He is the first spring flower, breaking through the heavy, cold snow.
“How are you?” softly glides into her.
Tears stop, drying to salt. 
She reaches through the phone and gives him a kiss.
A silent “thank you” replies its answer. 

The soft sounds of his breathing tickle the ears.
A missed comfort that used to not be there. 
A horrific yell booms through the phone.
“Ha! Got’em!” follows a surprised squeak.
Maybe the comfort is not always missed. 

Closing her eyes, the sound of Luis has her back in his room:
Taking a nap while he plays his video games,
Curled up with his hoodie and soft, fluffy blanket, 
Breathing the scent of warm sweat, Sonic grease, and an Old Spice 2-in-1 body wash.
Faint beating of the heart can be felt once more.

A ringtone taunts me, creeping cold where warmth used to be.
Shadowy sadness overcomes, seeping me through the bed.
Messages echoing through space cannot replace.
A missed comfort that used to not be there.
“Goodnight, Anna Kae”

Is identity politics hurting or helping America? To first answer this question one must determine what identity politics even is. Identity politics is a political belief in which people believe and favor the side that supports their race, identity, sexual orientation, culture or ethic beliefs. It is used as a way to promote ideologies, and promote public action. In today’s age, political politics is a very large, and growing debate within the United States as of right now. In the past identity politics was very helpful, as it was used to help fight against oppressed groups and helped them gain more traction and allow them to have the same rights as others. Some of these groups include the civil rights movement, the LGBTQ community, and the feminist movement, which have brought many rights to women, African Americans and those in the LGBTQ community. However, due to its nature, identity politics also divides us, this can cause difficulty between people and their beliefs that can be hard to overcome due to the fact that identity politics is centered around oneself and their being and identity.

Identity politics can be a good thing. If used in the proper manor it can be a powerful tool to gain political attention, and support from the general populace. For instance It has helped the LGBTQ community gain the right to marriage, it has helped African Americans during the civil rights movement, and help women gain equality within the workplace. However it can also cause some problems. It can create a political divide between the two sides, and not allow for debate between the sides due to the nature of the topics at stake. Another problem with Identity politics is that it can push people away. For example German Lopez says, “Democrats’ struggles to connect to the white working class have contributed to the party’s losses down the ballot” (Lopez). Identity politics has pushed other people outside of it away due to the problems that those in it focus on, creating resentment towards them. This can cause many of those not within the party to feel pushed away and creates more problems. Currently in our nation we can see this happening with Republicans and Democrats and the feeling of an “us vs. them” mentality and many people focusing on themselves rather than for the benefit of the whole nation. Both sides have problems with the us vs. them mentality and this is creating the large political divide currently in the United States. However the basis  behind identity politics is good and it is attempting to benefit many people, especially those of which  feel oppressed by many of the laws and views created by society. Identity politics attempts to end discrimination, not only in the workplace but everywhere and works towards helping to stop sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace. However it can create other problems within it. 

“The dilemma for identity politics’ proponents is that there may be no way to separate high identity politics (justice and civil rights for marginalized groups) from low (the vapid, often reactionary idiocy that demands trigger warnings and safe spaces and seeks to conquer such phantoms as ‘white privilege,’’’microaggressions,’ ‘intersectionality,’ and ‘cultural appropriation” (Rosenberg). Rosenberg claims that these do not exist, they do however there are many times that the use of them or claiming that something or someone is doing these can sometimes be absurd and unjustified. This can create a system where many people are attacked and ridiculed for things often unknown to them, creating a battle between people for often little reason at all. Because of these “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces” people often feel like their freedom of speech is being infringed upon and that they are not allowed to speak freely about topics without being attacked by others. Sometimes the person being attack isn’t allowed to say such things but the attacks can which in turn can cause more problems about what people can and cannot say based on their background. This can be seen as why many people are against the left’s identity politics, because it can be seen as a way to infringe upon people’s right of free speech when people are only trying to help and push people away from racist, sexist, and misogynistic comments, however sometimes the comments and statements people have said and have been ridiculed over can be scene as “far-fetched” and “absurd”.

But, identity politics allows for those who have been oppressed to group together with those in similar conditions due to their backgrounds and to help to allow them to have a voice against the oppression from other forces towards them. It can allow them a place to feel safe and to have a voice against the tyranny that they have felt. Identity politics can give people a way to fight against oppression and to eventually one to overcome it and gain the rights and opportunities of those who do not.

Carlos Lozada, a well renounced author and and critic stated; “Attacking identity politics for its “turn toward the self,” as Lilla does, seems less than fair when those selves have enduring reasons to feel excluded from the whole”(Lozada). Those who are attacking identity politics are people who have never had to experience oppression or problems due to their nature. This can cause people to not see eye to eye on problems and can be scene as there is no problem or the problem is insignificant to those who are not affected by the problem when the party being oppressed has a large disadvantage and has to deal with the oppression and can create many problems. This is why political identity calls for a group to form, the only way to get their message across is to get a large enough group for it to be able to gain traction and to allow for people to hear their message and for any real work against their problem to progress forward.

