A recent classroom discussion at Johns Hopkins University sparked a profound reflection on identity and bias for freshman student Bryce Leiberman. While working on a foreign policy paper about the Iraq War, Leiberman was confronted by a peer about his use of the term “we” when discussing the United States, prompting an exploration of his own beliefs and assumptions.
In a moment of intellectual challenge, a friend pointed out that every reference he made to America was framed as “we,” implying a personal connection to a historical event that occurred long before his birth. This observation led Leiberman to question why he felt the need to associate himself with a national identity tied to the consequences of the war, including the tragic outcomes stemming from the invasion.
Understanding Identity and Bias
Leiberman reflected on the complexities of identity, which encompasses physical, psychological, and social characteristics that define individuals. He realized that his instinct to use “we” indicated an internalized connection to the concept of American identity, despite not having directly participated in the events of the Iraq War. This realization highlighted the tendency to create divisions between “us” and “them,” a concept that resonated deeply with Leiberman, especially in his experience at a diverse university.
The distinction between patriotism and blind endorsement of national actions became a central theme in his reflection. He noted that pride in being an American should not equate to uncritical support for every decision made by the government. The conflation of personal identity with national identity can lead to biases that affect how individuals engage in discussions about foreign policy, particularly with friends from different cultural backgrounds.
The Role of Teams in Identity Formation
Leiberman further explored the idea that identity is often shaped by the groups to which individuals belong. Whether through sports, political affiliations, or geographical ties, these associations can create an “in-group” mentality that fosters cohesion but also contributes to tribalism. He recognized the dual nature of teams: they can provide belonging and support but may also lead to polarized perspectives.
He emphasized the importance of acknowledging that Americans are not a monolith. The challenge lies in recognizing individual identities while understanding the broader implications of national narratives. As he stated, “I was not in George W. Bush’s cabinet during the Iraq War,” reinforcing the notion that personal experiences and beliefs should not be conflated with those of a political entity.
Ultimately, Leiberman’s reflections serve as a reminder of the importance of self-awareness in discussions of complex topics like foreign policy. By recognizing and addressing biases rooted in identity, individuals can foster more meaningful dialogues about the implications of national actions and their global impact.
As he continues his studies in Political Science and Philosophy, Leiberman’s journey is marked by a quest for authenticity and understanding in an increasingly interconnected world. Through his experiences, he hopes to contribute to a more nuanced conversation about identity, bias, and the responsibilities that come with them.
