Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is Mahmood Mamdani's critique of identity politics and multiculturalism?
Executive Summary
Mahmood Mamdani argues that contemporary identity politics and multiculturalism largely reproduce colonial categories—not natural cultural divisions but administrative inventions like “native” and “settler” that harden difference into permanent political status. He calls for a decolonization of the political: undo the legal and institutional separation of peoples, shift from criminal‑justice remediation toward democratic institutional redesign, and replace fixed group labels with an inclusive citizenship that allows identities to change [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What Mamdani actually claims — the core critique that reframes identity debates
Mamdani’s core claim is that what modern discourse treats as enduring cultural identities are often the products of colonial governance techniques designed to manage difference. He contends that indirect rule institutionalized and froze customary authority into legal categories—creating “permanent minorities” whose political status is defined by being administratively separate from settler or state power. This is not merely academic: the policy consequences, he argues, are exclusion, contested citizenship, and cycles of violence that follow the mapping of social difference onto state institutions. Mamdani’s formulation reframes identity politics from a question of cultural recognition to a problem of institutional design and colonial legacy [2] [1] [4].
2. How Mamdani explains the mechanics — colonial governance and the making of “natives”
Mamdani locates the mechanics of the problem in the colonial era: administrations used customary law and native authorities to govern at low cost, presenting a governance style as faithful to tradition while simultaneously codifying difference as a political category. The result was a bifurcated polity—settlers or modern citizens on one side, administratively defined natives on the other—making difference a legal status rather than a fluid social reality. This historical account links questions of present‑day multicultural policy to the specific rationales of imperial rule, shifting debate away from contemporary cultural pluralism toward the historical institutionalization of inequality [2] [4].
3. The problem with multiculturalism and identity politics, as Mamdani sees it
Mamdani warns that multiculturalism and identity politics, when implemented without attention to power and institutional history, risk cementing the very divisions they seek to respect. Celebratory multicultural policies that recognize group differences can inadvertently reproduce segregation if they leave intact legal or state arrangements that were designed to separate populations. He argues that such approaches can enable the “tribalization” of politics—where collective claims are made on behalf of fixed groups—producing exclusionary dynamics and even fueling ethnic conflict rather than fostering shared citizenship [1] [5] [3].
4. What he prescribes instead — decolonizing political forms and reimagining citizenship
Mamdani’s remedy centers on institutional redesign rather than only cultural recognition. He advocates rejecting the settler/native binary and aiming for equal citizenship that allows identities to be mutable and political spaces to be redesigned so they do not institutionalize difference. He emphasizes democratic reform—redistributing political power, dismantling legal categories that enforce group separateness, and focusing on political inclusion rather than narrow criminal‑justice solutions. In some formulations he proposes a politics of “survivorship” that prioritizes collective dignity and shared civic life over fixed identity labels [1] [4] [3].
5. Reception, debates, and the limits of Mamdani’s framing
Scholars and critics treat Mamdani’s intervention as a major reframing: many praise its historical clarity and its push to interrogate institutions, while others argue it can underplay issues such as gendered forms of exclusion, transnational dimensions of diaspora politics, or the pragmatic benefits of some multicultural policies. Reviewers note that his emphasis on decolonizing institutions challenges both left and liberal framings of identity politics, which makes his work powerful but also contested—some see omissions in emphasis or scope. When Mamdani’s language is used in contemporary political debates, it can be mobilized by varied agendas: activists seeking institutional reform, critics who downplay cultural claims, or state actors invoking “neutrality” to reject targeted remedies—so careful attention to context and limits remains essential [4] [6].
Sources referenced: analyses summarizing Mamdani’s arguments and reception [1] [2] [4] [5] [3] [6].