However, due to it’s controversy it is hard to determine whether or not identity politics is overall positive or negative to our country remains to be seen. It has created a large political divide between the left Democratic party versus the right Conservative party. As of now many do not know how long this divide will last or if it will ever go away, and how deep this divide goes. But, as for now the identity politics is a large part in our government, politics and society and should be heard for their views towards problems and taken into account for the future of our country.  The 2020 election is closing in and identity politics will no doubt play a large part in deciding how that and future elections will go and how future candidates will go about dealing with many of the issues that they have. 

 

Bibliography

Lopez, German. “The Battle over Identity Politics, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 17 Aug. 2017, www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/2/13718770/identity-politics.

Lozada, Carlos. “Identity Politics May Divide Us. But Ultimately We Can’t Unite without It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Oct. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2018/10/18/feature/identity-politics-may-divide-us-but-ultimately-we-cant-unite-without-it/.

Rosenberg, Alyssa. “The Real Danger of Political Correctness.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/07/30/the-real-danger-of-political-correctness/.

Joey Keane 

Professor Leaton

Self and Society 

4 October 2019

Identity politics can be viewed in many different ways. I see it as how people arange their views on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, culture, or really just any type of identity you can think of. The political part comes from the alliances people form with groups to promote what they believe without caring about how others may feel or think about it. I believe that people get judged off of their identity, their race, their beliefs, and your experiences in life. 

I can say that I have seen a lot of identity politics growing up. I grew up going to Christian schools where people would always talk about why other religions were bad, or why there should only be two sexualities and beliefs in that category. Throughout high school my best friend really struggled. He grew up with a terrible father figure and his parents finally divorced our junior year. He was facing a ton of questions about his religious and sexual beliefs. Senior year he finally came out to the world as gay and really took a lot of hate from it. I had to sit back and watch a friend that I completely supported, knowing that he was going through a confused point in his life, getting bullied and made fun of for how he felt and for just being himself. Not only were students being hard on him, but the school as a whole. Administration would question if he should be allowed to go to school where his beliefs and their beliefs did not line up. 

Secondly, after reading an article written by Carlos Lozada I see that tons of people struggle with similar things. People are constantly being judged by their skin color, their beliefs, where they came from, ect. In the article Carlos writes,  

     “I’m Catholic, and these days that’s hard. I’m an immigrant, though it wasn’t my   

     choice. I’m now a citizen, even if it took a few decades to commit. I’m a husband and 

     father struggling to make more time. I’m Hispanic, but perplexed by the label. I’m a

     registered independent, because it was easier than choosing. I’m a journalist, yet I 

     never wrote for the student paper. And I’m a college football fan sacked by guilt”  

     (Lozada).

Reading what Carlos has to say we really do see the wrath and truth about identity politics. We see our urge to notice people’s race, gender, background, ethnicity, or any identity is just natural for us as humans. We notice how much we really do judge people based off of their looks and why they are the person they are. We as people in a fallen world jump to conclusions when we see other people that do not look the same as us.

Thirdly, in another article about how identity politics has divided the left, they interview Rashmee Kumar and she states that, “The framework of identity reduces politics to who you are as an individual and gaining recognition as an individual, rather than your membership in a collectivity and the collective struggle against an oppressive social structure,” Haider writes. “As a result, identity politics paradoxically ends up reinforcing the very norms it set out to criticize” (Kumar). I think she does a great job of saying that the norms in our society today is to do whatever it takes to make ourselves look good in other people’s eyes. No one really cares what they have to do, but they will do anything to make sure they look good. Later in the article it says, “identity politics started with a group of black lesbian socialist feminists who recognized the need for their own autonomous politics as they confronted racism in the women’s movement, sexism in the black liberation movement, and class reductionism. Centering how economic, gender, and racial oppression materialized simultaneously in their lives was the key to their emancipatory politics. But their political work didn’t end there. The women of Combahee advocated for building coalitions in solidarity with other progressive groups in order to eradicate all oppression, while foregrounding their own.” This group of women rooted identity into people and what it meant to have a purpose and matter, and we have steered very far away from what they set into place and tried to do for our society. 

Lastly, Michelle Gao explains the reasons that he used to believe in identity politics by stating that, “ it told me: You and your experience matter. Your identity gives you authority. Your beliefs can’t be invalidated because your identity can’t be invalidated. This logical leap was empowering to take” (Gao). He believed strongly about all these things, but identity politics have changed drastically over the years. he believed that our experiences do matter, and that we can gain authority and power by what we believe in. Later in his article Michelle says, “Identity politics makes people feel better about themselves at the expense of productive discourse. A person’s lived experience should never be invalidated. But no identity makes the beliefs that someone derives from their lived experience automatically more correct” (Gao). With this being said he stopped believing in the importance of identity politics because people just use it to help  themselves and promote what they want people to believe, and make others think more highly of them. People believe that because of experiences they have gone through they can be more credible and makes them more right.

