“Actually, I’m gay” a voice hesitantly declared in response to a question. “Oh, really? Me too” responded the question’s maker as he went on, “Do you watch RuPaul’s Drag Race?’ The first man answered with a soft “No, it’s not really my thing. I do have a weird obsession with TLC shows, like My Strange Addiction and stuff.” “I’m not sure I’ve ever watched that, but moving on” responded the second man with unnecessary haste. The two had been standing in line at the grocery store and decided to strike up a conversation when the transaction of the woman checking out farther up had overloaded the register. The conversation was less brief than one would expect for the situation, but it was enough for two men to realize that, as they talked, it became increasingly clear that not only did their personalities differ on a fundamental level, but they also had virtually nothing in common besides their sexual orientation. Eventually the problem at the front of the line was resolved and it began to move as usual, but the conversation was rekindled when the second man received a Twitter notification on his phone and turned to the first man. “Oh God, what does the President have to say now?” “I don’t know,” answered the first man, “but I’m sure it’s some bullshit.” “Oh, it definitely is. I can’t wait for 2020 so we can vote him out,” confirmed the second man, “I think I’m going to vote for Pete Buttigieg. As cliche as it may seem, it’d feel good to have a gay President after all of this” as he gestured to the tweet on his screen. The first man responded with a cheerful “Me too!” as the second turned and began to load his items onto the belt. 

Identity politics is a staple of the modern political climate, and its intricacies can be expressed in a variety of (often confusing) ways. A large portion of the general opinion of identity politics is negative, which, while the “movement” may have its merits, can possibly be attributed to a fundamental lack of understanding. So, what is identity politics anyway? My personal understanding (which, I suppose, is just as subject to internal biases and cognitive ineptitude) is that the term “identity politics” refers to the highlighting of one or several aspects of a person’s identity and its subsequent governance of political decision-making. Identity politics is a sort of mental tool that has become a tendency. It inspires us to seek the commonality within different humans–to find common ground and provide some clarity for what we should do and why. In our modern political climate, filled as it is with a myriad of information (both true and false) from all sides of whichever political spectrum we choose to accept, it becomes far easier to accentuate an identity and adopt its beliefs and practices. When we do this instead of developing our own complex identities, we do make it a little bit easier to process and respond to certain information with which we’re faced, but we also ignore large portions of who we are for a mere fraction of our identities.

 

(“Increased Anxiety Seen Among LGBT Youth Since Presidential Election.”)

This seems to be a pretty widespread phenomenon as well. In the preceding situation between the two men in line at the grocery store, it becomes evident that they really share very little. They don’t watch the same shows, they have different (even conflicting) conversational styles and personality types, and likely lack some other major influencers of compatibility. One thing that they definitely share, though, is their sexual orientation. As a result, the two have sort of adopted a political identity–an algorithm for political decision making–that seeks to use their singular shared word of description as a guideline for all of their political decisions. Though the two share virtually no common traits (beyond gender and sexuality) and may struggle to get along, they make the same general political decisions for the same reason, all due to the one prominent identity they seem to share. This is both the power and danger of identity politics. It divides whole groups of people by pulling them “together” into smaller groups–encouraging them to ignore their other identities, and occasionally, even the “big picture.”

Politicians in our modern political climate have learned, whether by adaptation or intentional discovery, to use this sense of divisive togetherness to their advantage. Modern debates often consist of what each candidate has done, is doing, and is willing to do for each group. Politicians function as spokespeople for the groups they’re a part of, the groups currently in trouble, and the groups they’ve historically had friction with. They’re spotlighted and trained to speak on behalf of a singular identity, rather than the entirety of the groups they’ve represented in the past or those they hope to represent in the future. Modern politicians are encouraged to speak on behalf of minorities whose rights are in question or have been under fire in the past. This is absolutely crucial to the progressive and socially liberal society that many are trying to manufacture, but they often tend to “ignore” speaking on behalf of groups that may not need the representation because of their oppressed identities (which, historically, have been oppressed by groups that possess a majority in society, and as a result, haven’t had to turn to a group identity for safety or political action). Issues like socioeconomic status and healthcare transcend identities like gender, race, and sexual orientation. Though the rights and practices of those in the aforementioned identity groups may potentially be in danger, those who are struggling because of society, rather than because of society’s relationship with their identities, feel unheard. 

If nothing else, this occurrence has been marked as a reason for the failure of several campaigns. In his opinion piece “The End of Identity Liberalism,” Mark Lilla states that:

One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop.

Whether it’s a valid, truthful feeling or not, certain factions of our society feel left out of the conversation of the country’s improvement because we’re still trying to make equality ubiquitous. Group identity tends to be seen as a cancer to those who don’t feel particularly included in any prominent political groups. 

