We far too often assume that, in the normal relation between states and group identities, a state wishing to treat persons as neutral individuals is confronted by the historical residue of extra-state identities. In fact, virtually all states are deeply implicated in the perpetual reinvention of categories that organize, hierarchize, and divide their populations. A relatively benign example close to home is the optional ethnicity survey mailed out to prospective job applicants in connection with affirmative action policies. The survey confronts me with the options of throwing it in the wastebasket (which seems uncooperative), declaring my ethnicity to be "white" (which I regard as absurd), and writing in the category "Jewish" (which will probably make my response statistically irrelevant). Sometimes I choose the first course and sometimes the third; in any case the impact on my career or on academic hiring policies is minimal. In other situations, and in other parts of the world, the state imposes identities or defines the available options in ways that have greater, often devastating, impact on peoples' lives. Recent books by Adam Ashforth and Virginia Dominguez deal with two such situations, in the process charting new territory for critical social research.