After looking at personal experiences, and different views on how identity politics has been developed and changed over time I am going to say that I lean away from it. I do not stand for people believing in something just to help them feel better about their beliefs and themselves. Yes an identity might give you authority, but does that even matter if your identity does not matter or have relevance? People need to learn to look past their own beliefs and others beliefs and just love people for who they really are. 

 

Kumar Kashmee, 27 May 2018, How Identity Politics Has Divided The Left, https://theintercept.com/2018/05/27/identity-politics-book-asad-haider/

Lozada, Carlos, 18 October 2018, Show Me Your Identification, whttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2018/10/18/feature/identity-politics-may-divide-us-but-ultimately-we-cant-unite-without-it/

Gao, Michelle, 24 January 2018, Why I Don’t Support Identity Politics Anymore, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/1/24/gao-identity-politics/

 

 

By the time I was 10, I had friends from vastly different corners of the world; the Philippines, Pakistan, and even China. By the time I walked out of high school my international connections had grown to even more places such as Sudan, Germany and the Netherlands (in fact, that is only to name a few). I grew up in an area where a lot of foreign exchange students were placed and most of my friends were a different ethnicity as me. My parents drilled it into my head from a young age that I should not dictate my perception of someone based off of biases and stereotypes, specifically before I had the opportunity to meet them. I was always exposed to individuals who did not have the same childhood, the same cultural background, the same skin color or even the same morals as I did. I always cherished learning about my newfound peer’s cultures, however the thought of ‘identity politics’ never really crossed my mind until middle school. I vividly remember watching the Ferguson riots broadcasted by our local news station and wondering what it all meant, especially because I grew up in a fairly inclusive area in which issues such as that were never really brought up. By the time high school rolled around and I started paying more attention to the news as well as posts about such issues on social media, I realized there was a lot more to identity politics than I intentionally realized, and it seemed to affect some of my friends in ways I had never thought about before. 

It did not truly hit me until coming to Truman that the diverse community I cherished growing up around was not the case everywhere. Sitting in my predominantly white classrooms really struck me, but what shocked me even more was some individual’s intolerance of different identities. I learned some of my peers grew up in areas where saying ‘the N word’ was okay and homophobia was in their daily vocabulary. It was a very rude awakening consider back home in North Kansas City most of that type of hatred was not tolerated.

Although I never knew exactly what identity politics were, I have since realized that all throughout my life I have seen them in action. From gay rights being celebrated to police brutality protests to women’s rights marches, I have always grown up around groups struggling to have their voices heard. I have honestly never really thought of myself being put into a group in that way. I guess if I was to be categorized I would be in the categories white, female, straight, and middle class. I suppose most of these groups classify me as privileged (although a case could be made about the female aspect). With that being said, the concept of identity politics read off as interesting to me simply because it is a part of my everyday life in some shape or form, yet I have never really thought of the cons of it– I essentially just assumed that it was only good.

Going through the process of researching, I realized that identity politics is actually quite a complicated topic. Everyone’s definition seems to be a little different, but they all have similar ideas in common: when people from a certain group (race, gender, sex, etc.) try to push their beliefs and views onto the policy agenda, or at least into the minds of those in political power. Using this definition, I wondered why and how some individuals could possibly view identity politics as a negative being. I figured identity politics would be seen by many people as a wonderful thing that would bring many similar yet also different types of bodies together, all rallying around for a similar cause. These thoughts lead me to do more research on individuals who have anti-identity political views, as well as why they do. 

 As I said before, I am made up of pieces that people don’t generally think of as in the minority. However, through my research I came across the term ‘white identity politics’ and wondered what exactly it was, and if I fit into the mold of it. In The Rise of White Identity Politics, author Richard Kahlenberg goes into the reality of what the ‘original identity politics’ were and its damaging effects on minorities. He starts by saying, “…It is important to remember that the original identity politics play was for whites. Long before women or people of color won the right to vote, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, a white supremacist, urged whites to rally around their racial identity.” He goes on further to quote Calhoun: “With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.” Calhoun blatantly urged white voters to vote for their race rather than their class, which Kahlenberg claims can be seen done subtly today in other politicians as well. This obviously can be very damaging to not only people of color, but also lower economic class whites who might not get the economic and financial help they needed due to voters and politicians sticking more to race rather than helping the whole.

Although this all went down in 1848, we can still see the divide today. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild points out that in surveys she conducted, three quarters of whites say “it is at least somewhat likely that ‘members of their racial group are denied jobs because employers are hiring minorities instead.’” It is suggested this could be due to the increase in minorities protesting for certain economic aspects such as higher pay. Hochschild also examined three quarters who said, “it is at least somewhat important ‘for members of their group to work together to change laws unfair to whites’”. Kahlenberg points out this is troubling because historically white have been the majority in power, and do not seem to have any obvious laws against them like the surveyed individuals claimed. He claims this causes a more ‘us versus them’ approach to the issue, further dividing our society instead of rejoining us. 

