Throughout the human civilization there are two main distinctions between the social and individual identities. This very thin but at the same time very significant line sets the human unity and only by putting away some identities which would not fit with the rest of the society. That is why the proverb 'one should keep in step with the society' is still valid and also logical as well. I f one would not do so then there will be no unity for him with the society. In this respect Habermas' argument about the social identity is more logical and realistic than the Historian's argument.
             According to Habermas, as one should agree, people get together by putting away their differing individual views, ideas and thoughts. They agree on one social identity so that provides the unity of that society. Of course each person as an individual has their own arguments however in the public sphere individuals have to choose a common argument. This could be worse or better than what each individual have in their minds however the majority sets the rules so the others have to follow them in order not to be excluded and expelled from the society. For instance imagine a communist or a socialist person who really hates capitalists and American affectations as there are many in our university, how would he or she behave, would he fights against them, or would he protest them explicitly even by shouting out to their faces? No, Probably not because even that person have friends and an environment, which has these sorts of, people in it. So in order not to lose his friends and in !
             order not to be a disliked and a disturbing image she has to accept those people and how much she is really against what they do, does not matter so that she puts that identity to a side and join the rest with another approach and identity which is a result of the social identity.
             Mach also agrees with Habermas just like me, against the historians. Mach ar...