I propose as subject of discussion the PDF-PowerPoint "Interpretations of cultural identity, marginalisation, violence, and empathy". I used this PowerPoint for the lecture which I held on Thursday 16th November 2023 at the IX National Conference on Ethics “Empathy and violence in modern society”, organised by the Department of Ethical Studies of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – BAS –, Sofia, 16-17 November 2023. In my analysis, I shall investigate the problems of violence which can be caused by some interpretations of cultural identity. For my inquiry, I shall mainly refer to some observations exposed by Amartya Sen throughout his works. The investigation will illustrate the process through which cultural identity is absolutised in order to both seclude the persons who have this cultural identity and exclude those who do not have this cultural identity: this kind of interpretation of cultural identity is functional, therefore, to the incarceration of the individual within a certain group and to the exclusion of other individuals from the same group. Absolutised cultural identity proves to be, therefore, an instrument in order to enslave people in their groups and to eliminate dissension within a group. At the same time, cultural identity serves to marginalise people: it is an instrument to incite hatred and provoke violence against marginalised people. An interpretation of cultural identity that sees cultural identity as something uniform proves to be, on closer inspection, a form of cultural identity towards a condition of war between groups: this kind of cultural identity artificially homogenises the people of the group of which it constitutes the cultural identity. Cultural identity forms something self-sufficient since it seems to have no intersections and no points of contact with other identities; it is something that arises (or rather pretends to have arisen) independently of other identities; moreover, this kind of cultural identity is something formed once and for all. Through the works of Amartya Sen, I shall give examples of the procedure of absolutisation of cultural identity: moreover, examples of the consequences of this absolutisation and of the hatred against groups which can be produced that absolutisation will be illustrated. As examples can be mentioned the religious riots between Hindus and Muslims in India, the marginalisation of Irish people before and during the Great Irish Famine, the contempt against Indian people during the Bengali famine, and so on. The idea of cultural determinism, of a rigid justification of cultural identity is functional, among other things, to the justification of colonialism and the violence connected to colonial enterprises. Sen aims to show that a specific interpretation of cultural identity can bring about an atmosphere of violence in society between individuals and groups. Sen does not conceal that individuals can be easily manipulated: Sen’s observations serve also to meditate on the ways in which, through a specific interpretation of cultural identity and through appropriate propaganda, individuals can be manipulated and convinced to be nothing in relation to their cultural identity and to have nothing in common with the individuals of other groups. Sen’s inquiries have also an anthropological relevance: Sen’s study proves to be a study on manipulation and strategies of manipulation too. Sen opposes this view since he firmly believes that the possibility of harmony between human beings is connected to the existence of identities that exhibit flexibility, which, in other words, are not static but dynamic. Harmony between people depends on a conception of identities which communicate with each other, give elements to other cultures and take elements from other cultures, constantly changing. Cultural identity in itself always consists of different elements (it is never something monovalent, uniform, or static). The cultural identity should be like this if one wants to avoid the potential for violence of the monovalent cultural identity. Thus, Sen’s solution for opposing the interpretation of rigid cultural identity and for promoting empathy between individuals consists in an alternative interpretation of the cultural identity and of the individual. The individual has, as such, a plurality of identities in himself: the individual is not reducible to only a component, to only an element. An individual consists in a plurality of identities. He is not the possession of a group. Primacy should always belong to the individual, and never to the groups. Cultural identities are not composed of one element; they have relations with other identities, they derive from pre-existing cultures, they evolve, and they absorb new elements: cultures have intersections with other cultures. There is no separation of cultures from each other. By discovering that he has many components and that his culture has intersections, the individual can have a positive empathy with other individuals and can oppose the strategy of hatred, segregation and manipulation. Bibliography Mokyr, J., Why Ireland Starved: An Analytical and Quantitative Study of Irish Poverty, 1800–1851, London 1983. Sen, A., Poverty and Famines. An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford 1981. Sen, A., Development as Freedom, New York 1999. Sen, A., How does culture matter?, in: Culture and Public Action, edited by Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton, Stanford 2004, pp. 37–58. Sen, A., Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny, New York, London 2006. Sen, A., The Idea of Justice, London 2009.