The issues Kalhberg addressed in his piece are also prevalent in a similar way in Michelle Gao’s article, Why I Don’t Support Identity Politics Anymore. Within her writing she claims that identity politics hinder conversations. Gao recalls moments from her family dinner table when she tried to have conversations about the Black Lives Matter movement only to be shut down, being told that it did not pertain to them as they were an Asian family. She remembers her family saying that, “they didn’t have any reason to oppose whiteness and support black-led movements”. They persistently tried to hammer into her that she was Asian- that was her identity, and that was the only identity she should worry about. This is problematic because much like how Kahlenberg explained, it creates an us versus them dialogue. Gao states that from her perspective, cultural differences such as race and other identities people fight for are actually dividing instead of helping unite. For an example, she claims that movements such as the Black Lives Matter movement focus too much on race when the core argument is police brutality, which affects every race in one way or another. According to her people cite “their race as the reason why everyone must listen to them, instead of trying to convince people why they must be listened to” and that people who support these movements make “sweeping generalizations about race—who can speak, who can ask questions, who can understand, who must try to understand but will never understand anyway”. Essentially she is saying people do not necessarily want to understand at the end of the day, or simply cannot fully understand.

Gao’s negative view is also carried by much of Carlos Lozada’s piece Show Me Your Identification: Identity Politics May Divide Us. But Ultimately We Can’t Unite Without It.  Lozada’s view is that, “the demand for recognition from groups united around race, gender, ethnicity or other assorted identities is a natural impulse and a praise worthy one. Yet, in its more dogmatic iterations, identity politics can stifle free speech, demonize opponents, infantile proponents and blow past proportions.” He then asks the important question,  “how can we come together on anything big when we keep slicing ourselves into smaller fractions?” This ties back into what Gao was saying about dividing too much to the point where the original reason for the division is lost within new arguments that are brought up. In fact, according to Lozada, “if the logic of identity politics is to divide us into smaller and smaller slivers, that sequence ends, inexorably, with the identity of one”.  

In a bit more extreme view, Lozada talks about author Wesley Yang’s views, such as identity politics being a “beguiling compound of insight, partial truths, circular reasoning, and dogmatism operating within a self-enclosed system of reference immunized against critique and optimized for vitality”. Although this quote is a mouthful, it does bring up good points about some of the aspects that many people against identity politics would bring up possibly. 

Although I started off not seeing anything wrong with identity politics, stories such as the ones from Kahlenberg, Gao and Lozada have shown me that this is very much a two sided matter. Lozada explained in his article, “we do not want people to care only about their own kind; we hope that elderly people will care about the effects of global warming on the next generation, straight people will care about gay rights, and white people will care about racial justice.” He believes identity politics hinder people’s ability to come together as one. I can definitely see where his point of view is coming from. It makes sense that once we divide, it is harder for us to come back together again. The point of identity politics is for specific groups problems to be heard by other groups; this cannot be the case if groups are arguing about who is right and not what is right, or rather, how to solve problems together instead of separate. 

As for Gao, although I understand where she is coming from, I don’t necessarily agree with her that race should never been taken into account within some of these arguments, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. I personally believe that while yes, a lot of situations apply to every race, some situations seem to affect some groups more than others and should be more focused on how to help that group first, then branching out to try and solve the problem for everyone. Sometimes tackling issues at the highest level and working your way down is more effective than trying to fight every battle at once. 

For Kahlenberg, towards the end of his article, he created a great point noting some possible ideas of laws that could be implemented to, “disproportionately benefit people of color without explicitly taking race into account.” Kahlenberg points out that even MLK did this when he proposed a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged rather than a bill that directly applied to one race, which would “disproportionately benefit victims of discrimination, but ‘as a simple matter of justice’ would also benefit poor whites”. This would help integrate laws that many groups are proposing, however, not putting a race label on it so everyone would feel included, thus helping wrangle more voters. Identity politics would still be somewhat at play, but in a much more low-key setting. 

Researching why people may be against identity politics turned out to be helpful with understanding how identity politics work overall. Growing up in such a diverse and inclusive community has taught me the importance of different cultures having their own identity, yet also the importance of learning and understanding each other. This research, however also taught me the importance of making sure we do not become too polar in our fight to be heard that we forget that the overall goal in the first place was to come together in a connected understanding. Between each of the authors research, I have realized that while identity politics can be good in moderation, too much ‘extremism’ can cause bigger problems in the long run.  All in all, in my opinion, helping and caring for each others issues as a group before it can get out of hand can not only strengthen us as a community, but also our perceptions of not only each other, but ourselves as well. 

 

Bibliography

Gao, Michelle. “Why I Don’t Support Identity Politics Anymore: Opinion: The Harvard Crimson.” Why I Don’t Support Identity Politics Anymore | Opinion, The Harvard Crimson, 24 Jan. 2018, www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/1/24/gao-identity-politics/.

Kahlenberg, Richard. “The Rise of White Identity Politics.” Washington Monthly, 2019, washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2019/the-rise-of-white-identity-politics/.

