Q&A: Amy Gutmann

Amy Gutmann, the University's provost, recently published a new book titled "Identity in Democracy." Before assuming her position as provost in fall 2001, Gutmann was a professor in the politics department. She served as dean of the faculty from 1995 to 1997.

Senior writer Zack Surak sat down with Gutmann to discuss her perspective about group identity issues in relation to her book, Princeton University and the world today.

'Prince': What made you become interested in group identity and dynamics?

Gutmann: I first thought about what makes a democracy work well, and it instantaneously became clear that group identity in democracy — how people identify with groups — can make a democracy work well, or it can make a democracy work not so well.

That is what gave me the idea of the good, the bad and the ugly of identity politics because democracies can't imagine themselves without group identity because people naturally identify in groups. At the same time, if people identify in a certain way in groups, in what has been called a tribal group, then democracies are going to work terribly. That is what got me interested in the whole issue of identity and democracy. It is a huge issue for democracies. How do people identify in groups? What kind of group identities do people have?

P: What impact do you hope your book will have, idealistically and pragmatically?

G: I am a pragmatist, but I am a pragmatist with ideals. What I hope people think about is how we can conceive of our identities in ways that enable democracies to thrive.

I think that in many ways we can do that. I hope my book suggests many of those ways. It is not exhaustive, but it is quite comprehensive in looking at the different ways in which people identify in groups.

So quite specifically, I hope that people think about their group identities in ways that further their conception of justice. We conceive of identifying with groups that are negatively stereotyped in society. We think about how we can further the cause of justice for those groups. We think about identifying with human beings as such, so we're not just identifying as tribal people, but we're identifying with humanity as such. I think that's idealistic and pragmatic because when we see people suffering whoever they are, we can identify with them. I want to further the notion that that kind of identification is a good thing. It furthers the cause of justice both at home and around the world.

P: The classic metaphor for American culture is the melting pot. Some may contend that our society is more of salad bowl, divided into smaller enclaves with their own identities. Which metaphor would you agree with and why?

G: I don't think either metaphor quite captures the reality of the idea. I'll give you reasons why and suggest another possible idea. First the melting pot was a metaphor that began by looking at immigrants to this country from many different places. It said that immigrants come to this country and despite all the different cultures that they bring, they all meld into one.

Well, that's not quite right because immigrant groups contribute different cultures to this country and we don't have just one culture. We as individuals have many cultures.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Then you get to the salad bowl metaphor where we have many cultures and we just mix them up. That's not quite right because we do share certain cultural identities. One of those identities is created actually by the constitutional democracy we share as Americans. That constitutional democracy does speak to some kind of commitments which are cultural as well as philosophical commitments that we can share as Americans such as a commitment to equal rights for all human beings.

That is not a comprehensible culture, though. We can have cultures as Irish American, African American, Polish Americans. We can have cultures as philosophers, professionals in different aspects of our lives. Feminists have many different cultures. There are many different ways in which people bring their cultural identities to bear on their work, on their citizenship, on their personal life.

What metaphor is best? I think one metaphor is the notion of tapestries. Another metaphor is the notion of jazz bands. The metaphors that work best are the metaphors that suggest intersecting identities and identities that can agree on certain common goods. Among those common goods, [there] have to be for a democracy certain common constitutional values. Whatever metaphors convey, the intersecting of many cultures and the agreement on certain common goods — not one common good, but common goods — that we can all subscribe to and share and help us all to further justice.

Those are all metaphors that I think are good to subscribe to. I don't think that there's only one metaphor, just like I don't think there's only one culture.

P: One of the major group identity issues we are facing today is the debate over affirmative action. Do you think affirmative action has a place in society, and in particular in the ways schools like the University of Michigan or University of Texas applies it?

G: I think affirmative action is a loaded term, and it means a lot of different things to different people. In the context of education, the value that I think is important — it's important to Princeton University, basic to our mission — is the educational value of bringing diverse people together.

When we use the term diversity, that's what we're signaling. We're not signaling a kind of mindless diversity where we need more people left-handed and blonde, like I am, but the kinds of diversity that add to our educational mission. That's an understanding of diversity not as an end in itself, but as a means to educational end.

To the extent that affirmative action serves that kind of diversity it is a good thing.

But as I say, I avoid the use of the term only in so far as it's become so loaded in that it means so many different things to so many different people. I do see the need for universities to champion those forms of diversity that are means to educational ends. It's very important for universities like Princeton to defend the decision in the Bakke case, which says that using race is one among many criteria for admissions including socioeconomic criteria, geographic criteria and so on. That is an important part of the academic freedom of selective universities. It would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to overturn that aspect of academic freedom of universities and allow universities to have every other form of academic freedom in its admissions. All of those criteria which contribute to the educational mission of the selective universities ought to be considered as part of the university's academic freedom.

P: What do you perceive as the role of minorities on Princeton's campus? What do you think of when you here the word "diversity" in respect to Princeton?

G: I think of Princeton as having been for all of recent history striving to become an educationally more vibrant and therefore more diverse institution building on a base that is committed to educational excellence.

When I think of diversity with regard to Princeton, I think of having students from many different backgrounds with many different points of view with many different ideological and cultural perspectives contributing to each others' education and contributing, upon graduating from Princeton, to the leadership of our society and the societies around the world. Every kind of background we can learn from and is individual is a way of contributing to higher education.

I would also say that diversity by itself — bringing people who are diverse to our campus — is not what makes the difference. What makes the difference is taking educational advantage of that diversity. If lots of people from lots of different backgrounds come to Princeton and they don't talk to each other, they don't socialize with one another and they live separately . . . that in my mind constitutes a failure to make educational use of diversity.

When I think of Princeton as a diverse place, I think of it as a place where students and faculty and staff all really do what's needed to learn from one another. The administration of Princeton creates an environment that encourages people to do that.

P: Do you have your next project in mind yet? If so, what is it?

G: Well, generally my next projects have built on what I haven't done in my previous projects. Right now there's a lot I haven't done, so I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if my next project had something to do with higher education since I've been spending a lot of my time thinking, in an idealistic and pragmatic way, about what would be the next stages of higher education in this country. I'm hoping that as provost I'll learn a lot about that and bring it to bear on another project.