Dear fellow progressives,
Please, please stop using the term “identity politics” as a negative. “Identity politics” is a term adopted by conservatives (and moderate-to-right-leaning lefties) in an effort to insult the political action of women, people of color, the LGBT community, and other traditionally marginalized groups. It assumes that advocating for gender, racial or sexual orientation equality is about promoting particular “identities” as opposed to doing what white men have always done — engaging in the political system, often in a self-interested way. If you’re going to use the term “identity politics,” go for it — but own it as a good thing. We are all influenced by our identities; but since white, straight, Christian male is the default, it’s only commented on when the rest of us voice our opinions.
George W. Bush dressing up as a cowboy and appealing to “authentic” American men? “America’s Toughest Sheriff” swaggering around Arizona and making inmates wear pink underwear to emasculate them? John Kerry donning a hunting vest to prove his toughness? Not “identity politics.”
But Hillary Clinton recognizing that she’s female and perhaps that matters? Obama being black? Feminists promoting women’s rights? People of color promoting racial equality? LGBT communities challenging heteronormativity? Suddenly identity politics are ruining America and harming the elections.
Identity has always influenced elections. Identity has always been a political cornerstone. Identity has always been something candidates focused on in order to get themselves elected.
The difference is that today, those identities are more diverse. More voices are being heard, and so more identities are being catered to, spoken about and owned. But many of those voices threaten the status quo when they pipe up and say, “Hey, I count, too.” And so those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo dismiss valid arguments and interests as “identity politics” — something they would never do to the boys who want to play cowboy or perform masculinity.
Don’t adopt their frame.
“Identity politics” reminds me of “class warfare.” Mainly because conservatives only disapprove of it when those who aren’t part of privileged groups engage in it.
Terrific post, Jill, and a succinct corrective to a lot of what’s been out there this week.
And yet we still don’t hear a peep about white men being forced to choose between voting their race or voting their gender…
Fantastic post.
“Identity politics” = “Why can’t you at least pretend to be white and male?”
Brava!
I understand where you’re coming from, Jill, but your history’s a little off: “identity politics” was coined by the writers of the Combahee River Collective in “A Black Feminist Statement“:
That was 1977. It doesn’t gain too much traction until the mid ’80s, and even then, mostly in academic discussions of positionality. See, for example, Linda Alcoff’s “Cultural Feminism versus Post-structuralism” [JSTOR] and Donna Harraway’s “Situated Knowledge” [JSTOR]. (If you don’t have access to JSTOR, send me an email and I can send you the articles in .pdf format.) (Same goes for anyone interested.) This isn’t to say anyone wants to rehash those debates either, mind you …
Right, SEK, but I’m talking about the use of the term in mainstream politics and media. I understand it has a different history in academic and race/gender-conscious circles, but its use in the mainstream political scene has been generally negative, and brought up by the right in an attempt to smear non-white people and women.
I know, I just couldn’t resist the urge to be pedantic. (Or so it seems.)
As usual :-)
AMEN! Amen amen amen. That’s all I got.
“Politically correct” wasn’t invented by conservatives either, but just as Jill points out about “identity politics,” it was adopted and re-deployed as an insult by conservatives. Who are so good at reframing that they usually manage to suck a bunch of clueless liberals onto their turf too.
Huzzah! That’s all I got.
I agree with your post, and I know that what I’m about to say isn’t practical, since the press does not, generally do well with nuance – but I think that identity politics (like most) can be a good or a bad thing. Everything you wrote illustrates why it can be good. I think in it’s most simple form, though, it can be destructive. An example is that press release by Marcia Pappas of NOW-NYS, who framed an endorsement of Obama as a “betrayal” of women. I think that actually undermines what Barbara Smith and the rest of the Combahee River Collective were trying to say – that identity is not simple or unitary. By positioning it so simply, a vote for Clinton is a vote against blacks, and a vote for Obama is a vote against women. That is the kind of identity politics that I think many of us deplore. But you are certainly right to point out that it’s not the only kind, and that it’s a catchphrase used (wrongly) to bash progressives when we dare to engage with subjects such as race, gender, class, and sexuality.
