The idea
This view holds that making identity the main political focus after independence led to a narrowing of the public sphere rather than its expansion. Instead of serving as a framework for coexistence, identity turned into an instrument of conflict and into intolerance toward the self and the Other, which opened the way for forms of fundamentalism and closed off the possibility of calm discussion about society and the state.
Concise formulation
The emphasis on identity after independence: leads to self-directed intolerance and fundamentalism
Its place in the book’s argument
This claim serves the book’s argument by linking post-independence choices to the crises experienced by Arab-Islamic societies. For Arkoun, the issue is not merely mismanagement, but a pattern in the construction of political and cultural legitimacy. Identity discourse therefore becomes part of the explanation for closure, not merely its description.
Why it matters
The importance of this claim lies in the fact that it connects politics, culture, and religion within a single chain of consequences. It also helps explain how a discourse that appears to defend the self can turn into a source of intolerance and violence. Read this way, it becomes clear that Arkoun criticizes the use of identity, not its existence.
Reading questions
- How does the defense of identity become a cause of intolerance in this perspective?
- What relationship does the text establish between identity discourse and internal crises?
Documentation level
High: the claim appears in a clear location within the book’s material.