The identity trap and the dangers of ‘gnostic liberalism’

Yascha Mounk’s new book “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time” arrives at a crucial juncture for American liberalism. In this timely and incisive work, Mounk confronts the rising tide of identity politics, tracing its evolution from a movement for justice and equality into a divisive force that threatens to fragment the very liberal order it once sought to perfect.

At the heart of Mounk’s argument lies a deeper critique of contemporary liberalism — one that mirrors a larger ideological shift, which I’ll call “gnostic liberalism.” This mutation within liberal thought has reshaped the American political landscape, unmooring liberalism from its core principles of individual liberty and pluralism, reorienting it toward a radical vision of societal transformation.

Mounk’s diagnosis of identity politics illuminates the ways in which the movement has deviated from its original aims. Initially focused on achieving legal equality and remedying historical injustices, identity politics has since morphed into an ideology that prioritizes group identity over the individual and reduces political legitimacy to personal experience.

This shift, Mounk argues, undermines the very universal principles that have long defined the liberal tradition — principles such as equality under the law and the moral worth of every individual, irrespective of group affiliation. In its place, identity politics substitutes a worldview that valorizes subjective experience and pits competing identities against one another in an endless struggle for recognition and power.

This is where Mounk’s critique intersects with the concept of gnostic liberalism. The term “gnostic” evokes an ancient heresy in which secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek) is seen as key to transcending the material world and realizing spiritual liberation.

In the context of modern liberalism, this gnostic impulse manifests as a belief in the self’s radical autonomy — the idea that individuals, unencumbered by tradition, biology or social norms, possess the sovereign right to define their own identities and realities. Mounk’s account of identity politics perfectly captures this shift toward what might be called the “imperial sovereign self.”

This gnostic liberalism, as Mounk demonstrates, demands that personal identity be entirely self-constructed, freed from external constraints such as inherited social structures, moral traditions and biological realities.

In earlier forms of liberalism, individual autonomy was tempered by a recognition of human limitations and the need for a common moral framework. But in the world of identity politics, these limitations are rejected. Identity thus becomes an untethered, fluid construct. Mounk’s critique highlights how this shift fragments the political landscape and undermines the possibility of shared values, leading to an increasingly polarized society in which common ground is elusive.

One of the most compelling aspects of Mounk’s analysis is his examination of the utopian vision that drives identity politics. As he notes, what began as a quest for equality has transformed into a radical movement that seeks to remake society entirely — rooting out every perceived form of oppression, hierarchy and tradition in the pursuit of perfect equity and justice. This echoes the gnostic strain in modern liberalism, in which the ideal society is seen as not just attainable but inevitable, if only the right vanguard can wield sufficient power to bring it into existence.

Mounk’s critique calls attention to the expansion of state power that accompanies this utopianism. In the identity politics framework, the state is viewed as the only instrument capable of achieving the kind of radical transformation that gnostic liberalism envisions. Whether through legislation that imposes rigid standards of equity or policies that regulate speech and behavior to prevent offense, the state is tasked with enforcing a new moral order — one that upends the traditional liberal commitment to limited government, individual rights and the rule of law.

Mounk’s warning is clear: This is not merely a case of government overreach but a fundamental reimagining of the state’s role in society.

What makes Mounk’s critique so important is his recognition that identity politics is not just a political trend but an ideological project rooted in the gnostic belief that society can be perfected if only the right people — those possessing the secret knowledge of oppression — are given power. Mounk’s analysis resonates with earlier conservative critiques of utopianism, such as Eric Voegelin’s concept of “immanentizing the eschaton,” where political movements aim to create a heaven on earth through radical transformation.

“The Identity Trap” does more than simply diagnose the problem. Mounk also offers a path forward, one that seeks to reclaim the core principles of liberalism. He calls for a return to the universalism that once defined the liberal project, where citizens are treated as individuals with inherent worth rather than as members of particular identity groups. Mounk’s vision of liberalism is one that emphasizes the importance of social cohesion, shared values and the protection of free expression, even when those expressions challenge the prevailing orthodoxies of identity politics.

Yet Mounk’s solution, while commendable, may strike some readers as overly optimistic. Given the cultural dominance of identity politics, reclaiming these principles seems a Herculean task. Gnostic liberalism’s ideological hold on academia, media and even corporate America suggests that the road back to a more balanced liberalism will not be easy.

Mounk’s call to action, however, is a necessary one, reminding us that liberalism is not a static doctrine but a living tradition that must be defended and revitalized if it is to survive in the face of its current distortions.

For conservatives and classical liberals alike, Mounk’s work serves as both a warning and a call to action — reminding us that the future of liberal democracy depends on our ability to resist the siren song of utopianism and reclaim the virtues that once made liberalism a force for good.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.