It’s been dubbed the “most urgent issue of our time” because it’s shaping what we say, who we vote for and what our future will look like.
All the “big issues” and the “smaller issues” of our time such as – climate change, race, sex and gender equality, democracy, the global economy, immigration, job security, whether or not your child studies religion at a state school – are, according to critics and defenders – being first shaped, stalled or moved by the framework of identity politics.
So what do these two words mean when they sit side-by-side?
The Oxford Dictionary defines Identity Politics as: A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
What that means is that political and social positions are taken due to your identity. For example your ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual identity. And usually these groups are minority groups – they are not what is considered the dominate, privileged identity in society: the white straight male.
Feminism, civil rights movement, gay rights are all about identity informing political positions and activism. In a practice that means, for example, feminists who subscribe to identity politics will more likely vote for female candidates and those who are campaigning on issues concerning gender equality.
As Vox explains: “All the social issues you may have heard of in the past several years — same-sex marriage, police shootings of unarmed black men, trans people in bathrooms, the fluidity of gender, discussions about rape culture, campus battles about safe spaces and trigger warnings — are typically the kinds of issues people mean when they refer to identity politics.”
Social activism is not the only reason you would have heard of identity politics. It has been widely discussed in the media, politics and bandied about in opinion pieces because, largely, the left and right have opposing views on what it means and what it is doing to society.
Listen to Mia Freedman talk to conservative columnist Miranda Devine about Identity Politics.
Conservatives believe it is political correctness gone too far, promotes false grievances and divides people rather than unites them. That issues like racism in the justice system and same sex marriage are distractions from the main game: for example the threat of global recession, the widening income gap and job security. That “you can’t say anything about anything if you are a white straight male. The most marginalised group wins.”
The left argue, we are our identity and until we address the inherent discrimination and hierarchy in these identities, getting on the same page is impossible. The personal is the political, even if the political is about saving jobs for everybody. Just “who is the everybody?”
Identity politics maybe two medium sized words, but getting your head around what it really means can be complicated.
Top Comments
Identity politics in 2017 is reheated Marxism. It simply replaces the dynamic of the economic oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie with different 'oppressive power relationships', with the white male permanently placed as the demonic oppressor at the top of the tree, and you pit people against each other along racial, gender or sexual lines. Collectivist blame is totally fine in the world of identity politics. What individuals say or do isn't relevant, you have to judge their worth based on their belonging to a particular group, and whether they are oppressed enough to be allowed a voice, a job, or even respect. So a black lesbian with diabetes should always be heard first over someone else, regardless of their individual talents or insight. It's dangerous, idiotic drivel. Collectivist outlooks ended in genocide under communism. 100 million dead for belonging to the oppressor classes, or for having the wrong opinion.
Well, white males are still at the top of the tree.
It's not the point that many white males are at the top of the tree. Many aren't. Many other groups - especially middle and upper class white women - are vasty more powerful than a lot of men. The point is that collectivism is a garbage way of looking at the world and of looking at problems. It strips up of our individual value.
But pollies and corporations don't take any notice of individuals. Numbers talk to them, specifically numbers of voters/consumers.
Rather that bringing people together it aims to divide them and can be quite ironic when targeting sexism or racism while aiming at a certain gender or race.