Post-modern identity has always proved weak because collective identity is defined by opposition to something else

From Putin’s war and the making of European unity by Ed West.  The subheading is "There is now neither German nor French, Swiss nor Swede..."  A generally interesting essay, the main point being that Putin is creating the contrast that allows Classical Liberal Europe to rediscover itself and take ownership of its own future in a way that has not happened since the Second World War.  

In making that point he observes (emphasis added):

Modern Europe was forged in war too, the catastrophe of 1914-45, except it is a story of which no one wanted to sing (except Britain, which has always made it an outlier). Out of that disaster, Europe’s leaders aimed to build a new common identity, one in which nationalism itself is taboo and diminishing numbers believe in Christ.

It has proved a struggle, building an identity based on liberal, universalist principles in which tribalism is suppressed. That tribalism cannot be bred out of us has been illustrated the past week, with many modern, progressive westerners filled with energetic support for the Ukrainian cause; finally permitted to express a belligerent nationalism that makes them feel uncomfortable when it involves their own country.

This post-modern identity has always proved weak because collective identity is defined by opposition to something else, an outside threat. Historically, from the Battle of Tours onwards, Europe — Christendom — has been defined by its relationship with Islam. But this has become harder to articulate in the post-war era not just due to declining religious observance but the establishment of large Muslim minorities in western countries. Europe could not be defined by its opposition to Islam because, being post-Christian universalist liberals, that would be discriminatory. It would be paradoxically against what we stand for. (So we’re told.)

This has been our Achille's heel with regard to Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory and Social Justice Theory.  Classical Liberalism is founded in part on a human universalism - everyone is equal under the law, all have the same rights, etc.  So when CRT ideologues make the argument that some races are better or should be more preferred than others, such an argument fails to compute.  Similarly with Second and third wave feminism which centralizes and preferentializes women over men.  

West makes the point that ideally we define things by what they are but inescapably, in doing so, we are defining things by what they are not.  If we believe in human universalism and define ourselves in such a way (as a Classical Liberal) then we are also defining ourselves in such a fashion that rejects and contrasts with those who defines themselves in terms of race.  

Contrast is a kissing cousin to conflict.  Defining specific attributes of a category necessitates excluding things from that category.  Those things excluded can then be seen not just as different but also as possibly a threat. 

Classical Liberalism reinforces Christian human universalism (we are all God's children) but is also strengthened by Christian traditions of forgiveness, redemption, and grace.  It is a rich fusion but also a somewhat delicate plant when surrounded by the nationalisms of tyrants and the tyranny of authoritarian ideologies.