I'm conflicted about the idea of "identity politics".

[otherlander]

On the one hand, people focusing on issues that affect the groups they belong to may feel they have nothing in common with people who belong to different groups and are more affected by other issues. People with very similar or at least compatable goals might go their entire lives isolated from each other, because, for example, a union organizer might not see what their struggle has to do with the work of a GLBT rights activist, or a believer in psychiatric reform might not feel they share any goals with a feminist.

On the other hand, when people dismiss what others are saying as being "divisive identity politics", very real predjudices and power imbalances can get swept under the rug.

What do you all think?

[LisaM]

1. I think it's horrible that these groups can't help each other

It's bad enough to see the feminist movement and the civil rights movement at odds, but I'm really getting sick of GBLT getting even more marginalized than either.

How do we make identity politics inclusive, not exclusive? You got me.

[Igel]

2. You don't, by definition.

If your overriding identity is as a kazoo player, you vote for other kazoo players: their share your dominant characteristic, you're likely to primarily hang out with other kazoo players, and you'll have a common lens through which to view history.

If you view yourself primarily as a musician, not as a kazoo player, then that's your identity. You'll find things in common with flautists and lutenists. Etc., etc. But then allegiance to the kazoo is weakened, and kazoo advocates would pitch a fit, and be sure to point out grievances that kazoo players might--or "should"--have against other instrumentalists.

Identity politics is on the rise, in the sense of ethic/gender politics. Otherwise we've always had it, it's just that "identity" was primarily nation oriented for the previous 100-200 years, at least in Europe and, to a large extent, the US.