Individualism and Violence| Constructing imagined identities

In the film “Looking for Sayed Marzouk,” Youssef Kamal (played by Nour El-Sherif) hears a voice whispering during a political rally, telling him to go home. He obeys and spends the next 25 years in isolation, only leaving home to go to work, completely detached from the world. One day, he arrives at work only to discover it’s a public holiday. This sparks a surreal journey through an unfamiliar world—an absurd quest for both actual and imagined needs.

The condition of alienation, isolation, and escalating individualism explored in the previous articles in this series does not stop at the level of the individual. It is reflected in the intellectual, social, and political praxis of our societies.

When Youssef emerges from his island of solitude, he dives into the sea in search of another island where he believes he’ll find what he needs. But he finds no one. He forgets that belonging to a community is one of his most basic needs.

This existential dilemma causes individuals to mistakenly perceive their isolation as self-sufficiency, or that denying the collective makes the self complete. The ensuing state of disorientation manifests in the interconnected issues of integration and identity. In the pursuit of distinction, survival, or separation from the collective, imagined constructs of the collective self arise, and identities become flattened.

The crisis of integration

The concept of “inclusion” or “social integration” points to one of the major challenges in political development. There can be no genuine democracy or comprehensive development without ensuring equal participation for all social groups in public life. Class-, gender-, religion-, race-, or age-based social exclusion weakens the social fabric and undermines the possibility of coexistence. It also leads to political fragility, making it difficult to build national consensus or representative institutions.

Thus, social integration becomes a prerequisite for any political project aiming at justice, stability, and development. It requires expanding opportunities and capabilities for marginalized or socially excluded individuals and groups, with the goal of fairly and effectively integrating them into all aspects of economic, social, cultural, and political life.

This aligns with the 2020 UN ESCW report, which emphasized that integrating marginalized groups in some Arab countries requires dismantling economic, social, and cultural barriers that prevent equal access to opportunities.

Under the prevailing economic system, today’s dominant individualism stands in stark contrast to this vision. The system exacerbates social divisions and reduces integration opportunities—a concern raised by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman in “Liquid Life.” Social inclusion demands equal access to education, housing, and healthcare, all of which are heavily impacted by current capitalist policies.

In the Arab region, these policies are a primary driver of widening class gaps. In Egypt, for example, the poor suffer from inadequate public services and subpar education, while the upper classes and major cities enjoy high-quality education and healthcare.

This divide isn’t just between social classes; it also deepens generational rifts. Youth from poorer backgrounds have fewer opportunities to develop skills or secure decent jobs.

In Lebanon, the delivery of services on sectarian lines reflects challenges to building a shared identity. At the same time, political and economic crises further marginalize vulnerable groups. These social gaps intensify feelings of alienation among the excluded and foster isolation among native citizens, reinforcing social fragmentation.

This trend of individualism is evident in social media discourse whenever an individual wins an international award or a national team achieves a sporting victory. Repeated attempts are made to deny any collective or national dimension, as though individuals or teams exist in a vacuum.

Some insist that “the state doesn’t play, write, or create,” which is technically true, but this argument strips achievements of their social and cultural contexts. It overlooks the fact that literature, for example, is studied in university departments under the names of nations: British literature, French literature, and so on. Even in sports, clubs compete in regional or global tournaments as champions of their countries, and national teams play under the state’s name and flag.

This sharp divide between the individual and society reflects the depth of the individualism crisis and its intersections with identity politics.

The search for belonging

Despite modernity’s apparent openness to the atomized individual, the psychological need for belonging remains rooted in the human psyche. At their core, humans are social beings who seek communities that provide meaning, identity, and a sense of existence.

Social psychology studies show that group belonging is a fundamental human need and drive. Research supports the hypothesis that people have a deep-seated desire to form and maintain social bonds.

This explains the rise of movements like the Ultras in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. These were not simply groups of football fans, but communities with narratives, identity, and belonging. At times, they clashed with the state in defense of that existence. In Lebanon and Iraq, sects often serve as psychological sanctuaries before political ones, offering individuals a sense of certainty in a volatile, unsafe world.

In a more collective world, the quest for identity appears to be a search for distinction, seeking to build a collective spirit that aspires to progress through broader solidarity that extends beyond the narrow confines of the individual. But in today’s hyper-individualistic world, the result is a tension between the nature of belonging and the isolating forces of individualism. In the current phase of capitalism, individuals are stripped down to their roles as consumers and producers, not as social beings seeking meaning.

Double alienation

This tension between individualism and the need to belong creates a profound identity crisis. The individual lives in a state of double alienation: isolated from the group but constantly seeking it, even in symbolic or imagined forms. Capitalism produces systematic isolation that breeds a desire for superiority—not true distinction—and for confrontation, not bridge-building. In contemporary slang, it’s the need to “get one over” on others.

From here, contemporary identity politics emerge. When the system fails to produce a real community, imagined communities arise. These reframe the past or invent narratives to justify their existence. We see this in Donald Trump’s MAGA rhetoric, which ties making America great again with the growth of far-right nationalist groups.

At its most extreme, this trend gives rise to fascist regimes and movements that aim to mold entire populations into a single “ideal individual” who supposedly represents the whole. In truth, this figure is just a mask for a manufactured, top-down identity.

Instead of seeing free individuals within a cohesive community, we encounter what could be called “collective individualism,” where belonging becomes a repetition of stereotypes, not a genuine dialogue among diverse individuals. Bahraini cultural critic Nader Kadhim calls this the “individual herd,” where belonging is superficial and driven by imposed icons.

We can observe this on social media, where many citizens fear expressing views that contradict the “official national identity.” Some go as far as adopting myths that a two-minute online search could easily debunk.

These monolithic identities, fragile and lacking social depth, treat the “other” as an existential threat rather than simply a difference possible to coexist with. This leads to extremism as a defense mechanism that quickly morphs into verbal, symbolic, or even physical violence. We see this in waves of hatred toward refugees and migrants, in sectarian violence in our societies, and in rising nationalist extremism in Europe and the US.

In contrast, when individuals live within genuine communities, whether local, national, professional, or activist, they engage in networks of solidarity and interaction. Identity is formed in more complex and pluralistic ways. One need not reduce themselves to a single component; a person can simultaneously be a citizen and have a religious faith, identify with their region and their union, and so on. These composite identities lower the risk of violence, because they recognize the “other” not as a threat but as a fellow sufferer, comrade, or dreamer. Someone with whom there are shared interests.

In Egypt, for example, genuine union or labor movements have produced identities that transcend religious or regional divisions. In Lebanon, despite fragmentation, there are moments when youth or environmental movements create shared identities that cut across sects. Even in the West, we see trans-sectarian solidarity movements advocating for “diverse” or “bridging” identities that embrace plurality rather than exclusion.

Identities do not form in a vacuum. They emerge within specific social relationships. The more these relationships are rooted in participation and interaction, the richer, deeper, and more humane identities become.

Given this state of social integration and identity, it’s only natural that these dynamics would shape how we approach core societal issues, making it seem as though life revolves in stifled closed loops. But that will be the topic of the next article.