The Myth of the “Identity Pincer”: A Critique of Bringing the Extremes Together

The concept of the “identity pincer” rests on a simple idea: two seemingly opposing poles—one associated with right-wing identity-based demands and the other with radical decolonial or anti-racist movements—would together contribute to fragmenting French society. This framework presents the two camps as the jaws of the same vice closing in on the ordinary citizen.

This interpretation is strongly challenged by advocates of an identitarian position. They believe that it creates an artificial equivalence between currents whose goals, references, and relationship to France are said to be profoundly different. In their view, fighting political Islamism, opposing mass immigration, or defending a French and European identity cannot be equated with a desire to destroy the country.

What does the term “identity pincer” mean?

In public debate, the expression is used to describe a confrontation between several identity-based discourses. On one side are activists or intellectuals who analyse society through discrimination, white privilege, colonial history, or relations between majorities and minorities. On the other are figures and movements that make immigration, cultural continuity, and national identity central political issues.

Supporters of the pincer theory believe that these two approaches thrive on the same tensions and prevent other difficulties from being addressed: unemployment, poverty, rural decline, territorial marginalisation, or social crisis. Identity would then become an issue that captures attention at the expense of economic and social questions.

Critics of this theory challenge that diagnosis itself. They argue that the existence of social difficulties does not make debate over immigration, assimilation, or collective identity illegitimate. In their view, these issues may instead be connected: they contend that mass immigration has had consequences for social services, schools, employment, insecurity, and residential segregation. These links are a contested political position, but they lie at the heart of their rejection of the pincer concept.

Rejecting a symmetry between decolonialism and identitarianism

The main criticism targets the very mechanism of comparison. According to opponents of the “identity pincer,” equating two adversaries because both address questions of identity amounts to confusing the subject discussed with the purpose being defended.

From this perspective, decolonial discourse is described as emphasising relations of domination, minorities, and criticism of French history or identity. By contrast, identitarians present themselves as defenders of a French and European continuity that they believe has been weakened. They therefore claim not to share the same political project, even though they operate in a public sphere where questions of origin, culture, and belonging occupy an increasingly prominent place.

The disagreement is not merely about terminology. It also concerns the definition of national unity. Supporters of the pincer theory believe that the multiplication of identity narratives fuels polarisation. Its critics respond that unity cannot rest on erasing real conflicts or on forbidding the naming of the demographic and cultural changes they perceive.

A critique aimed at the centre and assimilationist universalism

Opponents of the concept of the “identity pincer” do not limit their criticism to the decolonial left. They also target centrist, republican, or assimilationist positions, which they accuse of treating all identity-based discourses as equivalent in the name of moderation and universalism.

According to them, this stance makes it possible to present oneself as standing above the conflict while avoiding a decision on the most contentious issues. They see it as a way of preserving the status quo, defending a conception of assimilation that they consider contradicted by reality, or maintaining an image of political seriousness without exposing oneself to controversy.

This accusation is accompanied by a challenge to traditional anti-racism. Critics believe that it long dominated the debate, particularly through denunciations of the supposed racism and intolerance of the French population without recent immigrant origins. They argue that this framework no longer makes it possible to understand current developments, because part of the left is said to have turned towards decolonial discourse while identity-related themes have gained ground on the right.

Identity: one political issue among others

A central point in this controversy is the place to be given to identity in democratic debate. Those who speak of a “pincer” fear that it will become an obsession and conceal social inequalities. Those who reject the expression argue, on the contrary, that identity is a concrete concern for part of the population, particularly in working-class or peripheral areas.

This second interpretation maintains that it is possible to discuss living standards, the abandonment of rural areas, public services, unemployment, and immigration policy at the same time. It rejects the notion that attention to identity necessarily prevents other subjects from being addressed.

The Yellow Vests movement is also invoked in this argument. Supporters of this critique recall having wanted to take part in it and believe that the movement was later taken over by the far left, leading some initial participants to no longer recognise themselves in it. This interpretation illustrates their conviction that social and identity divides do not exclude one another, but intersect in French political life.

A battle of narratives about France

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the “identity pincer” pits two ways of interpreting French tensions against each other. The first seeks to defuse competing identities by presenting them as two expressions of the same polarisation. The second maintains that it is impossible to place decolonial criticism of France and an effort to defend national identity on the same level.

Critics of the theory even reverse the image of the pincer. In their view, the real vice is formed, on one side, by decolonialism and, on the other, by an assimilationist anti-racism that prevents French people without recent immigrant origins from asserting their identity and attachment to their country.

This position remains, in itself, a political stance. It highlights a fundamental disagreement: should identity-based demands be seen as a shared threat to national cohesion, or should discourses be radically distinguished according to the project they advance and the group they claim to defend?

FAQ on the identity pincer

What is the “identity pincer”?

It is an expression used to describe the idea that opposing identity-based currents, often associated with the identitarian right and decolonial movements, jointly fuel the polarisation of French society.

Why is this concept challenged?

Its critics believe it creates a false symmetry. They argue that defending French or European identity does not pursue the same objective as decolonial discourse focused on relations of domination, minorities, or criticism of France.

Does the identity debate exclude social issues?

Supporters of the pincer theory fear that it does. Its opponents respond that immigration, insecurity, employment, schools, public services, and territorial inequalities can be discussed together, without any automatic hierarchy between these issues.