Take me to your leader!

More than a month ago, in my talk at the annual meeting of my peers, I suggested that even as we promote the educational framework within which we situate diversity and empathy, we need to recognize that identities help people deal with the fundamental existential angst.  We need to acknowledge that, and respect it, without any condescending attitude.

I have been saying this for years.  I gained this understanding thanks to the number of students I have interacted with over the years who are very different from me.

Which is why in this post almost exactly three years ago, as Brexit was unfolding, and as candidate tRump promised a Brexit-plus here in the US, I wrote:

It is a "deeper emotional issue" about whatever it is that provides value to people.  In the brief time that we get to live on this beautiful planet, we handle our existential crisis in so many different ways.  We try to answer the question of "who am I?" through many affiliations and ideas,  When people search for meaning, there are different institutions that provide them with comfort.  ...
The political identity also plays an important role. While I personally and intellectually recognize that the political identity is a freakish accident--being born in a country--it is very much like the accident of being born in a family that practices a particular religion, speaks a particular language, eats particular foods, listens to particular music, ... All these accidents together help with understanding our own place in the cosmos.We err when we conclude that those institutions that give us various identities are irrelevant.  It is a huge mistake to force people into behaving as one.

Andrew Sullivan apparently made a similar point more recently:

For Sullivan, cohesion comes from transcendental symbols and stories—i.e. religion, nationhood. Liberalism’s public square has “an empty center” that must be filled. “The fact that liberals do not have a language to speak about nationhood or borders or countries … has led to the far-right gaining power,” Sullivan said

Exactly!

Even prior to that, back in September 2014, I wrote in the context of the Scotland referendum to break free:

We are so much wrapped up with the idea of globalization that we forget we are humans and we like, we love, identities.  Identities especially when there is a long and rich history of the peoples.  Economics--being materially well off--does matter to us, yes.  But, we seem to overlook that we do not live on bread alone.  There is a lot more than mere material satisfaction that makes us human.  Identity--religious, ethnic, linguistic, ... and often these are also intertwined.

The challenge is to let people hold on to whatever identity makes sense to them, even as we develop a greater understanding.  And this is no different a bottom-line from what I have been ranting about forever:

The challenge, as I see it, is to figure out how to understand each other and engage in constructive cross-cultural relationships even while holding on to the identities and without making those identities as a metric for hierarchical comparisons.  The solution is not to erase the identities but to understand that we can create a much better future even as we tightly embrace whatever identity that we want to hold on to.

I reinforced this in the discussions:

I am ok with whatever identity that people want to have. But, what I am not ok with is using that identity in order to promote their supremacy and to systematically keep the "other" out. What I imagine is, I would argue, far more challenging than is to have an EU or an India. In India or EU, the diversity is accommodated under a big tent, but--and especially in India--the bigness of the tent allows for people of similar identities to stick to their own kind.
It is not the size of the geography that should matter--think about the tiny countries in the western part of Africa, for instance. The challenge is whether people are informed, educated, and human enough to think beyond their respective boundaries and identities.  

All these require leadership of a certain kind.  But, instead of sorting these issues out, we are tragically rushing into discussing "electability."  Oh well, we will certainly get the leaders that we deserve!