Lozada, Carlos. “Show Me Your Identification: Identity Politics May Divide Us. But Ultimately We Can’t Unite without It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Oct. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2018/10/18/feature/identity-politics-may-divide-us-but-ultimately-we-cant-unite-without-it/.

 

A nation is “a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country” (American). Not just a large group but a large group that is organized. Currently, the United States has multiple groups voicing out different concerns and beliefs formed through similarities, differences, experiences, and more. Identity politics is the different groups voicing their needs and thoughts in politics. I believe that groups are effective but the way we have them functioning now is not to the best of their abilities. There are people being isolated from groups, smaller groups whose voices are being drowned out by the major groups, and the groups are focusing on themselves in the group and not the country as a whole. Instead of looking at the differences, citizens should look at the similarities and work together. They should see the world as a larger picture in the long term instead of them now in the near future. Improving how groups function in the United States will improve communication between other groups and citizens, improve the nation to help its citizens effectively, and unite citizens in beliefs and leave less room for isolation or discrimination.

Not having experiences where identity politics came into my life naturally, I never pondered it much. I had not cared or placed my beliefs on the race of another person, their gender, or any other way one would identify as. That does not mean that it does not matter to me; it means the opposite. In my own opinion, people are created differently so we can help each other. Otherwise, humans would be able to prosper in separating one from society. Humans need others to survive, not only for producing, but also for emotional support, guidance, or sanity checks. We see that people thrive in communities where they work together under the same “goal” or “belief”. Everyone in that community has a job that they can perform to help the community. If humans were to be created the same and be able to perform the same task, the community would fall apart. Think of it in this way: if everyone knew how to fix their car, then people would not go to the auto shop to get their car fixed. Auto shops would not make a lot of profit and those jobs would not be needed. It is similar to society. Everyone has different talents, skills, and interests that can help the community in different ways. They can choose how they want to contribute. Then uniting those communities with a common goal will help unify the nation while utilizing the groups. In order to keep the groups working in harmony, we need to keep the end goal in mind for the entire nation. Furthermore, having the same goal in mind helps with communication between the groups and keep them on the same track together. 

Having effective communication between citizens and the government as well as among themselves is vital in a good, self-sustaining nation. Without knowing what the citizens need, the government would not know how to help its citizens. A lack of understanding and communicating the differences among ourselves damages potential relationships and partnerships. Adam Ellwanger, who is an associate professor at the University of Houston where he studies rhetoric and argumentation, said “effective communication depends on shared knowledge and values… when each person becomes a polis of his own, living by a unique set of values, we can no longer communicate with one another,” (Ellwanger). Having different cultures, beliefs, and reasoning is part of being an American, but in being American, we should look for the similarities amongst the differences. When one does not acknowledge and understanding those differences and instead, starts prematurely cutting off people believing that other people’s cultures are “weird” or “confusing,” is not being American. Discussing the differences and similarities between others is great communication. This would lead to citizens finding that they have more in common than believed as well as a common goal. This effective communication leads to a common goal among citizens and then how the nation can improve to help the citizens. 

A nation should take citizens’ needs and find a solution to them. To do this effectively, there needs to be communication as was written before. The nation also needs to become a collective and think for the good of the nation. If citizens are divided and wanted things for their advancement, there would be no progress and the citizens would not receive the help that they need. As Ellwanger explains, “a true politics unites individuals under a single identity: citizen. The first demand of authentic democratic life is: get over yourself,” (Ellwanger). Instead of having groups fight to have their needs heard and given, it would become more effective to come together. 

Groups are formed because of their identities. Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake and now a columnist for RealClearPolitics, said “by encouraging blocs of people to band together, you magnify the power of the individual as a representative of a group, but by segregating people into discrete groups, you isolate them from those who are unlike them,” (Miele). When someone does not fit this identity, they are isolated from the group. This happens on a smaller scale at schools. You see different types of “cliques” that share identities with those inside them. Usually, they deny someone entrance to the group because they do not fit inside of a category that the others do classify themselves in. When someone does not fit inside a group, they feel isolated and their thoughts and needs are not voiced well due to being drowned out by all the groups yelling out their needs. One group’s needs are not usually the same as another’s. Others have a more dire need to be focused on at the moment compared to another’s needs. But the nation would not be able to know or judge which groups’ needs are more dire than others when there is so much “fighting” for the spot. Who will be the one who gets their needs first?

Having a nation that is united under the same beliefs is important. It brings the nation together as a whole and everyone is working towards the same goal. When everyone is part of the big group, there is no isolating people because once you are an American (born or trying to become an American), you are part of the group. Aram Bakshian Jr. is a former aide to presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and now a writer for The American Conservation. His writings on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts have been widely published in the United States and abroad. In his article, Identity Politics in Wonderland, he says, “personally, I prefer ‘American’ to any of the above because it is the only identity I know that is large enough and accepting enough to accommodate all of the often contradictory subsets that go into my biological, geographical, political, and spiritual heritage,” (Bakshian). A person’s skin color, hair color, style of clothing, whether or not they believe there is a supreme being in the heavens, if they do not eat meat, who they are attracted or not attracted to, or if they do not have a complete grasp on English does not affect whether or not they are American. The whole foundation of the United States of American was a large sum of people from different backgrounds coming together to form a government that would meet their needs. There a lot of history, good or bad, but we are here now. 

