Here’s a perspective no one’s heard before: the straight, white, raised Christian, middle class male. I can turn translucent in direct sunlight and eat boneless chicken wings with a fork. And go figure, I’ve never really thought about “Identity Politics” before. And, I’d argue, most white people haven’t (straight white men especially), and the ones who have usually don’t care for Identity Politics all that much. Why is that?
Before we can worry about why certain people feel the way they do about Identity Politics, we need to define Identity Politics itself. What the hell is it? Any definition will have to juggle the competing constraints of avoiding something so strict the definition becomes limiting and useless while also avoiding something so vague that the definition becomes meaningless and equally useless. For the purposes of this paper, let’s try something like this:
Identity Politics: noun: politics in which groups of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity organize to promote their own concerns.
I pulled the bulk of this from Merriam-Webster but made a point of leaving out the phrase “without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group” as that felt already too limiting, along with being a major assumption and value judgement in itself. This problem presented itself often, with Lexico (a dictionary website that claims to be powered by Oxford) defining Identity Politics as a strategy of “exclusive” political alliances and Wikipedia throwing out the claim “without regard for the interests of larger, more diverse political groups”. I believe my definition is specific enough to be useful while still avoiding the specificity and judgement laden into these other definitions.
I spent plenty of time digging through, digesting, and sometimes torturing myself with articles about Identity Politics. Now I’m going to pull up a few of them and “identity politic” the “identity politicers” by paying special attention to the race, gender, and if I can determine it, sexuality of each of the authors. Then we’ll see if my hypothesis about white people not liking Identity Politics (in general, as always) holds up.
The best source I’ve found so far is the article collection “What is the Left without Identity Politics?” Since this article provides four different perspectives from all over the Left, it seems the perfect launching point for this little experiment. The authors featured are Walter Benn Michaels (a white man), Charles W. Mills (a black man), Linda Hirshman (a white woman), and Carla Murphy (a black woman). Perfect. So what do each of these authors have to say? Well, Michaels calls for an abandonment of Identity Politics altogether, claiming that “it’s not racism that creates the difference between classes; it’s capitalism” and “You don’t build the left by figuring out which victim has been most victimized; you build it by organizing all the victims.” Mills says the focus should be shifted but racial differences still must be acknowledged. Both Hirshman and Murphy argue that Identity Politics should be leaned into, reinvigorated and used as further fuel for progressive change, Hirsman stating “The right question, then, is not whether to keep faith with identity politics but how,” and “It’s inconceivable to envision an American left worthy of the name if it chose to do without identity politics.” Murphy follows with “Promote leaders from within the working class who value inclusion and who will address racial, geographic, and cultural divides within it.”
The difference between white male perspectives and most everyone else’s is immediately evident. Michaels, the only white male writer for the article, calls for an end to Identity Politics, while Hirshman and Murphy, the two female writers, support continued focus on Identity Politics. So if my hypothesis that white men really don’t like Identity Politics is true (as the difference between Michaels and others suggests it is), why? Well, as a white man myself, I might be able to offer some insight.
If you ever see me walking around campus and feel bold (or rude) enough to make me pause my music, take off my headphones, and chat with you, then ask me how I identify myself; ask what makes me me, the things I described in the opening paragraph (namely being a straight white male) wouldn’t make it anywhere near the top of the list. I’d probably launch into some vaguely pretentious-sounding spiel about being a Creative Writing major, working as a DJ for KTRM, and playing (and sometimes writing) music in my free time. I could go for quite a while without even thinking about my racial or sexual identity. Hell, whatever song you so rudely interrupted probably ranks higher in my conscious conception of my identity than being white. And, having grown up surrounded largely by people of a similar demographic, I can tell you this feeling is not unique to me amongst straight white men. Why?
People define themselves by what makes them different. Before we plunge into the messy whirlpool of Identity Politics, let’s take a look at something with a bit less contextual baggage. Have you ever heard anyone say the words “I am a human”? Ever been out on the town when you overhear some buzzed college student exclaim “I am a biological member of the Homo Sapien species!”? Of course not. Yet, if you ever asked a stranger “Are you human?” they’d obviously answer yes. No one would deny themselves being a Homo Sapien, but it’s also something that doesn’t really matter because being a Homo Sapien doesn’t distinguish you from the other seven billion people walking around in any way. For a more grounded example, look at the entire cultures that have formed around communities of deaf people. Deaf communities strongly identify who they are with their deafness (having your own language will do that) because their deafness distinguishes them from those who can hear, but no hearing person seriously considers their ability to hear to be part of who they really are. Hearing is the norm. White people (mostly) feel the same way about their race. If you asked me if I’m white, I would say yes, obviously. But if you asked me if being white is important? It probably is, but it sure doesn’t feel important to me.
This is because being white isn’t different (at least not in America). Being straight and male even less so. I have never been in a situation where I feel different by nature of my genetics. So I, and most other straight white guys, will forgo racial identity (which is about as useful to us as Homo Sapien identity) and identify mostly by what we do or what our interests are. A critical mind realizes that is a luxury many people don’t have, but it at least explains why so many white people get uncomfortable in discussions of racial identity, and even offended when told their whiteness is a key piece of their identity and development. The term “White Privilege” can draw so much ire from some white people because they honestly don’t think of themselves as “White Guy,” and being told your identity isn’t what you think it is would piss anybody off. Discussions of White Privilege can also bother white people because the mere mention of it confronts one of the less discussed aspects of White Privilege: the aforementioned luxury of being defined by one’s interests and actions. Discussing White Privilege forces white people to come down to a racial conversation they’re usually able to avoid altogether.
This isn’t to say whiteness doesn’t matter, or that the people who deny the presence of white privilege in our society are justified in doing so (they’re not); it’s simply an exploration of why those reactions exist. To be different is to be defined, and being white doesn’t make you different enough to be worth defining yourself by. Small wonder, then, that white men tend to project this disregard for their own racial identity onto the notion of Identity Politics as a whole, seeing the political strategy behind Identity Politics as silly and ultimately useless at best or harmful at worst.
This leaves the obvious example of white nationalism, white supremacism, and all the other racist “isms” that still float around the political sphere. If most white men don’t consider racial identity very important, why are these guys so entrenched in a white identity? But consider their talking points. Most white people don’t care for racial identity because they feel racial identity doesn’t distinguish them from the general population, but white nationalists repeatedly use rhetoric concerning “white genocide” or some mythical invasion of minorities and refugees. To these people, being white is different from the norm (at least they think it is), and that’s exactly why they’re so riled up about limiting the flow of immigrants and presence of nonwhites: they think whiteness is becoming abnormal, and that supposed shift of power terrifies them.
Works Cited
“Identity Politics: Definition of Identity Politics by Lexico.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico Dictionaries.
“Identity Politics.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.
I really enjoyed your article as it was simplified enough for me to read it yet it had strong ideas and understandings pushed forward. What I enjoyed most was how you broke down what identity politics and your reasoning to how you got your definition. You also put into words how I felt about being white and how I do not see it as important as other ethnicities. What brought me to ponder more about this was the topic of White Nationists and such, how they differ from the majority of the white population and their reasonings. Those who value power are afraid to lose it.
You not identifying as white, not because it isn’t important, but because being white is being a luxury, really resonated with me. I think seeing an article as open-minded as this one being written by a straight, white man is an interesting idea because while I want to congratulate you on being progressive enough to see your own privilege, I think that that should be the default perspective. This isn’t to take away from your writing in any way because it is a well thought out paper, just some food for thought I’m grappling with.