“Identity politics”. Those two words are often repeated as a self-justifying dismissal of any politics or political idea that is based upon a persons religion, gender or ethnicity.
To Australia’s most conservative mainstream media source Sky News, identity politics are ‘poison’ to be avoided. Ex-pm Scott Morrison has no problem denouncing identity politics, all while the political left accuse him of it . These opponents of identity politics will claim that the only acceptable basis for politics in the 21st century are ‘ideas’ - their ideas to be specific.
Considering the lengths our politicians will go to duck and dive to avoid accusations of ‘identity politics’ and the accusatory way our media class use the label, it may come as a surprise to hear the National Observer defend this much maligned category of politics, but that is exactly what article aims to do. The National Observer presents: A Defence of Identity Politics.
One common reason often given to oppose identity politics on the basis of something such as ‘race’ or ‘gender’ is that an individual cannot change their ‘race’ or ‘gender’ and as such, creating legislation around such attributes is exclusionary and unfair. I believe this is one of the strongest arguments in favour of identity politics.
What is the basis for a nation if not history, culture or nationality? The answer usually given is ‘ideas’.
The concept that a nation can be based on an idea is nice in theory as it does not fly in the face of the liberal ideological tenant that all humans are born identical and as such ‘equal’. Needless to say, all humans are not identical, they are not equal and as such have distinct traits that any sensible politics should acknowledge. One manifestation of the ludicrous belief that all humans are identical is the proliferation of trans ideology.
But why are ‘ideas’ such a terrible basis for a nation? Well, what if a citizen of a theoretical nation built upon an idea, disagrees with the idea? Unless expulsion from the nation results, this theoretical nation will soon find itself crumbling as its citizens ideas begin to diverge. If we seek to build a strong, lasting and stable nation we must strive for unity and as such ideas cannot be the nations foundation. Rather, we must look to a stronger basis - identity.
In a Nation with citizens of a homogenous ethnicity, even if one citizen were to disagree with another on an idea there is still an inescapable baseline unity present, an unshakable biological similarity - ethnicity.
Another ‘identity’ which binds a nation better than ideas is religion. A religion such as Christianity runs deeper than ideas, requiring a creed and active practice - as well as possessing a governing body to make decisions regarding differences in theology. This unifying power of Christianity was possibly what drew Roman Emperor Constantine to the idea of proliferating it throughout the roman empire.
Considering these two titans of identity: ethnicity and religion, have time and time again throughout history proven themselves to be some of the strongest motivating factors in both domestic and international politics, what gives the opponents of identity politics the idea that any single idea, or set of ideas could unite a nation in a stronger fashion than these tried and tested forces? What will happen when our theoretical nation built upon ideas comes into conflict with an enemy nation bound and motivated by the primordial forces of ethnic and religious identity?
This is not to say division cannot occur within a religion or ethnicity - this is obviously not the case. However, I think history shows that the faultline of ideology is much weaker and much more fickle than any fault lines that might run through a given ethnicity or religion.
If we seek to create a strong, lasting and stable nation we must establish unity. Identity such as religious affiliation and ethnicity have consistantly proven themselves to be some of the strongest unifying forces throughout history and in this article I have demonstrated they are far stronger than the alternative concept of a nation united by ‘ideas’ often proposed by the opponents of identity politics.
If you have reached the end of this defence and still are not convinced of the legitimacy of identity politics. I would challenge the reader to name a single society based upon an idea or set of ideas that stood for any significant period of time, because I can name plenty based upon so called identity politics that outlasted them.