America should be a place where everyone feels like they can fit in. It was made to be a place where the people’s needs were met, but now, some needs are being lost to the wind due to the intense yelling of different groups’ needs. Instead of forming groups based on similar differences from others, citizens should work together as one united whole, as one united nation. Put away one’s own advances and think about the whole. Communicate with each other to find what we as a people need and work together to complete that goal, that goal to better ourselves as a nation. I never had a lot of experience with identity politics but I have had a few experiences with groups and isolation. Identity politics should not be the main focus. They should not the way people’s voices are heard. We should come together united under one group: a citizen of the United States of America.

It can be argued that the concept that causes the most tension among humans is identity. Albeit a word that is not easily defined, simply hearing “identity” in today’s political climate creates visions of protests, backlash, and criticism. For a word that many people have difficulty coming to terms with, why is it so controversial? Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines identity as “the distinguishing character or personality of an individual” (“Identity”), which seems simple enough. However, when combining this simple idea with politics, the word takes on a whole new meaning. When considering my experience with identity politics, I am in support of others valuing who they think they are and letting it affect their political affiliations. Identity politics help shape America’s current political structure and is beneficial to the continuation of ideas of freedom, the unification of individuals, and the creation of a world that is passionate about the political system. 

America was founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my experience, identity is something that brings people joy. Having a place or people to identify with connects large groups of people and allows them to spread the light that is being themselves. According to Northeastern University professor Suzanna Walters, identity politics allows others to “assert a fundamental challenge to both white male hegemony and the relentless process of marking and unmarking that has allowed identity to be only located in those who have been actively denied citizenship and subjectivity” (Walters). Part of the reason America is considered free is the fact that we have certain natural rights that no one can take away. If identity politics were considered to be a bad thing, this means that the freedoms of happiness that we are given does not matter in the world of politics, which means that America does not value the freedom we once thought it did. Although an argument could be that basing your political choice on what you characterize yourself as instead of actual political reasons, the fact that people are allowed to choose how they are represented in our government is exactly what makes America free. Our government is by the people, for the people, and if the people decide to make political decisions on their personality and identity, it is a right they have. Senator Bernie Sanders once predicted that “One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing… is whether we go beyond identity politics. It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!” (Navarette), but even with a potential candidate referencing their diversity, it does not solely mean that the direct votes will come in from people who merely identify with what the candidate defines themselves as. As a country, we have an electoral college, and the fact that we have a representative, and not direct democracy allows for representation but also a system where educated politicians should be the ones governing us. Even back when our country was founded, the leaders of the country were worried that the common people would not make valued decisions. Today, people are more likely to know what is happening in the world with the technology at our fingertips. Our personality and values should tie into what our political decisions are. 

On top of a creation of happiness in our natural rights, identity politics allow for a unification of individuals. Some might argue that identity politics separate others, and that the entire point is to distinguish groups from one another. According to a DailyWire article, conservative analysts like Ben Shapiro say identity politics means “that we aren’t individuals who are to be judged on the basis of how we act, but are merely members of groups to be judged on the basis of our group identity. In other words, you and I as individuals with our unique experiences, thoughts and ambitions count for nothing” (Saavedra). When one considers identity, it is easy to assume that people want to keep their identity unique; no one else should share their identity. And while humans are like snowflakes and not all of us are the same, we crave a need to belong and to be accepted. Some people conform to society just so they can feel more comfortable with who they think they are supposed to be. When identity politics come into the mix, there are so many options of groups to become a part of and be unified in a common goal. Fighting for rights for your identity or pushing for laws to benefit your identity group unifies these individuals. Having a purpose, especially a shared goal with others, is incredibly beneficial for the well-being of others. In his book “Modernity and Its Discontents,” Yale University political scientist Steven B. Smith writes, “Identities are not just things we have, they define who we are. We can compromise and balance interests. We cannot so easily adjudicate our identities” (Smith). As a twin, my experience with identity has been a journey. I have always wanted to establish myself as a unique individual apart from my twin. Even when someone orders the same thing off the menu as me, I get defensive. It feels like someone is trying to take away my identity from me and make it their own. It can be a struggle to feel like your personality or characterization is similar to other people. However, when groups get together that have the same experience, be it race, gender, or economic background, it can be a relief to find others who have been through the same things. Unity in diversity is one of the strongest supports for identity politics, and I believe that it makes humanity better as a whole.