Oh no, I wrote “it’s” where I meant “its!” Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo……
Also, I love that someone beat me to the Combahee River thing.
Also, I love that someone beat me to the point about identity politics being coined by the Combahee River Collective.
[...] A quick link post — Sorry for the minimal content. But Jill at Feministe, as is her wont, nails it, so just go read [...]
As usual :-)
I live to serve … and derail conversations with my earnestness. Why haven’t you banned me yet?
Also, I love that someone beat me to the point about identity politics being coined by the Combahee River Collective.
I love that you love that, but the credit rightly goes to Robin Roberts, the first person to teach me about feminist pedagogy. I went for the Star Trek but left a feminist. How’s that for UNDEMOCRATIC & DELETERIOUS LIBERAL INDOCTRINATIONTM?
(That final “TM” should’ve been superscripted.)
I’m pretty sure that another phrase for identity politics is “faction”. The idea is that when we get to a point where every group that can separate itself according to some criteria votes only in accordance with the agenda of their group, as opposed to the good of the nation, you get a situation where everyone is constantly at each others throats. Currently, all these groups can unite in their hatred of the dreaded white male, but there will come a day when even that most insidious of foes has been defeated. What then?
There’s a difference between “identity politics” and “overly simplistics notions of identity politics.” The points about voting are well-taken because some people (i.e. Marcia Pappas) do make suggestions along those lines, but it’s sort of like saying “the point of international politics is that nations all compete to see who’s the best!”
On a night before some of you were born, at 3:00 in the morning at New York City Council, we were all testifying before a committee of NYC Council to get Intro 475, the first Gay Rights Bill out of Committee. Kate Millette, Gloria Steinem and I were all at the pay phones when somebody opined that the fight was similar to ” women’s rights “. She smiled and emphatically said ” please. remember that Feminism is just a waystation on the road to Humanism. ” So let it be with ” Identity ” politics. May the time come when y’all identify as oxygen breathing humanoids. A minor, annoying species in the galactic schema.
This is a very useful and timely reminder of what really constitutes “progressive”, the usual rhetoric apart. I don’t think that the author has just attempted to garner a few votes for Hilary(being a woman) or Obama(for being Black) for that matter.
That essentially POLITICS should ultimately prevail up on the identities in question is not altered by this reminder of Jill.
Brilliant post ! THANK you.
That’s right, it’s all about hating on the White menz!!1! It has nothing to do with say, working for economic and social justice, equal rights and expectations, an end to the various double-standards that are foisted upon those of us in these dreaded “factions,” and a more consistent and just legal system for all people (not just the White menz whose fee-fees are so hurt by our efforts).
People in different groups look critically at common assumptions and cultural mythologies. If that’s hate in your world, I’d sure love to live in it.
Wait there’s a day coming soon when “the white male will be defeated?” Someone go tell the (various kinds of neo-) Marxists, they’ve been waiting for this.
Sheelzebub:
Could you please define “economic justice”? I have no clue what this concept entails. That is not meant as joke, but is serious. It always appears to be a floating abstraction at best. Given that a little calculus can bring down the “labor theory of value”, I assume you don’t mean that outdated version of economics.
I am always curious how those who promote such an abstraction plan on redistribution (if that is what “economic justice” entails), without disrupting supply. Maybe I am actually asking for some rigor here, but such terms are virtually meaningless in terms of economic reality. They may mean something in the political realm, but have little to do with the actual science of scarcity.
Oh man… I posted this in my section at Alternet, and they decided to move it up to the front page. Favorite comment so far:
…which of course isn’t actually what “identity politics” means at all. Oh the joy of being lectured by total morons!
Most leftist critiques of identity politics come from the position that political action and analysis should be more strongly class-oriented. This post in no way engages with that critique. I would recommend Adolph Reed (and his book Class Notes) as the strongest critic of identity politics in this regards:
http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1035
Katha Pollitt on Reed: “the smartest person of any race, class, or gender writing on race, class, and gender.”
