Three Arguments Against Identity Politics
It is sometimes taken as a given that the rise of contemporary identity politics is a good thing. After all, with America’s rich history of being a cultural melting pot, it’s important to remember, embrace, respect, and appreciate our various often-overlapping cultural heritages. Indeed, recognition of these various cultural and historical differences seems to be an important aspect of ensuring that the unique perspectives of historically marginalized peoples are not trodden upon by an ignorant majority—whether unintentionally or maliciously. There is, however, an ever-increasing danger that contemporary identity politics will devolve—or continue to devolve—into tribalism in a negative sense instead of mere diversity in a positive sense.
It strikes me that there are three main arguments against contemporary identity politics. My suspicion is that any argument against contemporary identity politics ultimately boils down to one of these three fundamental arguments—which themselves may simply be variations of a single theme. I will attempt to summarize each of these three arguments below but will not attempt to evaluate the strength of these arguments, leaving the evaluation of these arguments for better political minds than mine!
The Cosmopolitan Argument
The ancient philosopher Diogenes the Cynic, when asked where he came from, replied, “I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês).” For those with a cosmopolitan mindset, our universal citizenry as citizens of Earth and members of the human race should outweigh other factors that might be used to define our identity—country of origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. For cosmopolitans, we are first and foremost human beings and citizens of the world and cosmos, and only secondarily these other, more contingent qualities and identities that might serve to divide us and give as a tribalistic orientation with respect to one another.
Cosmopolitans hold that dividing up the human race into nation-states, or tribal groups of any form, detracts from our viewing ourselves as citizens of the world. In the fictional Star Trek universe, for example, despite its deep commitment to diversity and inclusiveness, a planet’s lingering nationalism is a sign that the people and government of the planet have not yet evolved to the point where they should join the galactic community—which says to me that the Star Trek universe is committed to a cosmopolitan ideal that takes priority over group identity politics or nationalism.
The Nationalist Argument
In contrast to cosmopolitanism, one might argue for the importance of nations or nation-states—and thus national identity—for a healthy global community. The latter half of the 20th century arguably taught us, even in the height of the Cold War when international tensions and the danger of nuclear war were highest, that nation-states with their robust national identities can maintain a more-or-less stable balance of power, a political equilibrium that actually promotes world safety rather than detracting from it. According to the nationalist view, our primary identity should be in terms of our national affiliations—as citizens of the United States, of Russia, of China, of Brazil, of Chile, of Iran, and so on. On this view, our primary identity as citizens of the United States should be our identity as Americans. This sense of American nationalism was perhaps expressed most clearly by Patrick Henry when he proclaimed, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.”
The nationalist argument against identity politics is, therefore, that, regardless of one’s individual ancestry, cultural background, religion, statehood, race, creed, etc., our identity as Americans should take priority over our individual and cultural identities. For much of American history, it was expected that new immigrants and citizens would do their best to culturally assimilate and to prioritize their new American identity over their previous cultural and national identities, even as numerous and varied cultural traditions became woven into the fabric of American identity itself. But, for nationalists, and specifically for those with a strong sense of American national identity, our national identities should serve to unify us as a people and should take priority over other forms of personal and cultural identity that might instead serve to divide us.
The Individualist/Existentialist Argument
The third of the three arguments against contemporary identity politics I have labeled the “individualist” or “existentialist” argument. Existentialists value individual freedom and authenticity above all else, even above any form of group identity—be it national identity, cultural identity, racial identity, sexual identity, religious identity, or otherwise. An existentialist might hold that any form of group identity serves only to impost artificial limits on our individual identity and freedom, perhaps even to the point where our individual identity is entirely subsumed under the hegemonic group identity.
While one can’t obviously deny the facticity of immutable factors like race, sex, ancestry, etc., one can choose whether to form one’s identity around these factors or to identity first and foremost as an individual—an individual who happens to be part of various groups by choice or by necessity—but primarily an individual nonetheless. Politics, then, on this individualist/existentialist view, should have less to do with a clash of group identities—whether between races or cultures or sexual identities, in some Nietzschean sense of master/slave dialectic, or in any Marxist or Neo-Marxist clash of economic and social groups—and more to do with a community of fully rational individuals who are free from the intellectual and social shackles of group identities that limit instead of promote individual freedom and authenticity.
This individualist view can be seen throughout Western culture and politics, from the pure democracy of Ancient Greece (even with all its flaws) to the arguments against faction in Federalist No. 10 (The Federalist Papers) by Alexander Hamilton. Western politics in its purest form, at least from Aristotle onward, is constituted by a community of rational individuals—not group identities, which serve not only to make us tribal but to undermine our own strong sense of self with our individual identities, our individual free will, and our individual authenticity.
