A year ago, in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Colorado Politics published a Point/Counterpoint article about identity politics and the Democratic Party.  The authors were attempting to make sense of the Democrats’  electoral losses in 2016, and identity politics were a prime suspect.  Lynne Bliss argued that Republicans baited Democrats into focusing on identity politics, with Trump using white identity as a wedge issue and forcing the Democrats to respond.  Summer Westerbur argued that identity politics are really about civil rights, and what unites different identity groups (e.g. Black Lives Matter, feminists, gay-rights groups, etc.) is a concern with protecting civil rights for those who are most oppressed.

Now that the proverbial dust has settled on Trump’s victory, it is a good time to reflect on what identity politics are all about.  A couple of important points were missed in last year’s article: First, it is not merely a radical movement operating on the political fringes, to be manipulated by the two major parties.  Second, identity politics are not about civil rights, at least not anymore.

The term identity politics refers broadly to the political struggles of various groups.  Minorities seek public recognition and protection of their ethnicities, traditions, languages and cultures.  Feminists, gays, lesbians, and transgender groups demand equality and recognition for their identity-related differences. These struggles are becoming more and more prevalent in multi-cultural societies, and are, for the members of these groups, much more important than party politics.  Moreover, the language of identity politics is ubiquitous on college campuses nationwide; it is perhaps the dominant ideology on the campuses of our elite universities.

The goals of identity groups, from ethnic groups to feminists, were largely consistent with the goals of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century.  The concern was to extend basic liberal rights to all members of society.  But the goals of identity groups began to change, a change that coincided with what is often called the “second wave” of feminism.  The goal was no longer to claim rights, but to gain “recognition.”  It is important to understand what this means, and how it shapes these groups’ approach to politics.

…(T)he very real issues of identity politics are better suited not for the political arena, but for the arena of culture.

Recognition of identity is not a simple matter of categorizing individuals into groups.  Identities are not fixed categories at all, but rather social constructions. We are who we are in relation to others; our identity is a result of social interactions.  Not only that, our identity is shaped by recognition, or a lack of it.  If others do not recognize us as we are, or misrecognize us, we can suffer real damage.  Ignoring identity, or getting it wrong, is not just disrespectful, it can cause real harm to its victims as they develop a negative self-image that is not of their choosing.  Non-recognition or misrecognition are forms of oppression, and oppressed groups have a right to demand they be recognized properly.  For those who have been following the numerous campus identity protests over the last couple of years, the word demand should be familiar.  Student protestors typically make a list of demands on administrators, faculty, and the greater student body.  The fact that students feel justified levying such demands seems incredible to those unaware of the themes of identity politics, but for these protesters it makes perfect sense: they are demanding to be recognized.

The point I want to make here is that this affects a person’s approach to politics.  Identity politics greatly expand the role of “politics” in our lives, to the extent that the way we think and feel about ourselves is a political matter.  This is reflected in the slogan of second wave feminism: “the personal is political.”  With this sort of attitude, there is virtually no limit to the number or type of issues to be worked out politically.  Furthermore, it seems overly optimistic to expect much success in working out a great number of these issues, where a live-and-let-live political philosophy might work better.

Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that the very real issues of identity politics are better suited not for the political arena, but for the arena of culture.  For example, Hollywood has seen the Academy Awards criticized in recent years for not recognizing the achievements of minorities.  Minority groups have spoken out, calling Hollywood to account for this lack of recognition, and with some success.  If identity groups want to organize around the goal of more recognition for their artistic achievements, I say more power to them.  They are free to speak out for themselves on cultural matters, increasing the acceptance of their traditions, languages, sexual preferences, etc., within the American cultural milieu.  But, our political debates should be about rights, not about recognition.  The only way to ensure freedom for all is to guarantee rights for each and every individual.  The moment we make politics about recognizing identity – about treating individuals and groups differently politically and legally – we risk undermining the liberal framework of rights that have made our country so successful and free.  Let the cultural battles for recognition in our diverse society flame on, but let’s keep our debates surrounding our political constitution and legal framework focused on the liberal rights that we all share.