Especially when turning on the television, it can be easy to not want to be involved in politics. The world seems so dark and grim with little hope for our future. Several people may be pushed away from wanting to become involved with the state of the world, because the people in charge seem to not care about individuals. However, identity politics provides an outlet for people to become passionate about change. Part of the support is for “the newfound activism that opposes Trump’s angry rhetoric about minorities, and believes the antidote to him is to reflect the diversity of the country” (Viser & Sullivan).  Those who are against identity politics may believe that groups that are not involved or informed with politics are detrimental to politics being useful in the government, and that identity groups merely protest against everything. However, these groups show a passion and dedication for the general public that most politicians could never boast to have. Students who have had their childhood taken away from them because of the decisions of lawmakers in our country have come together to put an end to the lack of care for the citizens and their lives. Identity groups that push for legislation and minority rights are not disturbing the peace, rather, they are bringing the necessary change for the world. Some people, like Owen Mason from the Washington Examiner, might think that “each minority member must be a voice that agrees with certain views and values or they aren’t welcome” (Mason). However, identity groups want to unite around the characteristics they do share in order to bring about positive change for a more representative American collective. Politics today seems to be about shady deals, campaign finances and corruption; money seems to fuel the decisions of our lawmakers. Seeing identity groups having a passion for politics and want to make a difference is inspiring. They may not know as much about laws or the way the process works, but it is refreshing to think of a new generation involved in politics that cares not about the money but about the personalities and passions of others. 

Every person on this Earth has an identity, whether they like to admit it or not. Some people choose to conform and hide their identity from others, wishing to merely fit in. Others embrace their uniqueness and want to make sure others know that they stand out from the crowd. When groups form together sharing a common goal and background, it shows that we are different but the same. Our world today is so driven by hate for things that are different or new, but these groups show that everyone has a right to become involved and have their voice be heard. The structure of American government is made better by identity politics because it pushes the freedom we value, allows for unity in diversity, and a passionate new generation to make change for the world. I am proud to live in a world where identity is starting to take place in the political climate, and believe that change is necessary to create a better world.

Works Cited:

Fry, Madeline. “All the Lonely People, Why Do They Embrace Identity Politics?” Washington Examiner, 5 Sept. 2019, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/all-the-lonely-people-why-do-they-embrace-identity-politics.

“Identity.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity.

Lederman, Josh. “Buttigieg Calls out Democrats for Playing ‘Identity Politics’.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 12 May 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/buttigieg-calls-out-democrats-playing-identity-politics-n1004706.

Mason, Owen. “Democrats: Your Identity Politics Obsession Will Reelect Trump.” Washington Examiner, 2 Aug. 2019, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/democrats-your-identity-politics-obsession-will-reelect-trump.

McCall, Leslie, and Orloff, Ann Shola. “The Multidimensional Politics of Inequality: Taking Stock of Identity Politics in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 68, 8 Nov. 2017, pp. S34–S56. Wiley Online Library, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12316.

Navarrette, Ruben, Jr. “Who invented identity politics?” USA Today, 6 Feb. 2019, p. 05A. Gale In Context: College, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A572791416/CSIC?u=north1010&sid=CSIC&xid=4eb12f61. Accessed 24 Sept. 2019.

Saavedra, Ryan. “Stacey Abrams: ‘Identity Politics Is Exactly Who We Are And It’s Exactly How We Won’.” Daily Wire, The Daily Wire, 23 May 2019, https://www.dailywire.com/news/47611/stacey-abrams-identity-politics-exactly-who-we-are-ryan-saavedra.

Sellers, Joshua S. “ELECTION LAW AND WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS.” Fordham Law Review, vol. 87, no. 4, 1 Mar. 2019, p. 1515. Nexis Uni.

Smith, Steven B. “Modernity and Its Discontents.” Yale University Press, 2016.

Viser, Matt, and Sullivan, Sean. “Identity Politics’ Influence.” Washington Post, The, 2019 Oct. 2AD. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=wapo.e0c20ef0-2bfb-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc&site=ehost-live.

Walters, Suzanna Danuta. “In Defense of Identity Politics.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 43, no. 2, 2018, pp. 473–488.

Everything we do is identity politics. “Identity politics” is quite the loaded term, but it is hard to truly define. Part of what makes “identity politics” such a hard term to define is the fact that the word “identity” is equally hard to define. “Identity” is a word that has a different meaning to each person because, well, each person has a different identity. I am going to examine the different facets of identity in order to come up with a definition to help understand the meaning of identity politics.

“Identity” is a word that on the surface seems simple. It asks the question “who are you?” But the endless number of groups to identify with and the pressure from society to be a certain person make this a very difficult question for most people to answer. I know that if I was asked “who are you?” I would not be able to answer it without quite a bit of thought. I probably would not be able to answer it in a single sentence either. Recent politics have also brought the idea of identity into a greater light. Same-sex marriage in the United States was legalized less than five years ago, and remains a hot topic. Even in 2019 states are still passing legislation concerning legal recognition of gender identity. Because of these issues being in the political light, most people will think about sexuality and gender identity when they hear the word “identity.” Matthew Yglesias discussed in an article he wrote the widespread belief that “identity is something only women or African-Americans or perhaps LGBT people have” (Yglesias). There is definitely an association between identity and being part of a marginalized group. Some people embrace this, while others contest that demographics don’t describe who a person is and identity is deeper than that. There are so many different views on identity, so coming up with a single definition is not an easy task.

