Before I begin, I will use a dictionary to define identity politics here, but please–bear with me. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines identity as, “the distinguishing character or personality of an individual.” But can someone really define such a broad and personal term? It seems unlikely that all collectives and groups that have occurred across the span of human existence can be thrown together to mean a distinguishing character or personality. To people who experience identity (everyone), it means much more than this definition, and these words trap the term identity in a box; just as identity politics has attempted to do with the masses. For some people identity is everything, it is their security, their solitude, the concept that holds their life in one piece. For others, it is little more than a term that they will let others call them to perform demographic data or apply for a job. This discrepancy of personal choice in the level of identity also contributes to what identity means. If anything, the most definable characteristic of identity is its ambiguity and personality, leading people to believe what they want about identity and classify themselves as they see fit. Labels and definitions are held in the eyes of the beholder, and, unfortunately, some individuals fail to agree on how to deal with competing concepts of each others’ perceived reality. While searching for the answer to the definition of identity politics one has to ask oneself if the definition really matters? If the problem lies in the outcomes and how people are affected, then why can we not put the complex question of definition to the side, and focus on mitigating the issues instead? It seems probable, but to fully answer the question we must first break down the definition of identity politics to build up a solution. If we can define identity politics then it will be easier to discover real solutions to the problem facing politics in America, and even help mitigate the effects that have been caused by identity politics.

The question of identity politics is far from empirical, everything about the question of identity in relation to politics has much to do with theory and human behavior, and far less to do with data and statistics. People’s opinions and experiences characterize what it means to have an identity, so to begin this specific discussion, I will start with my experience. I am a straight, white male. There’s not much more to it than that, but that does not mean that I’m any less exceptional than a gay man or a lesbian black woman. I believe that someone’s identity is not about being unique or special in an attempt to be unique or special; the goal of identity is to express one’s self in a way that makes one comfortable, not to make oneself feel unique. That’s something that I feel as if people tend to overlook when discussing identity the concept of identity is a rational choice to pick, but it is mostly influenced by how someone feels about their own lifestyle. My own identity may not say a lot about me, but it does not have to. Identity should not be a way of stereotyping people or defining their interests by the way that they are, it is a mechanism for people to maneuver the world and find others to be able to share their experiences.

Translating these ideas of identity into politics is a different question, but the previous assumptions must be held or debated to find a consensus to have at least somewhat of an idea of what it means to have an identity. The idea of identity politics from how I understand it is that groups of people with the same identity vote and protest on similar candidates to have their interests represented in government. The definition works for politicians as well: they seek to help these groups (“help” is relative and might just mean getting votes in the scheme for candidacy) and represent them in government in a way that they seem fit. Most of the people I’ve read and listened to hold the position that identity politics is a negative institutional mechanism for gaining votes. They also all hold the notion that identity politics is not much different from interest groups. While it is difficult to define identity politics, it is much easier to define interest groups. Marrian-Webster’s dictionary defines interest groups as, “a group of persons having a common identifying interest that often provides a basis for action.” This definition gives us context and insight into the definition of identity politics. So from what we have seen from this definition and how other prospective authors think about it, we can interpret identity politics as interest groups with more emotion and flavor. I think this way of thinking can be justified with a comparison: someone that represents the tobacco industry is part of an interest group, but not an identity group. However, someone that is part of the LGBT community can be part of both an interest group and identity politics for their group. As can be seen, someone cannot hold the identity of the tobacco industry; it would be ridiculous to assume that someone’s grasp of reality and identity can be invested in the sale of tobacco. Or at least, the appearance of that identity is less identifiable as many prominent identities among sex, race, etc. On the other hand, being gay or transgender is something that people hold on to as an identity. Again, this is not to say that someone who is gay or transgender has to engage in identity politics; as it was stated earlier the level of investment in one’s identity can lead to how much of that identity they represent to the outside world and if they use their identity in making political decisions. So, after distinguishing from interest groups, identity politics can be defined as groups of a certain identity (as defined earlier) making decisions that benefit the people in their group and themselves.

Now that I have done my best to deduce what identity politics is, I will look at the outcomes and alternate perspectives of identity politics and see if that challenges my definition. Firstly, German Lopez from Vox has looked into the issue of identity politics and has a similar definition as I have, “Identity politics is a very vague phrase, but it generally refers to the discussion of and politicking around issues pertaining to one’s, well, identity” (Lopez). Their conclusion about the outcomes of identity politics is that people on the right use identity politics as a weapon against the left and the left uses identity politics to defend itself against the right. The author assumes that people of white identity hold beliefs about people based on race and want to keep them down politically and economically. People that are in identity groups other than whites set their agendas to defend themselves from the ideas of white identity in an attempt to protect their political and economic rights. I do not necessarily agree with this notion, but this is a perspective and interpretation of identity politics nonetheless. To sum up Vox’s opinion on identity politics, the author believes that identity politics is a negative mechanism overall, but it is necessary for leftist groups to save themselves. This particular CNN opinion piece is similar, and leaves identity politics up to the opinion of the reader, with clarifying remarks of dividing people as opposed to shared humanity. The author does not ask from America that we all think and act the same, but instead of playing with the identities and emotions that come with those identities, we instead put that aside for the actual issues and principles at hand. Standing as one against the issues that plague all Americans and acting in the best interest of advancements of human rights is better than one identity group demonizing another; retreating and retching further and further into polarity. This author also views identity politics as a negative, dividing institutional method of politicking that uses identity groups to gain votes by a candidate spewing the right polarizing words. Finally, the New Yorker piece on identity politics also gives some insight into the issue. Gopnik views the issue as a way by which candidates attempt to exploit the public by trying to use the most buzzwords and appeals to the most groups. He expresses that individual interests are much deeper than identity groups, and their interests are not always correctly defined by those groups. He also believes when candidates set up platforms and agendas they attempt to appeal to every group possible in an attempt to gain as many votes as possible, which does nothing but divide Americans. I think about it like this, instead of people simply discussing issues, with a pro and a con side, they assign identity groups to the pro and the con side since they generally disagree on the topic, even though some people within those groups agree with other groups. So what ends up happening is two groups of people from the same country are made out to be enemies over a simple issue and the candidates end up polarizing America by making citizens out to be enemies of each other. Again, this author agrees that identity politics is a negative way of candidates influencing elections to gain power. All of these perspectives line up with how I defined identity politics and shows that even when authors disagree on how they are used or why they still believe they are disrupting and dividing American politics.

How is it that we even get along? We are all different. We have different interests, views, and solutions to problems. Above all else, we all have our own story. With nearly 330 million people living under one system of governance, how do we pull it off? And furthermore, how have we done it for as long as we have? All of these questions are beyond a simple answer, but as all the perspectives and my own view, identity politics is making those questions seem more and crazier as our country polarized. We can define the term all we want; we can be scared of it and fight it, or give in to its promises of defense from other groups. In the same way that a person creates and molds their own identity and story, we also contribute to the story of our country. Identity politics is the chapter we are currently at in our political landscape, and it’s dividing the country. However, we must remember that we hold our own decisions, and those decisions will make up the American story.