An analysis of the drift of contemporary communitarianism: how the search for refuge in one’s own can lead to identity isolation, the segregation of the social bond, and the challenge of rebuilding a universal “us” against the logic of “us versus them”.
By Claudia Benítez
HoyLunes – A few days ago, I found myself in a wonderful space for poetry reading; the theme was: what the skin evokes in us. In that same space, I could also perceive the sustained growth of communitarianism as a form of social and political organization. This phenomenon emerges, largely as a response to a rigid attachment to certain common referents that, far from opening up a shared space, tend to close it off and weaken the social bond. When this demand is transformed into identity confinement, individuals tend to fixate on that collective belonging, weakening the horizon of values that make common life possible. Far from resolving the tensions that cross communities, this deepens an already existing problem: segregation, whatever its form, justification, or response.
When social identity is built through opposition, the result is the fragmentation of the common space. Claiming respect for difference should not imply a retreat into oneself, nor the denial of the violence and atrocities committed in the past or present. On the contrary, recognizing diversity means inscribing it within a common framework, founded on mutual respect, dialogue, and equal rights. When this articulation fails, variety ceases to be an enrichment and is transformed into a fracture line that feeds discrimination, in any of its forms: cultural, symbolic, territorial, or political.
The transition is thus made from a society conceived as a collective project to a juxtaposition of communities that coexist without truly encountering one another. The “us” is constructed in opposition to a “them,” perceived as a threat or adversary, which reinforces distrust and reduces the possibilities for exchange. Diversity—which could be a source of enrichment—becomes a factor of permanent tension. In this context, society ceases to be conceived as a collective project and is transformed into a mosaic of closed communities, each with its own norms, values, and demands.
It is paradoxical that, in the name of protecting vulnerable identities, communitarianism ends up reinforcing mechanisms of exclusion similar to those it claims to fight. Even art—the space par excellence for alterity and creation—can be transformed into a vindictive claim and, in doing so, lose its power of symbolic mediation.
Faced with this scenario, the challenge consists of rethinking social coexistence without denying differences, but avoiding their absolutization. Recognizing plurality does not mean renouncing a common horizon. On the contrary, it requires strengthening spaces for encounter, dialogue, and negotiation that allow for the articulation of diverse identities within a shared framework of universal rights.
Ultimately, the problem of communitarianism does not lie in the affirmation of identities, but in their isolation. Overcoming the logic of segregation implies committing to a society capable of integrating difference without turning it into a border, and of building community without excluding the other.
`#IdentityAndBorder #SocialBond #Communitarianism #UniversalCitizenship #Coexistence #ClaudiaBenitez #CommonSpace #HoyLunes`
