Identity Politics

Guide Rating -

Identity politics is a boogeyman of the American political landscape. Both the left and the right can be found decrying identity politics as divisive, fractious, and ultimately detrimental to a healthy and vibrant democracy. But is this evaluation justified, or is it actually based upon misperception and prejudice?

That is the question at the center of Amy Gutmann's recent book Identity and Democracy. A professor of politics and provost at Princeton University, as well as President of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, Gutmann brings a calm and reasoned voice to what is often a very vitriolic debate involving race, religion, and political philosophy.

What are identity groups? That is actually difficult to define clearly - often the lines between "identity" and "interest" groups can be very blurred. Both groups focus upon some particular cause or issue, but identity groups go a step further because their membership tends to be based upon the social markers with which people form personal identities. Markers include race, ethnicity, age, class, sexual orientation, social class, religion, and others. Sometimes these social markers are chosen, but often they are a function of our socialization and birth.

Why do some people, but especially conservatives, complain about identity groups and identity politics? Critics contend that such groups divide more than they unite because they encourage hostility between one group and another. Citizens shouldn't think of themselves as hyphenated Americans - instead of identifying themselves as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or disabled Americans, they should simply identify themselves as Americans, thus uniting with other just-plain Americans of all races, ethnicities, religions, and classes.

Critics argue that identity groups are also antithetical to basic principles of equality and justice which underlie liberal democracies. In a democracy, the basic unit is the individual - justice is delivered on an individual basis and equality is between individuals rather than groups. Identity politics, however, puts the group ahead of the individual. Indeed, the pursuit of justice for the group can often occur at the expense of justice and equality for individuals.

That is the basic case against identity politics, but it certainly isn't the whole story. For one thing, it simply isn't accurate to postulate the existence of an autonomous, atomistic individual whose politics is not substantially influenced by the groups with which they identify. Everyone belongs to varying and even shifting identity groups - the mistake of conservative (and some liberal) critics is to see the traditional identity groups of the majority as being the "standard" and the newly evolving identity groups of minorities as "interlopers" which threaten the established social order.

Indeed, those groups do pose a threat, but that threat is to the power and dominance of the traditional identity groups - white, male, and Christian, for the most part. Yes, those are identity groups and they happen to be the groups that have had the most power and influence in society. Today, though, new groups are developing and demanding a seat at the table. This is frightening for some, as are all large-scale social changes; yet denying the validity of other identity groups won't prevent those changes from occurring.

Group identities serve a number of important social purposes. They provide people with a more secure sense of self and of social belonging. They can improve a person's sense of self-image - psychological studies have demonstrated quite conclusively that a person's self-image unconsciously improves when they encounter a beautiful stranger and then are told that they share something in common with that person, even something a irrelevant as a birthday. Identity groups have also been powerful forces for resisting discrimination and overturning social prejudice by giving individuals a stronger and more cohesive voice in the larger society.

Clearly identity groups have some important things going for them - but it is also just as clear that they can create real problems. Amy Gutmann recognizes and explains both sides in this debate. She doesn't argue that either is wrong; instead, she argues that an identity group can either live up to all of the best expectations of supporters or live down to all of the worst fears of critics.

There is nothing inherently good or bad about identity groups or identity politics. Neither unrestricted praise nor unrestricted condemnation are justified. What we need to do is examine each group separately and decided on a case-by-case basis whether any particular group is beneficial or harmful to a democratic society.

And what standards should we use in such evaluations? Basically, the best identity groups for democratic culture are those which themselves promote basic democratic values of equality, freedom, and opportunity. There will always be groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, which oppose those values and which must be tolerated, but they should not be encouraged and they should not be given active support from the government.

As an example of an identity group which does live up to the appropriate ideals, Amy Gutmann regularly cites the NAACP. This organization may be organized around the interests and needs of blacks in America, but we must not ignore the fact that membership is not restricted to blacks alone and that the group makes common cause with others in matters of justice which do not necessarily relate directly to racism and discrimination against blacks.

We must conclude then that while the NAACP focuses primarily on narrow issues of justice for blacks, this is only a consequence of valuing and promoting freedom, justice, and equality for everyone. The NAACP is thus as much an example of how positive an identity group can as the KKK is an example of how negative an identity group can be.

The question of identity politics has received a great deal of attention in the media, but too often the conservation is dominated by critics who display little appreciation for the nuances and issues that are at the heart of identity groups' relationship with the larger society. Gutmann's book explores this relationship from a variety of angles, showing that there is a lot we need to learn and lot more going on than most discussions reveal.