
Against Identity by Alexander Douglas review – a superb critique of contemporary self-obsession
The idea that the identity of the speaker should count when assessing his or her argument is what the right used to denounce as 'identity politics' (now subsumed under the general concept of 'wokeness'), though it is in this way a logical outcome of Thatcherite and Reaganite economics. One strong critique of the critique of identity politics, on the other hand, points out that privileged white males, of the sort who make such complaints, don't have to worry about their identity because theirs is the default one of power and influence – whereas for various minorities identity might matter much more, not least in how it influences the ways in which privileged white males will treat them.
Philosopher Alexander Douglas's deeply interesting book diagnoses our malaise, ecumenically, as a universal enslavement to identity. An alt-right rabble rouser who denounces identity politics is just as wedded to his identity as a leftwing 'activist' is wedded to theirs. And this, Douglas argues persuasively, explains the polarised viciousness of much present argument. People respond to criticisms of their views as though their very identity is being attacked. The response is visceral and emotional. That's why factchecking conspiracy theories doesn't work. And it's not just a social media problem; it's far worse than that. 'If you define yourself by your ethnicity or your taste in music,' Douglas argues, 'then you ipso facto demarcate yourself against others who do not share in that identity. Here we have the basis for division and intergroup conflict.'
The escape route Douglas recommends is nothing so banal, then, as policing misinformation or even just being nicer to one another; no, we should strive to abandon identity all together. He deploys close readings of three thinkers from wildly differing epochs and cultures: the ancient Chinese sage Zhuangzi, the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza, and the 20th-century historian-critic René Girard. Each of them, he argues, hints at a similar ideal of enlightenment: to abandon our attachment to identity and become one with the undifferentiated flow of all things.
This sounds fluffy and improbable in precis, but we should begin by noticing how fragile our own sense of self really is. Douglas says of his three thinkers: 'Look within, they would say, and you will find a mess. Introspection reveals only a confusion of qualities.' Oddly, the author doesn't mention the great Scottish philosopher David Hume, though his is probably the most famous expression of this idea: that what we call the self is, per Hume, 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement'.
If so, it follows that what we think of as our identity must have been drawn from the example of others. This is the meaning of 'mimetic desire' as theorised by Girard: that we choose an admired person to imitate and so teach ourselves to want similar things. 'Individualism,' Douglas concludes, 'is really conformism to a model.' What we think of as our own special identity is just a suit of borrowed clothes.
What, then, is the alternative? It is somehow to psychically merge with the 'superdeterminate' nature of Spinoza's concept of God, who exists everywhere and in every thing. Has any human being achieved such a feat? Perhaps, Douglas suggests, Jesus. Another model for us is Hundun, an emperor with no face in an old Chinese fable. His friends drilled holes into his head in an attempt to give him human features, and thereby killed him.
Against Identity is a powerfully strange book, melding such matters with enjoyable references to Evelyn Waugh and Jean-Paul Sartre, and a strongly aphoristic turn of phrase. 'The 'inner voice',' he writes, 'is just the noise of others echoing inside your own emptiness.' To the 'romantic lie' that says you can be what you want to be, Douglas counterposes the bracing challenge: Don't be yourself.
Sign up to Inside Saturday
The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.
after newsletter promotion
Here, then, is a superb counterblast to modern identity fetishism. Whether readers will agree with its proposed solution is more doubtful. It warns against 'making value judgments', but we should make some value judgments, for example about murderers. And Douglas relays the Taoist advice he finds in Zhuangzi like this: 'We would be happier and more peaceful letting things flow, vanish, transform, be indistinct, be ambiguous' – which is all very well, but terrible advice if you're trying to build a bridge.
Against Identity: The Wisdom of Escaping the Self by Alexander Douglas is published by Allen Lane (£20). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
31 minutes ago
- Sky News
Flight cancellations, Trump and the arcade game inspired by cricket
Ryanair chief Michael O'Leary claims families are being 'held to ransom' as French air traffic controllers walk out over staff shortages and equipment. It's resulted in hundreds of flight cancellations. There's victory for Donald Trump as the House of Representatives passes his multi-trillion-dollar package that cuts taxes and spending. Analyst Chris Beauchamp explains the likely impact. Andy Waugh, co-founder of the cricket-inspired arcade game Sixes, announces an expansion of the popular franchise.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Britons deliver a devastating verdict on Keir Starmer's first year in power... so what DO they think has been his biggest achievement?
Voters have answered with a resounding 'NOTHING' when asked what has been the biggest achievement of Keir Starmer 's first year in power, a new poll shows. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour 's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Only its work on the NHS made much of a dent in people's gloomy assessment. On the flipside, they were very clear in what has gone wrong. The Winter Fuel Allowance row was far and away the biggest cock-up in people's minds. It saw Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves try to take away the £300 universal benefit away from all but the poorest recipients, before being forced into a U-turn. More in Common's director Luke Tryl said it was 'one of the most stark word clouds we've seen - the Winter Fuel Allowance drowns everything else out'. The other major problem to stand out for voters was immigration, with more than 20,000 people already having crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, a record. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Sir Keir is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months.' Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he said. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising in light of the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.