The big idea: Identity is a double-edged sword: the same belonging that can bind people into a peaceful community can also tear a society apart. Identity can drive ethnic conflict and sectarian conflict, and can be weaponised by identity-based populism. But identity can also underpin social cohesion — solidarity, trust and a shared life. The political question is always: does this identity divide or unite?
- Ethnic/sectarian conflict — violence organised around ethnic, religious or communal identity.
- Identity-based populism — mobilising 'the real people' of one identity against elites and outsiders.
- 'Us vs them' — the logic by which identity turns difference into division and threat.
- Social cohesion — the bonds of trust and shared belonging that hold a diverse society together.
- Managing diversity — the state's choice: entrench division, or build cohesion across identities.
Why identity can drive conflict: Identity turns difference into a line between "us" and "them". When people see politics as a contest between their group and a rival group, disputes become existential — not 'how do we share resources?' but 'will our group survive?' — which is far harder to compromise on. Leaders can deliberately sharpen these divides to win power, framing outsiders as threats. Yet the very same sense of shared belonging, if built across groups, is what creates the trust and solidarity a society needs to hold together — so identity is neither inherently peaceful nor inherently violent.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
A striking trend of recent global politics is the rise of identity-based populism — leaders mobilising one identity group as 'the real people' against elites, minorities and outsiders. Understanding how identity is weaponised is central to Paper 3.
How identity fuels conflict
When politics is organised around competing group identities, difference hardens into an 'us vs them' divide, and disputes over power or resources get reframed as threats to a group's very survival. Leaders can deliberately stoke fear of outsiders to mobilise support; grievances (real or manufactured) are attached to identity; and once violence starts, it deepens the divide it came from. Ethnic and sectarian conflicts are among the hardest to resolve because they are about recognition and survival, not just interests.
How identity-based populism works
Identity-based populism claims to speak for 'the real people' — usually one national, ethnic or religious identity — against a corrupt elite AND against outsiders (minorities, migrants, foreigners). It is powerful because it fuses a real sense of grievance and lost status with a clear enemy, offering belonging and someone to blame. But by defining the nation narrowly, it tends to exclude and vilify minorities, erode pluralism, and sharpen the very divisions it exploits.
Case study — identity dividing and uniting the same society: Imagine a diverse society with several ethnic and religious groups. In one scenario, a leader campaigns by blaming a minority for the majority's economic troubles, framing politics as 'the real people' versus outsiders; fear and resentment rise, the minority is scapegoated, and communities that once mixed now distrust one another — identity has become a driver of conflict. In another scenario, the state builds an inclusive national story, guarantees equal rights, and invests in shared schools, spaces and institutions where groups meet as equals; over time a shared belonging grows alongside particular identities, and trust across groups underpins social cohesion. Same society, same identities — but opposite outcomes. It captures the HL lesson: whether identity divides or unites is not fixed by the identities themselves; it depends on political choices and how diversity is managed.
The key point: Identity is a double-edged sword. It can drive ethnic and sectarian conflict by turning difference into an existential 'us vs them', and it can be weaponised by identity-based populism that mobilises 'the real people' against outsiders. But the same belonging, built across groups, underpins social cohesion. Whether identity divides or unites is not fixed — it depends on political choices and how the state manages diversity.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
The core debate: is identity fundamentally a source of division and conflict, or can it be a source of cohesion and solidarity? And how should a state manage diversity — by entrenching group lines, or by building shared belonging? Weigh it — and recommend.
The case that identity divides
Identity draws lines between groups, and when politics runs along those lines, difference becomes threat: disputes turn existential, minorities are scapegoated, and leaders exploit the divide for power. History's worst violence — genocides, ethnic cleansing, sectarian wars — was organised around identity, and once an 'us vs them' logic takes hold it is extraordinarily hard to undo. On this view, identity is inherently a source of conflict.
The case that identity unites
But identity is also what makes solidarity possible: a shared sense of belonging generates the trust, cooperation and willingness to sacrifice for one another that any functioning society needs. The very same force can be built ACROSS group lines — an inclusive shared identity that binds a diverse society together. On this view, identity is not the problem; exclusive, weaponised identity is, and inclusive identity is part of the solution.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: identity is fundamentally divisive — the root of ethnic conflict and populist scapegoating. Another view: identity can be a source of cohesion — trust, solidarity and shared belonging. Strong HL answers judge that identity is neither inherently divisive nor inherently unifying: what matters is whether it is inclusive or exclusive, and how leaders and states use it. So the task is not to abolish identity (impossible and undesirable) but to manage diversity so that identity builds cohesion across groups rather than hardening into 'us vs them' — which is a matter of political choice, not fate.
How identity, conflict and cohesion come up in Paper 3: Paper 3 stimulus might show an ethnic conflict, a populist leader, or a divided society. Analyse how identity is being weaponised into 'us vs them' (or could build cohesion), then recommend how to manage diversity — usually equal rights, inclusive shared belonging, and resisting leaders who exploit division.
How Paper 3 rewards you (HL)
Understand
Show you understand the challenge and the stimulus material accurately.
base
Analyse
Break the challenge down — causes, actors, perspectives — using the material.
analyse
Recommend
Propose and justify a course of action — the Paper-3-specific skill.
recommend
Synthesise
Pull the material together into a judged, evaluated response.
top
Recommend how a state could manage identity-based division to build social cohesion.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes (Paper 3): 1. Treating identity as only divisive. It also builds cohesion and trust.
2. Blaming identity itself. The problem is exclusive, weaponised identity.
3. Ignoring who weaponises it. Populist leaders often stoke division deliberately.
4. Recommending suppression. It fuels grievance, not cohesion.
5. Only describing. Analyse + recommend.