…probably because I’m not talking about reasoned critiques that engage the actual meaning of “identity politics.”
There’s no reason politics rooted in a particular axis of oppression (which is basically what my understanding of a single “identity politics” is) has to necessarily be separate from or in opposition to a class-oriented analysis. In fact, I think either is impoverished and short-sighted without the other — as are single identity politics that don’t take into account other kinds of oppressions, i.e. they lack intersectional analysis. That’s usually the grounds on which a particular “identity politics” gets criticized as solipsistic.
As for economic justice, I think it’s possible (and desirable) for non-economists to conceive of a goal that relates to economics — say, greater equality of choices and possibilities for well-being, just to take one that seems to come up a lot, even though I don’t know if it’s unquestionably the best — even if the non-economists have far less of an idea of exactly how to put it into practice or what the obstacles would be. That’s where better and wider education about economics would come into play.
Bravo. U.S. politicians have used “identity politics” since the get-go — try to get someone’s vote by showing the voter how similar you are to her/him, and, thus, how you would advance her/his interests.
I would like to quote Cara, who said in another Feministe thread:
“Isn’t it funny how all of those so against identity politics tend to be white middle-class dudes? It’s almost like they share a political view that is shaped by a shared identity. WEIRD.”
The default identity doesn’t count, Cecily.
Duh.
C’mon, Jill. You know you left out the catnip for the academic pedants.
One of the bloggers being criticized (Guyer) seems to be using ‘identity politics’ to mean voting for a candidate because they share your gender or race instead of looking at their views on the issues. And it seems to me that this is at least one way that the phrase is currently being used in the media. I don’t see why that is a moronic thing to say. Can someone elaborate?
Oops I meant Geyer.
Excellent post!
NIP!
Great post, Jill!
I can see the validity of this argument, but this leads me to a question: What term *should* we use when discussing the phenomenon of a person supporting a candidate or viewpoint based solely upon their race-gender-class or other categorization? Someone above mentioned the now-infamous NOW letter, for instance.
At the moment, “factional politics” sounds pretty good… it evokes Federalist #10, which talked about that sort of thing.
Anyone bitching about identity politics can bite me. OH MY GAWD women are voting their GENDER! Black people are voting their COLOR!
Yeah, just like white men have been doing for the past 225 years. *yawn*
The critique of identity politics is not acceptable because it shows contempt for people – it supposes that oppressed groups are slavish idiots who vote JUST based on a superficial understanding of identity. The dismissive media pretend they do not understand that identity is deep, gender or race is just the starting place. We did not see masses of blacks supporting Clarance Thomas and you never see all women supporting any women.
Identity in terms of gender and race is deeper than vagina and skin color. In another post, the first post I wrote here, i talked about why i identified with Hillary and it was because she was my kind of woman – only better – someone who did the things I tried to do more successfully and still remained as true as you can, doing these things. On this blog i was pointed to an article by Erica Jong where she said much of the same thing. Gender identity was much more than simple matching vulvas.
The same goes for race. Obama is not Thomas. What is disturbing about the ridiculing of identity politics is the contemptuous disregard of what so many people feel, what their lives have been, and the hope that our own kind, when they are on point, give to us and model for us. To say this is what the KKK does is correct but the KKK do not support ANY white – they would not support Hillary. Identity is more than skin deep.
Oppressed people and poor people are voting their own interests and choosing their own kind because these candidates really do represent a response to our interest, Hurray – it is about time – when we start to vote our class interests we will move heaven and earth. Identity is deep.
But it is true that at a certain point those who have interest in common must support the winner at the convention -just as we must move in coalition whenever we have shared interest with others. That is democracy. Let us hope our role models will lead us in this very difficult democratic skill after the convention. God, knows if things do not work out for me, I am going to need leadership.
Nicely done, Jill.
We talked about this issue at Automatic Preference a while back. Here’s what I wrote:
Nezua sums it up with his glosario term Witentity Pollatix.
[...] Framing, at Feministe. On misuse of the term Identity Politics. It’s great to see an ongoing effort [...]