Identity Politics and the Role it Plays in Cultural Divides - Umer
In "Whiteness As Property," Harris makes the case for viewing what is typically characterized as "white privilege" as property, the same way that one might view membership to an exclusive club. However, I believe that there is this idea that underpins her argument, which I might call identity politics, that provides perhaps the most important takeaways, at least for my understanding of the lessons we can learn from Harris' writing.
Early on, Harris identifies this implicitly when outlining the commonalities between whiteness and property, stating that both fundamentally involve the "right to exclude." (Harris 1714) Later, when enumerating the property functions of whiteness, Harris specifically singles out "The Absolute Right to Exclude" (Harris 1736) as its own category. This "right" of exclusion is crucial because it ensures the "purity" of the group that enjoys the benefits of whiteness.
The distinguishing characteristic of "whiteness" versus most other identity affiliations is that those enjoying the benefits of whiteness have been able to maintain their exclusivity through legislation. As noted by Harris, whiteness and the interests of white people has historically been protected legally by courts and law enforcement. Thus, whiteness has been able to maintain its status as the most valuable form of property, at least with regards to identity.
While there is certainly an interesting argument to be made regarding whether this the fault lies in the design or the application of the law in contemporary contexts, I found myself drawn to this underlying idea of identity politics; the narrative of "us versus them," that we cannot seem to shake (Harris sometimes refers to this as "racial otherness" (Harris 1717) or "polar constructs" (Harris 1718)). Culturally, at least, this seems to dominate modern discussions. I would posit that all groups tend to engage in identity politics to some degree, whether that be the left or the right, women or men, etcetera. No matter the group it favors or the group engaging in it, however, I would also argue that playing identity politics is harmful in all contexts, and has a net detrimental effect with respect to advancing towards a truly equal society.
At its core, identity politics is nothing more than tribalism. It was tribalism during the time of the founding fathers when African slaves were treated as subhuman, and it was still tribalism when Erica Mines asked white supporters at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2016 to move to the back because "This is a black and brown resistance march." (https://www.npr.org/2016/07/27/487665677/protests-galore-in-the-streets-of-philly-heres-what-theyre-all-about) Are these two examples even in the same realm when it comes to the damage they caused? Of course not. However, the point stands that engaging in identity politics at all levels only serves to deepen divides by perpetuating the "us versus them" narrative. Positioning identity as the primary lens to frame issues can turn societal progression into a zero-sum game. This unnecessarily pits the interests of groups against each other, which need not be the case.
Consider this post in The American Conservative, wherein a white male who doesn't identify with the politics of the right in any way still finds it to exert a pull over him because of how much he has been demonized for his race and gender alone: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/creating-the-white-tribe/
Now, identity politics doesn't just hurt white people, but it is important to recognize how it can create divides and further alienate innocent individuals. Here is an example of how it can hurt minorities just as much (from testimony given by black American writer Coleman Hughes, who was villainized for daring to speak out against reparations): https://quillette.com/2019/06/20/my-testimony-to-congress-on-reparations/
Ultimately, the point is that we find ourselves in an increasingly polarized climate, which we are all too willing to comment on ad nauseam, but identity politics, which fuels further polarization, seems to remain acceptable, and even preferred, as a method of public discourse. It was identity politics that caused the subjugation of minorities in the first place; rectifying that cannot be based on the same principle. Personally, I am excited to read Rawls, because I think the veil of ignorance is one way that we might seek to rectify societal injustices (or more simply, taking a "colorblind" or "genderblind" approach).
I would love to hear thoughts on if I got any of this right, or if I'm being too cynical.
Hi Umer,
ReplyDeleteI think you raise some important questions in your blog post regarding how we treat identity in modern-day political discourse. I agree that assigning people to particular political affiliations based on certain racial or gender identities can be harmful, and serves to further polarize us. However, I want to push back on the idea that taking a “colorblind” or “genderblind” approach to politics is the appropriate way to rectify societal injustices.
I think there are instances when it is acceptable, or necessary, to consider the interests of different identity groups when we talk about politics. Take the example you brought up of the white supporters being asked to move to the back of a Black Lives Matter Protest. I would agree that this move by Erica Mines may not have been strategic, as it served to polarize a movement that benefited from unity. However, I wonder if the issue with this move was not Mine’s recognition of the different experiences of people of color vs. white people, but the way that people construed her recognition. You say that tribalism “primarily pits the interests of groups against each other.” What were the white protesters’ interests in this scenario? If their interests were to support the BLM movement, then moving to the back of the pack shouldn’t really have been contrary to their interests. In fact, moving to the back of the protest might have helped elevate Black/brown voices, which would be pro-their-interests. However, if white supporters’ interests were recognition, or feeling positive about their societal contributions, then moving to the back of the protest would be contrary to their interests. My point is that maybe the issue with tribalism, as it exists today, isn’t the recognition of the different experiences of certain identity groups. Instead, I think the issue lies in the assumption that different experiences have to mean different interests. So, in the context of the BLM protest case, maybe it wasn’t tribalism at its core that was wrong (Erica Mines calling out that white people of different societal experiences that people of color) but instead how we reacted as a society to that call-out (feeling like it was pitting white people and Black/brown people against each other). This is a long-winded way of saying that I think it is okay for us to recognize identity in modern political discourse, and that polarization occurs because of our reaction to that recognition, not because of the recognition itself.
I admit that this distinction is, in reality, mostly theoretical. When we recognize the different experiences of different identity groups, people will inevitably feel like their own interests/experiences are being minimized. However, I think it is an important distinction to recognize, because it helps us understand the roots of much of our polarization. I agree fully that an “us vs. them” narrative is very harmful, and that its perpetuation won’t facilitate the rectification of injustice. However, I don’t think that recognition of whiteness, or Blackness, or gender, etc., is the issue. I think we need to change how we respond to an understanding of our different privileges and experiences.