When a public figure renounces an element of their identity, especially one tied to ethnicity or nationality, the impact reverberates far beyond the individual. Such was the case when UK Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch, born in the UK to Nigerian parents, reportedly stated that she no longer identifies as Nigerian. The backlash—particularly among members of the Nigerian diaspora—has been emotionally charged and intellectually engaging.
Beyond the political implications lies a deeper set of psychological processes that can help explain both Badenoch’s decision and the strong reactions it has provoked. Her disavowal can be seen through multiple lenses: social identity, impression management, emotional dissonance, and deeper psychodynamic conflicts stemming from early life experiences.
Social Identity Theory: Belonging and Betrayal
According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people derive part of their self-concept from the social groups they belong to—such as nationality, ethnicity, or religion. A shared identity fosters group cohesion, pride, and mutual validation.
For Nigerians in the diaspora, especially those who embrace dual or multicultural identities, Badenoch’s disavowal may feel like a symbolic rejection of the in-group. It evokes a sense of betrayal – not just of cultural heritage but of the collective identity that binds members of a community scattered across the globe.
Her choice doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It resonates painfully for those who view their Nigerian identity as not only a source of pride but also a resilience narrative—a story of navigating global spaces while remaining rooted in a homeland rich in complexity and cultural power.
Bicultural Identity Integration: Navigating Dual Worlds
Badenoch, like many individuals of immigrant descent, exists at the crossroads of two cultures. The concept of Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) refers to how comfortably individuals reconcile and incorporate their multiple cultural identities.
Those with high BII often find harmony between their heritages and national affiliations. Those with low BII may feel they must choose one over the other, especially when faced with external pressure or internal conflict.
Badenoch’s rejection of her Nigerian identity might reflect an attempt to resolve this tension—to present a coherent and unambiguous public self in a political context that often rewards assimilation over hybridity. In this reading, the act is less about personal denial and more about strategic identity management under scrutiny.
Impression Management: The Politics of Presentation
From Erving Goffman’s (1959) theory of impression management, we know that public figures carefully curate how they are perceived. In a political landscape like the UK’s—where immigration, nationalism, and multiculturalism are hot-button issues—identity can become a strategic tool.
Badenoch may be consciously distancing herself from Nigeria to appeal to a particular electorate, to demonstrate political neutrality, or to avoid accusations of dual loyalty. While such maneuvers may be effective politically, they carry psychological consequences—both for the individual and for those who feel erased or rejected by the gesture.
4) Cognitive Dissonance: Emotional Dissonance Among Observers
For diasporic Nigerians who proudly carry their heritage into every room they enter—from boardrooms in Amsterdam to hospitals in Guyana—Badenoch’s stance can provoke cognitive dissonance. They may wonder: how can someone of Nigerian descent reject what so many fight to preserve, elevate, and represent?
This emotional dissonance fuels efforts to reaffirm Nigerian excellence—citing achievements across sports, the arts, business, and politics—as a way of defending group identity and restoring internal consistency.
Collective Narcissism: A Threat to Group Prestige
Another lens is collective narcissism, the belief that one’s group is exceptional but insufficiently recognized by others. In this context, a high-profile individual rejecting the group not only threatens its prestige but also appears to validate negative stereotypes.
For those who see Nigeria as a source of collective strength, global influence, and untapped potential, Badenoch’s disavowal is not neutral—it is interpreted as internalized self-negation that undermines years of cultural resilience and representation.
Psychodynamic Perspective: Transference and Denial
Beyond the broader social and political explanations, a psychodynamic lens reveals a more intimate layer of understanding. Badenoch’s disavowal of her Nigerian identity may reflect unresolved emotional conflicts linked to her formative experiences.
According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, individuals experience psychological discomfort when their actions, beliefs, or memories are in conflict. In Kemi Badenoch’s case, being sent to Nigeria during her youth and navigating difficult circumstances may have generated feelings of abandonment or resentment.
Rather than directing those emotions toward her parents—who may have been acting out of necessity—these feelings might have been unconsciously transferred to Nigeria itself. This is consistent with a process known as maladaptive transference, where distress from one relationship is redirected to another object. Here, Nigeria becomes a symbolic scapegoat for unresolved familial and emotional pain.
This psychological strategy can become entrenched as a long-term defense mechanism, leading to a form of denial that appears politically pragmatic but is, at its core, emotionally driven. Such patterns, when unexamined, can persist indefinitely, allowing individuals to maintain a sense of psychological equilibrium—even at the cost of cultural estrangement.
Conclusion: Identity Is Never Just Personal
Kemi Badenoch’s rejection of her Nigerian identity is a politically and psychologically complex act. While individuals have the right to define themselves, public figures—especially those from historically marginalized groups—cannot easily separate their personal choices from their symbolic impact.
The backlash, especially from Nigerians in the diaspora, underscores a vital psychological truth: identity is relational, not solitary. It lives in the connections we honor, the communities we represent, and the narratives we uphold.
In a world increasingly shaped by multiculturalism and mobility, the question is not just who we are but who we choose to bring with us—and what it means when we choose not to.
