Identity politics dismisses shared humanity 

By Wendy McElroy
web posted March 11, 2002

Recently the Ms Bulletin Board exploded with a crisis of "identity
politics" -- the approach that views group identity as the
foundation of political analysis and action. The fracas revealed
the absurdities of this approach.

The short version of the explosion: a prominent anti-male voice
on the BB was "outed" as being transgendered: that is, he/she
had been born male and became female with medical assistance.
Or did he/she? The ensuing mudfest revolved around whether
womanhood was biological or constructed by society. The Ms
Board splintered, with one group calling for a WBW (Woman
Born Woman) Board to exclude the WBMs (Woman Born
Man), also known as M2Fs (Male to Female).

The Ms BB offers a microcosm of what identity politics -- the
politics of exclusion and group separation -- has wrought upon
society. Within feminism, it began by claiming males could not be
feminists because they did not share women's collective
experience. Then, "anti-feminist" females were dismissed
because their social indoctrination prevented them from realizing
they were part of the collective experience. From there, the
splintering continued. White women could not speak for
minorities, heterosexuals could not understand lesbians, born-
women could not be represented by transgendered ones who
could never be understood by cross-dressers.

Identity politics is an essential part of what defines current gender
issues, race relations, and the gay/lesbian movement. It is applied
in a self-righteous manner to the pettiest of events. Consider the
case of the "double-parking mom." A scuffle broke out when
two (white) mothers became tired of a third (black) mother
habitually double-parking in front of an elementary school where
they all picked up their children. Because of the language she
hurled at the other mothers, the black woman faces two counts
of "ethnic intimidation," which carry a possible 2-year sentence.
In turn, she hurled a yet-to-be-confirmed allegation of having
miscarried due to the scuffle. Rev. Horace Sheffield -- President
of the Michigan chapter of National Action Network, the civil
rights group founded by Rev. Al Sharpton -- has publicly
declared, "These white women have literally ripped this black
child from the belly of a black woman..." The incident should
have demonstrated that both races act like idiots under the sway
of traffic rage. But identity politics sees class conflict even in
double-parking.

A key assumption of identity politics is that only someone who
lives an experience can understand it and, thus, have the right to
speak of it. A politically neutral example of this would be "only
those who have had a brain tumor can understand what it feels
like." As far as it goes, that statement is true.

But, even a healthy person knows what pain and pressure are
and, so, has a basis on which to understand what is being
described. He relates and empathizes through a common, though
not identical, experience. Moreover, what about doctors who
know more about tumors than those afflicted by them? If only
those with brain tumors have a right to speak out, should doctors
remain silent?

The parallel in feminism is that, although a man does not
experience womanhood, he nevertheless understands injustice.
He may empathize with a rape victim more deeply than many
women do. Moreover, like the doctor, men can have
perspectives on "women's issues" which are valuable precisely
because they are different. And "womanhood" is not so fragile as
to be damaged by listening to the opinions of men.

There is nothing inherently wrong with dividing people into
separate categories or classes. A class can be defined by almost
any factor -- income level, hair color, age, nationality, etc. The
factor chosen depends on the purpose of whoever is doing the
grouping. Doctors often divide men and women into different
classes: they screen women for breast cancer and men for
prostate problems. But, in doing so, doctors do not deny that
both men and women share the same fundamental biology: for
example, they have the same basic nutritional requirements.

Equally, separating men and women for political purposes --
perhaps in order to discuss an aspect of abortion -- is not a
denial of the fact that they share fundamental political interests.
Both men and women enjoy the basic human rights all people
hold in common, such as freedom of speech and of conscience.

In stressing the separateness and antagonism of groups, identity
politics dismisses the shared humanity that underlies these
secondary differences. The differences between human beings
become a source of bitter division rather than enrichment.

Yet, even on this main point, identity politics contradicts itself.
Consider: if it is true that a person must experience something in
order to speak of it, then each individual is the only person who
can speak of his own experience because everyone is unique.
But identity politics deals with collective identity. To create a
group called "woman" out of a mass of unique women, identity
politics has to argue that the commonality of shared womanhood
is more important than individual differences.

Unhindered by contradictions in my approach, I would go one
step farther. The broader category -- the shared humanity of
men and women, black and white -- is more significant than any
secondary characteristics of gender or race. We are, first and
finally, all human beings.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com. She is the author
and editor of many books and articles, including the forthcoming
anthology Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She
lives with her husband in Canada.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com