Who is better prepared to defend principles in a volatile world? Those with strong national, religious, ethnic, or tribal identities who accept democracy, or democrats who view identity as a divisive prejudice?
Sharansky argues that valueless cosmopolitanism is dangerous, even in democracies. Together, identity and democracy assert a powerful and benign sense of purpose. But when at odds, they beget fundamentalism and rootlessness.
What made the experience of listening to Defending Identity the most enjoyable?
Original and thoughtful treatment of the subject of national identity.
Sharansky is himself a fascinating story and an inspiring human being having bravely challenged the Soviet Union as a political dissident who withstood a long prison sentence for his assertion of his identity, overcoming KGB interrogations, etc without losing his deep sense of human dignity and hope.
This man is a great thinker of our times who is in my view under-appreciated in many ways.
The book is well articulated, and definitely thought provoking - which is what I hope for in a good book.