Culture, Identity, and Politics are terms that have suffered from rampant usage over the years, and the average college student, in hopes of sounding well informed, probably uses them like one would arbitrarily choose words in Mad Libs (discussions in Contemporary Civilization class come to mind). Therefore, one wouldn’t know what to expect from the vaguely titled “Culture, Identity, and Politics” lecture hosted by the Heyman Center for the Humanities last night. Like other similarly conceptual speeches from the Heyman Center, this lecture inevitably left one expecting more from its esteemed speakers and all-encompassing topic, but the problems raised by the three speakers were interesting enough to engage the diverse audience in an event that lasted slightly over two hours.

Alan Montefiore, Emeritus Fellow at Oxford University (and Ian McKellen lookalike), started by discussing the identity crisis plaguing American Jews. The question “with whom should we identify?” remains a real problem for these Jews, and Montefiore brings up examples of “Jewish Christians” and “Jewish Buddhists,” where a certain group of people makes a choice to differentiate between their familial heritage and their religious beliefs. But can one really be Buddhist and Jewish at the same time? Montefiore dwelled on this problematic issue, viewing it as doubtful as to how far individuals/subsets within a group can really change their values and still belong to the same group. He pointed out the difficulty of separating the private self from the social self, and whether one really had full autonomy in choosing one’s identity. Montefiore concludes that our concept of “identity” is so institutionalized—we get our sense of self by virtue of induction and societal/familial values—that perhaps it is impossible to have full autonomy in choosing and changing one’s identity.

Emmanuel Picavet, Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Paris, continued this discussion of the relationship between identity, community and institution, albeit with a bigger focus on politics. The ban of full-body veils in French schools illustrates the difficult role the government plays in drawing the line between personal and public identities. How should it protect the rights of a group of individuals without offending other more mainstream, “normalized” citizens or going against the “national identity?”

Charles Taylor, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at McGill and winner of the 2008 Kyoto Prize, was the final (and probably clearest) speaker at the event. For him, the concept of identity has utterly transformed within the last century, and such a change has enormous repercussions in the political world. His 77 years apparently had no effect on his ability to enunciate, and forgoing esoteric terms, Taylor clearly explained to the audience his “controversial claims”: namely, people in the modern age are less and less willing to tolerate the traditional notion of a “national identity” that citizens are required to assimilate to. Factors such as increasing immigration and equal-rights movements have contributed to this change in mindset.

Ironically, a strong sense of national identity is essential in a modern democratic society, since common interests have to be emphasized in order to get things done. The increasing opposition to a national identity in favor of the freedom to shape one’s identity might potentially undermine the political system, and Taylor concludes that society will ultimately need “freedom of conscience on one hand and equality of respect on the other” to overcome such challenges.

Perhaps a college as diverse as Columbia might want to pay attention to his claims, for fear of entering into a similar identity crisis. While Columbia promotes its diversity on one hand, others view this as potential factionalism and the root of the lack of a coherent student body or school spirit.