Thinking about identity politics: Is it mostly good, bad, neutral or variable?

What is it?

Identity politics (IP) refers to politics that is centered around identities such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, and social class. 

IP is rooted in the experiences and struggles of marginalized or excluded social groups, such as racial minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others facing systemic oppression. 

The goal is to promote greater self-determination, recognition, and political power for these groups, rather than organizing solely around traditional party affiliations or ideologies.

Identity is used as a tool to frame political claims, promote ideologies, and mobilize social and political action. This can involve appealing to a shared sense of authenticity, culture, or experience before oppression. 

One of America's original identity politics

Critics argue it can be divisive, leading to a "zero-sum competition" between different identity groups over who is the "least privileged." Some see it as undermining universal, class-based political movements.

Proponents argue identity politics centers the lived experiences of the marginalized and intersects with efforts to address systemic racial, economic, and other forms of oppression. 

The term gained prominence in the 1970s from social movements like feminism, civil rights, and LGBTQ+ activism. It has continued to evolve with new identity categories and intersectional perspectives. IP is a complex and contested concept with both proponents and critics.

Good or bad?

It seems reasonable to think that IP isn't all good or bad, but instead is variable. Instead, it probably significantly depends on major factors like (i) how the leaders and rank and file of an identity group go about politics, (ii) their policy goals, (iii) how much power the group has relative to groups who oppose it and groups neutral or sympathetic, and (iv) how people involved on both sides see the oppression or marginalization, which too is probably significantly or mostly contested. 

Lots of identities in that mess

Can it be weaponized?

Seems to me that IP already is weaponized. It is a key part of our polarized politics and all the demagoguery and dark free speech we are awash in. 

Various groups who now claim victimhood for past wrongs are facing major blowback from America's authoritarian radical right and some others. American demagogic authoritarian elites have figured out how to play the victim card themselves and taught their rank and file to feel the victimhood burn. Christian nationalists now claim severe persecution from alleged evil Democrats and pedophile socialists and existential threat from secularism, non-white minorities, women's rights and the allegedly threatening, evil LGBQT community. TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) elites (and some others) howl in moral outrage about discrimination against White people persecuted by the horrors of affirmative action and identity politics. 

Weaponized White identity politics

Fear of the Great Replacement? 

One criticism of IP is that it amounts to a form of divide and conquer that constitutes a net detriment to society. Wikipedia comments: 

Those who criticize identity politics from the right see it as inherently collectivist (giving the group priority over each individual in it) and prejudicial .... Right-wing activist Jordan Peterson criticized identity politics and argues that it is practiced on both sides of the political divide: "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride". He considers both equally dangerous, saying that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility.

Those who criticize identity politics from the left, such as Marxists and Marxist–Leninists, see identity politics as a version of bourgeois nationalism, i.e. as a divide and conquer strategy by the ruling classes to divide people by nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. so as to distract the working class from uniting for the purpose of class struggle and proletarian revolution.

From what I can tell, many or maybe most people are involved in some form of identity politics, with our without significant oppression or exclusion in the mix. 

Vox: Steve Bannon thinks identity politics are great for President Donald Trump. That’s what the president’s adviser told Robert Kuttner over at the American Prospect. “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

Does it have to be a zero sum game?

That's not obvious. Maybe at least sometimes to at least some extent, depending on how one defines the concept and analyzes it. For affirmative action and getting into competitive schools, some excluded White and Asian applicants feel unfairly discriminated against. Some feel they were used to make room for a less qualified affirmative action candidate. which is to their own detriment. That can feel like being on the losing side of zero sum to the people who got stung. But is detriment the case for society as a whole? Maybe the good in responding to IP to the benefit of a marginalized group at least sometimes has a social benefit(s) that outweighs individual detriments. 

Zero sum or not, given the human condition, IP is arguably often necessary for marginalized or oppressed groups to work collectively to come closer to equality for the group. In general, brass knuckles capitalist plutocrats, libertarians, authoritarian demagogues and maybe a lot of average people will howl in moral outrage at the evil of collectivism that puts a group above its and individuals generally. But maybe it isn't a moral outrage if that is the means necessary for better equality and better society. 

If IP improves the condition of a marginalized group, that improvement arguably benefits society more than it harms society in at least two ways. First, the group benefits from less marginalization and fairer treatment. Second, it shifts power from authoritarians to the democracy and people generally. If people and groups in power have the power to treat discriminate against and dehumanize targeted groups, that power can be turned against anyone or group by elite leadership of in-power groups (or ideologies like brass knuckles capitalism or Christian nationalism).

In essence, IP boils down to being another aspect of the endless war for power and wealth among people and groups of people. IP can be conducted in good will and good faith, or it can be corrupted and morally rotted like anything else in politics. So, IP can be mostly good, mostly bad, mostly neutral or variable, depending on the group, its tactics and its goals.