My own view is that if you are going to reject the universalism of Republicanism, you should at least put something else on offer that is plainly more attractive. Certain traditions of French scholarship, notably the “genealogical” work of and inspired by Foucault, give us some very good reasons to be wary of identitarian alternatives. Henriette Asséo, a scholar of Roma history at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, has compellingly argued that the indigenous French “gens de voyage” or “Travelers” were effectively administered into existence in the early twentieth century as a result of the state’s newfound requirement that every French citizen carry ID papers with a valid address. Because Travelers have no fixed address, this fact had to be marked specially in the “address” section of their documents. Within a generation or two, this act of box-checking becomes a social fact, with real consequences for the people in the boxes. Notably, to this day in France the gens de voyage are subject to overt discrimination: at highway rest-stops, for example, there is a segregated parking area for members of this group, away from the area designated for members of France’s sedentist majority.
Looking back at the long modern history of variously allowing, encouraging, pressuring, or compelling people to carry or display identifying documents telling other people what sort of person they are, two things strike me: that there is always an argument from benevolence for doing so, and that it always looks like a very bad idea in hindsight. You start carrying a name for your “kind” on your ID (or on your lapel-sticker, or simply in the way you are compelled to talk about yourself in social settings), and this inserts the kind named on the ID (or on the sticker, or in conversation) into reality, and often generates new opportunities for real persecution. You might think there’s a clear line between the salutary function of pronoun stickers, nationalities in domestic passports, and the identity papers of the gens de voyage, but scholars of the latter can show you that all of these threaten to take on the same social function.
I would have a lot more to say, in a Foucauldian key, about nomadic peoples and the rise of the administrative state, but for now all I want to note is that there are more reasons than simply knee-jerk Republicanism, of either the French or the American variety, for being wary of identitarianism.
Writer - Critic - Poet - Editor