The main question I have about identity is whether it is something you choose or something that is natural about you. Some people may claim that your identity is everything about you: your appearance, personality, age, nationality, sexuality, gender, height, or anything else that is a characteristic of yourself. Others say that your identity is only what you choose it to be–that every person can decide what they identify as, and once they make the decision, that becomes their identity. These two viewpoints both have their merits, and it is hard to choose one over the other.

Identity, because it is centered on the individual and who they are, is not a decision anyone can make for someone else. At the same time, however, identity is not just personal. We all have group identities that we can’t escape. For example, if someone was born in the United States and lived there for a significant amount of time, that nation of origin is a part of them, and they cannot change this. Someone might choose not to identify as “American” because they don’t approve of what they believe America stands for and they don’t want America to represent them as a term, but is this changing the fact that they were indeed born and raised in America? No. At least some part of our identity is not controllable, but we can control what labels we use. Some people are part of a group and yet don’t identify with the label that group uses. Bryan Lowder discusses this in his article “What Was Gay,” where he talks about the word “Gay” and the connotations it brings, and how he as a homosexual man feels about it (Lowder). Is this valid? My answer is yes, because words are complex and not static, so the meaning of a single word can be impactful and different to different people.

There is another facet of identity, the way you are seen by others. No matter what you do, you can’t stop people from forming their own opinions about you based on how they view you. In the same way, you can’t stop yourself from forming opinions about others. Every person will have an idea about other people’s identity- whether or not it matches with what that person thinks about their self. Elizabeth Bowerman mentioned in an article she wrote how what other people believe about us can change our identity. For example, “Those who think that they are wise choose smart choices” (Bowerman). So, is someone’s idea about you part of your identity? I believe that it is. My reasoning for this is simple. Identity doesn’t have meaning in the context of just one person. A single person has no need for identity, because you are just you. Nothing to compare yourself to. Identity comes into play in the context of social interactions, because here is when the idea of self and who you are actually matters. Of course, people have what they consider their personal identity, but the identity that other people see is what will actually affect things.

I have come up with four different factors of identity- natural characteristics, chosen identity, labels, and how others see you. Combining these factors, I have come up with a hodge-podge definition of identity: “The impression of a person that is shown through their characteristics and the terms with which they define themselves.” This definition is an attempt to take into account both someone’s chosen identity as well as the parts of identity that are beyond their choice, such as their circumstances and the way others see them. Note that because some of the characteristics of identity are changing, an identity is not permanent, but rather is a forever changing part of a person.

Now that we have a definition for identity, how can we define identity politics? The simple way to put it is “Politics involving Identity.” What does this mean? I would argue that all politics are identity politics. Anything that involves people, involves identity, because everyone has one. Every time we communicate with someone, which we are almost always doing, we take into account everything we know about them and who they are. Suppose you are with two friends and you decide to eat out for lunch. One of them suggests a certain restaurant, but you know that the other friend isn’t doing well financially and can’t afford to eat there. You suggest going to a cheaper restaurant instead. This simple interaction is full of examples of identity affecting our decisions. You made the decision to eat at the cheaper restaurant based on your friend’s identity. While they may not want “low on money,” a temporary situation to become their identity, it can’t be stopped. Their current financial status has an effect on your perception of them, and therefore becomes part of their identity. You have based your decision on your perception of your friend’s identity, therefore exercising “identity politics” in a simple way. It is evident that everything we do is influenced by our opinions on others, or, their identity.

While there are so many different ideas as to what identity means, it can be simplified as who people think they are and who others think they are. And whatever we do, it will always be affected by the identity of others. Identity politics occurs in every level of life, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The question, then, is not will you make decisions based on identity, but rather how will you make decisions based on identity.

Works Cited:

Yglesias, Matthew. “All politics is identity politics.” Vox. 05 June 2015. Vox. 04 Oct. 2019 https://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7945119/all-politics-is-identity-politics

Lowder, J. Bryan. “I Was Born Homosexual. I Chose to Be Gay.” Slate Magazine. 12 May 2015. Slate. 04 Oct. 2019 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/can-you-be-homosexual-without-being-gay-the-future-of-cruising-drag-and-camp-in-a-post-closet-world.html

Bowerman, Elizabeth. “What Is Identity And Who Creates It?” The Odyssey Online, The Odyssey Online, 15 Oct. 2019, www.theodysseyonline.com/examining-identity

 

“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/. 

 

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.

“Identity Politics.” Wikipedia.

Hirshman, Linda. “Expanding the Circle.” What Is the Left Without Identity Politics? The Nation, 16 Dec. 2016.

Michaels, Walter Benn. “A Universe of Exploitation.” What Is the Left Without Identity Politics? The Nation, 16 Dec. 2016.

Mills, Charles W. “Whose Identity Politics?” What Is the Left Without Identity Politics? The Nation, 16 Dec. 2016.

Murphy, Carly. “Beyond the Distraction.” What Is the Left Without Identity Politics? The Nation, 16 Dec. 2016.