The ascendancy of Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism in the US during the 1960s and 1970s dramatically changed the Democrat party from being essentially racist, pro-union and pro-big government, to supporting Identity Politics, while remaining pro-big government. The identity politics focused on the various so-called “oppressed” groups, with the stipulation that all members of each group toe-the-line and support the “party line”. The identity politics thus also became exclusionary, with so-called “oppressor” groups such as White men and Christians unprotected. In the case of Feminism the class warfare assumed the role of opposition to and demonization of “the patriarchy”.
Identity politics essentially belongs to the collectivist “grand narrative” based upon Marxism, and it is in opposition to the grand narrative of the West, which is based upon the individual. Psychology professor Jordan Peterson raises the question as to which narrative should be paramount:
In the west, we have reasonably functional, reasonably free, remarkedly productive, stable hierarchies that are open to consideration of the dispossessed that hierarchies generally create. Our societies are freer and functioning more effectively than any societies anywhere else in the world, and that any societies ever have,….because the fundamental low resolution grand narrative of the west is oriented about the sovereignty of the individual; that all things considered, the best way for me to interact with someone else is individual to individual, and to react to that person as if we’re both part of the process by which things we don’t understand can yet be explored, and by things that are not properly organized in our society can be yet set right.
Thus, Peterson clearly supports the narrative focused on the individual.
Collectivism and Tribalism
Alternative terms for identity politics include “collectivism” (focusing on ideology) and “tribalism” (focusing on behavior).
Peterson expresses deep concerns about the collectivist narrative (i.e., identity politics):
But the collectivist narrative that I regard as politically correct is a strange pastiche of Postmodernism and neo-Marxism, and its fundamental claim is that, no, you’re not essentially an individual, you’re essentially a member of a group. And that group might be your ethnicity, and it might be your sex, it might be your race, it might be any of the endless numbers of other potential groups that you belong to, because you belong to many of them. And that you should be essentially categorized along with those who are like you on the dimension in that group. That’s proposition #1.
Proposition #2 is that the proper way to view the world is as a battleground between groups of different power. So, you define the groups first, and then you assume that you view the individual from the group context; you view the battle between the groups from the group context, and you view history itself as a consequence of nothing but the power maneuvers between different groups. That eliminates any consideration of the individual at a very fundamental level. And also, any idea, for example, of free speech, because if you’re a collectivist at heart in this manner, there is no such thing as free speech.
The collectivist activists of identity politics thus justify shutting down conservative speakers because they don’t believe in dialogue. They believe that logic itself is a tool of the non-collectivist to obtain and retain power. There’s no objective truth, no value structures; just power.
Identity politics can also be viewed from the concept of tribalism. In reality, people move from infancy to first of all having a relationship with their parents, and then becoming socialized into a tribe (or tribes) as they mature. However, the responsible person then achieves individuality apart from the tribe(s). It doesn’t necessarily that they leave a tribe, but that they think for themselves, and yet know when and how to be a “team player.” And in a healthy situation, they as an individual may need to help modify the tribe, when the tribe’s direction becomes corrupted in some fashion.
Unfortunately, in the case of identity politics, many in a particular group or tribe never achieve individuality and are totally “under the spell” of the group. That means, sadly, that “responsibility” is not a factor for that person, because the tribe is in control, and not the person.
And note that tribalism isn’t entirely learned behavior; it finds expression even in the animal kingdom. For example, the research on chimpanzees of Dame Jane Goodall in the 1970s revealed significant tribal behavior. Chimpanzees will patrol the borders of their territory, and if they encounter a chimpanzee from another tribe, they will attack it, and tear it to shreds. In general, tribal behavior among humans is a recipe for division, conflict, and mayhem.
Identity Politics and Intersectionality
In addition to collectivism and tribalism, there is another, more complex version of identity politics, which is called “intersectionality”. It results in the creation of combination identity groups out of the primary groups such as gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc. With intersectionality, an Asian, female, lesbian Muslim, and an Asian, female, lesbian, non-Muslim constitute two separate identity groups. If you add body size distinctions, then those two groups are further subdivided into overweight, non-overweight, and near anorexic groups, and those could be further subdivided into those that speak English, and those that don’t; etc. Intersectionality is what has created the growing array of non-binary Transgender “genders”, up to 70+ by the end of 2016, each with its unique set of preferred pronouns, and discrimination grievances.
Critique: First of all, Identity Politics is a vast oversimplification of reality. Should all Blacks – regardless of status in life – be expected and shamed into supporting the party line? Should all women view “the patriarchy” as evil? In fact, should ANY women hold that view?? Should all Gays support Leftist policies? The answer of course is in each case is “no”. But the Left NEEDS uniformity of thought within each victim group to retain power, but not to undo the supposed oppression. In fact, to actually solve problems is to lose the need for the group identity, and thus to lose the political power the Left gains from it.
Further, a major problem with Identity Politics is the assumption that people in victim groups are without power because they are oppressed by those in the privileged groups. In other words, a univariate model, only one cause for their powerlessness. But real life – outside of ideology – is multivariate; there are many factors contributing to a person being disadvantaged or powerless. Identity Politics does not permit the concept of “responsibility” to be applied to the victim group. The elites of the ideology define a mother-infant model, where the “victim” is always innocent and blameless. This view is devastating for so-called victim groups, because it disallows both overt and self-criticism. And the corresponding lack of accountability ensures continuance of existing cultural pathologies, which impacts not only those victim groups, but the entire society in which they exist.
Intersectionality is really about power, and not any realistic sense of justice; how can one possibly calculate AT THE GROUP LEVEL who is most oppressed?? Is a man who is 1/4th Black and 50% Hispanic, with a disabled 2-year old child more – or less – oppressed than a 100% Native American woman with a prodigy child and an alcoholic grandfather? Because one of those two is more privileged than the other, and thus actually oppresses the other with their privilege, according to this reprehensible ideology. Whomever that is will need to confess their privilege to the other, and then advocate for their victim status, in order to achieve coveted Postmodern innocence. Try to build a cohesive society on that kind of paradigm!
Finally, both classical and neo-Marxism are based on groups or classes; Christianity is based upon the individual: individual freedom, individual responsibility. The distinction is profound, and the ascendancy of Marxism – classical or cultural — is always accompanied by a loss in freedom. Only individuals are oppressed; not groups. Note that Christianity cuts across all “group” lines:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
This true, unenforced diversity can be seen in numerous churches which are situated in communities containing a multitude of cultural and ethnic groups.
Note: For more information of the origins of identity politics and the underlying ideology, see the Postmodernism page.