So where do those who feel excluded point the finger to pinpoint the source of this cancer? Generally speaking, they point to college campuses. College campuses are regarded today as “liberal breeding grounds.” In fact, in her article “Identity Politics Are Rapidly Destroying The Value of College Degrees,” author Liz Wolfe begs the question, “do students generally just fall in line with the far-leftist ideas they’re forced to swallow?” This sort of implies that college campuses are becoming places of total and utter speech repression; that no free flow of ideas exists–students are force-fed liberal rhetoric, sorted into groups, and forced to spew their indoctrinated ideas online and at the polls. This simply isn’t the case, though. College campuses do have a variety of identity-based groups and activities. There are organizations for people of color, women, transgender people, and just about any other group one could be a part of. Though these spaces for the expression of identity exist, they aren’t forced on anybody. Students are encouraged to join them if they’re interested in doing so, but the groups would likely never want the hassle of forcing somebody who has zero interest in them to join and actively participate.  Students can choose not to join or attend any identity-based groups or events if they so please, so the notion that this political structure is being crammed into the brains of college students by the very system that seeks to teach them to think critically is laughable at best. 

 

(“New Black Student Resource Center: A Kickoff for Black History Month.”)

 

Identity has likely arisen to prominence on college campuses because it’s a first step for many teenagers. Kids who haven’t necessarily had the opportunity to live independently from their parents (socially, at least) now have a chance to go off and figure out who they are. They can discover their identities and join groups that coincide with them if they please, and this doesn’t even mean that they must ignore other parts of themselves. The availability of identity-based groups and activities opens the door for more smooth and blissful discovery of oneself, (generally) free from the judgement may have been common back at home. It essentially allows college students to become their most authentic selves without fear of backlash for expressing who they are. Some seek to ignore this and discredit the availability altogether. Professors Paula M.L. Moya (Stanford) and Michael R. Hames-García state in their book “Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism” that most of what has been written about identity politics

“seeks to delegitimate, and in some cases eliminate, the concept itself by revealing its ontological, epistemological, and political limitations. Activists and academics alike have responded to essentialist tendencies in the cultural nationalist and feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s and to the violent ethnic conflicts of the 1980s and 1990s by concluding that (social or cultural) identity, as a basis for political action, is theoretically incoherent and politically pernicious.”

This ultimately expresses the beliefs that many hold in regard to the negative aspects of identity politics. They seek to cast it out entirely for its drawbacks, which are highlighted by politicians’ abuse of their power. 

Despite all of the hatred turned its way, Identity politics most definitely has its benefits. Liz Wolfe also argues that the repression of hate speech and fear of some students to express statements that are “offensive” or “hurtful” are “illiberal” traits and “are bad enough on their own, but the format of college also makes little sense. Its incentives are poorly aligned with what is valued in the workplace. Students are incentivized to be obedient and compliant, not to set themselves apart from the pack.” This tendency to avoid harmful speech evidently arose as a result of the prioritization of identity over person, and claims that the detrimental effects of identity politics outweigh and utterly expunge all benefits. While those like Wolfe express their disdain for identity (possibly because they have minimal experience with it), they seem to ignore (or simply not notice) its innate ability to draw people together. 

When we plunge headfirst into new social situations, it is a human trait to try to find common ground. The same practice is used when we encounter disagreements. Identity allows us to find the “common denominator.” It allows us to better understand one another for our shared traits, and focuses on what brings us together–rather than what “should” drive us apart.

 

 

Works Cited

Becca. “New Black Student Resource Center: A Kickoff for Black History Month.” The Independent | Fort Lewis College Student News Organization, The Independent | Fort Lewis College Student News Organization, 6 Feb. 2019, https://www.theindyonline.com/Detail/new-black-student-resource-center-a-kickoff-for-black-history-month.aspx.

“Increased Anxiety Seen Among LGBT Youth Since Presidential Election.” Voice of America, https://www.voanews.com/usa/increased-anxiety-seen-among-lgbt-youth-presidential-election.

Lilla, Mark. “The End of Identity Liberalism.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html.

“Reclaiming Identity.” Google Books, Google, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=maUwDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&adq=Identity+politics+and+college+campuses&ots=wmGjQYj4rU&sig=wxm96EXz1fY330i0gidawA4NyjQ#v=onepage&q=Identity politics and college campuses&f=false’.  

Wolfe, Liz. “Identity Politics Are Rapidly Destroying The Value Of College Degrees.” The Federalist, 20 Aug. 2018, https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/16/identity-politics-rapidly-destroying-value-college-degrees/.