Notes on Amartya Sen’s interpretation of cultural identity

In our study, we analyse aspects of Sen’s criticism of specific interpretations of cultural identity. We shall see that, in Sen’s view, different interpretations of cultural identity can be given. The different ways in which cultural identity is interpreted correspond to different ways of living one’s culture; they are connected to different interpretations of religion and religious identity, too. Throughout Sen’s inquiry, we shall find the following interpretations of cultural identity: - The first interpretation of cultural identity, which corresponds to Sen’s own interpretation of cultural identity, considers cultural identities as the result of many components which constantly evolve and have modifications (this might be defined as the flexible, dynamic, and inclusive view of cultural identity). - The second interpretation considers cultural identity as rigid, complete, isolated, and given once and for all (this could be defined as the rigid and static conception of cultural identity). The second conception of cultural identity corresponds to the aim of producing people and groups as isolated systems. Sen investigates the psychological mechanisms connected to the rigid interpretation of cultural identity. Individuals can be manipulated through the rigid interpretation of cultural identity. Sen shows that cultural identities can be used to marginalise all those who do not belong to those same cultural identities: this kind of cultural identity is built to divide individuals, groups, peoples, and nations from each other. Cultural identities can be used to create a group which, as such, does not exist at all or is not so homogeneous and uniform as those who plead for this concept of cultural identity aim to make it appear. The group is created artificially by an artificial cultural identity. The rigid cultural identity of certain sectors of people means the exclusion of other sectors of people. This kind of cultural identity is built to bring about enmity between individuals, groups, nations, countries, and communities: it is thought out to produce hostility from a group towards other groups. Religions and religious identities, too, can be used as weapons if religious identities are interpreted as isolated systems which should not be contaminated by external influences. The concept of cultural identity should not necessarily be religious; nonetheless, we can find in Sen examples of conflicts due to religious identities. A religious identity, too, can be used to exclude all those who do not belong to a specific religious confession. Like all forms of cultural identity, religious identities can be used to exclude and marginalise people belonging to other religious identities; they can be used to incite hatred against specific sectors of society. The interpretation of religions as isolated systems brings about a condition of potential conflict between religious groups which would always be ready to explode. In Sen’s view, cultural identities always result from a plurality of cultural components. Cultural identities take elements from other cultural identities. Therefore, cultural identities are not isolated systems: they are the product of a historical development which involves the participation of different individuals, groups, and cultures. Moreover, cultural identities are not made once and for all: on the contrary, cultural identities are dynamic phenomena which continuously take in new elements from other cultures and give elements to other cultures. For our investigation, we shall mainly refer to Amartya Sen’s study Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny.