanced society and a viable, stable state.

However, the discussion here often focuses more on the ‘absent’ than the ‘present,’ more on the ‘changing’ than the ‘constant.’ The conditions in conflict-ridden countries in the region, such as Syria, Libya, and Sudan, serve as prime examples for testing the paradigms of social identity and statehood in both the region and the world. These cases reveal significant and growing difficulties in this regard. There is a marked regression toward identity perceptions and trends that are ‘non-state,’ with some seeking to treat the ‘state’ and the associated perceptions—including the idea of a homeland and discourse on national identity—as a ‘booty’ to be seized, using it as a cover for political actors and power players to justify their existence.

The national community and national identity should not be viewed as a ‘substitute’ for the diverse groups, formations, or identities within society (or what constitutes a society). Rather, they represent a ‘parallel entity’ or ‘parallel formation’ founded on the creation, development, and dissemination of a culture that transcends these subgroup formations. This national identity encompasses and nurtures them positively without replacing them. Moreover, the national community does not derive from ‘assimilation’ or mere marginal ‘insertion’ and forced ‘adaptation.’

10- Identity of Identities!

Thus, the ‘national community’ and ‘national identity’ are not merely an ‘addition,’ ‘sum,’ or ‘synthesis’ of various ‘formations,’ but rather the ‘product’ of their dynamic and pluralistic interaction, situated within a cultural, historical, value-driven, and civilizational context shaped by a ‘supra-political’ and ‘supra-constitutional’ consensus, among other factors. This concept represents something new, which is not derived from the identities within the state (or what is considered a state); in other words, it does not originate from them and is not merely an expression of them, but exists ‘above’ them. While it is ‘above’ them, it is also ‘not separate’ from them.

It is essential to emphasize that the national community does not threaten or negate other formations and identities—social, religious, linguistic, cultural, regional, etc. Instead, it represents a framework for these identities within the scope of citizenship and the rule of law. To be Syrian, for example, does not conflict with being Arab, Kurdish, Circassian, Muslim, Christian, Sunni, Alawite, or Druze; similarly, to be Iraqi does not negate being Arab, Kurdish, Turkmen, Muslim, Christian, Shiite, or Sunni. Likewise, to be Egyptian does not contradict being Muslim or Coptic.

The calls for these identities will persist; however, they are expected to exist within the context of a ‘society’ where its members and actors acknowledge the presence of diverse religious, linguistic, cultural, sectarian, and regional affiliations and identities, considering this diversity as normal. This should happen within the framework of a political system and a state grounded in citizenship.