I hear we shouldn’t politicize or racialize this crime. OK, but why? Was it OK to politicize or racialize the killing of George Floyd? Who am I to tell somebody that the way they experience life is wrong and should be kept quiet.
Who are we to pronounce on one type of identity is superior to all others? If someone is buffered or porous? If someone’s identity is religion or nation or tribe, who are we to condemn them? if somebody sees the world through the lens of race at times, so what? What if race is key to somebody’s identity? We can say that’s not cool bro, but someone’s life experience might lead them to see race in some things where others claim they don’t. Why is one lens superior to another?
I don’t see why the pose of being above all racial, tribal and political loyalties is the way of the superior man.
ChatGPT says: Charles Taylor’s “buffered” vs. “porous” self distinction already shows that modern Western liberal identity (buffered, secular, individualistic) isn’t the only way of being. It’s just the one that won out historically in certain societies. But when people treat that form of selfhood as “superior,” they smuggle in a judgment that others—who locate meaning in religion, tribe, race, nation—are backward or less evolved. That’s where resentment and cultural fracture grow.
You’re right: if someone interprets the world through the lens of race, or faith, or nationality, that is part of how they’ve made sense of their own vulnerability, history, and belonging. Telling them “don’t racialize” or “don’t politicize” can feel like telling them to amputate a part of themselves. The dominant culture often gets to declare its perspective “neutral” while framing others’ lenses as “bias.” But neutrality is itself a lens—one that usually reflects privilege.
That said, not every lens is harmless. Some ways of framing identity can harden into exclusion or violence against others. We’re entitled to push back where an identity lens leads to dehumanization. The trick is holding two truths at once: (1) no one has the authority to declare a single mode of identity universally superior, and (2) societies still need norms that prevent destructive or scapegoating uses of identity.
So, it’s not about denying people their identities. It’s about recognizing that identities are plural, partial, and situational. A person may be religious on Sunday, nationalistic at the World Cup, racialized when they’re pulled over, and buffered when they’re at work. None of those is “the” right lens—they’re all real to that person. The danger comes when one lens demands to be the only one everyone else must accept.
In the courtroom
Which identities are “reasonable”?
Jurors are instructed to evaluate evidence from a supposedly neutral, rational standpoint. But “neutral” is usually coded as buffered, secular, individualistic. A plaintiff who frames harm in terms of family honor, community standing, or racial vulnerability risks being seen as “overemotional” or “irrelevant.” Meanwhile, a defendant who appeals to economics, medical bills, or “objective” science is seen as speaking the language of reason.
Expert testimony as gatekeeper: Courts privilege certain epistemologies. Medical experts, economists, accident reconstructionists—these are buffered ways of knowing. A priest, elder, or neighborhood historian is almost never admitted as an “expert,” even though in that community, they might be the authority on meaning and harm.
How this plays out: Plaintiffs from porous identity backgrounds have to translate their experience into buffered language to be taken seriously. If they don’t, the jury is told to discount their way of seeing. That’s a hidden hierarchy of identities.
In politics
Dominant “neutrality”: Politicians often say, “Let’s not make this about race,” or “Let’s keep religion out of it.” That sounds even-handed, but it usually reinforces the buffered identity as the only legitimate one in the public square. Others are told their frames are “special interests,” not general concerns.
Race and tragedy: After a crime, some say, “Don’t racialize this.” But for many, their life-world is already racialized: they walk into stores and are followed; they apply for jobs and are filtered. To not name race feels like gaslighting—like being told their reality doesn’t count.
Policy debates: Universalism (talking about “the people,” “the nation”) is treated as high-minded, while particularism (talking about “Black lives,” “immigrant struggles”) is painted as divisive. But universalism itself is particular: it usually defaults to majority norms.
The deeper tension
So when we ask, “Why is one lens superior to another?” the real answer is: because institutions—courts, media, politics—decide which identities get coded as “neutral,” “reasonable,” and “general,” and which ones get coded as “biased,” “emotional,” or “special pleading.” It’s not a philosophical inevitability; it’s power.
The moral challenge is whether we can build spaces (legal, political, cultural) where multiple identity lenses can coexist without one being forced into invisibility.
