A perfect circle cannot exist outside the realm of mathematical studies. A human hand is unable to draw an ideal example of that shape. Yet, some constantly desire to base the political environment on the theoretical spheres modeled in a perfect, round form. We divide ourselves into clusters, each embracing different traits pre-given for all their members. The boundaries of those rings are strict and non-flexible, with many believing in the absolute delimitation of all these groups and the complete prohibition of their overlapping. One would call it polarization, another “an essential part of identity politics”.
Identity politics is a phenomenon that pushes people of a shared social value to form an individual group that would function as a political constituency. The defined feature is the most crucial part of their collective identity, which also serves as a focus point for all their preferences, interests, or choices concerning decision-making.
Therefore, political actions based on the notion of a common identity help create social movements fighting for justice on the national or global level. However, our already polarized societies converted this approach into an advantageous tool used by political elites. The concept is now increasingly used to divide people and build their hatred toward one another, so the mobilization at the polls is far more effective. Hostility towards distant groups, established around integrity, is always a stronger electoral motivation than pure sympathy for a politician.
This aspect of identity politics, however, has already long been formulated and theorized. It is a commonly known practice of “divide and rule” which focuses on manufacturing and intensifying a conflict between various groups so they do not unite against the governor. Yet, there appears to be another angle of such a political idea, one that comes from the inside. Identity politics has made people forget about the practice of critical thinking, expecting ready-made scenarios from their organization of affiliation. It may be dictated by the lack of sufficient knowledge (or laziness), but occasionally also by fear of rejection due to a different view.
In divided societies, which are becoming more and more common, staying in the middle acts as an even greater driver of exclusion than belonging to the "others". Few want to be left behind in the political race. However, forcing people into one body under the banner of specific guidelines makes it difficult for any policy to represent everyone, and, above all, favors fueling hostile relations between some and others based on "difference". Such a situation arises only on the basis of an erroneous and dangerous interpretation of the idea of identity politics by those involved in governance.
Undoubtedly, we all live in some sort of clique. Educational institutions, financial status, or even appreciation of fine arts - each little component of our daily activities could ascribe us to a certain social group. This community might be used as a coherent political constituency with a preference for one party over another. Modern politics does not follow the example of the past, focusing on cultural rather than economic issues. Therefore, there can be as many views on a given issue as there are points in the circle. That is, infinitely many. It would be both hard and frightening if all members of a given group shared the same vision on a certain affair.
Nevertheless, it seems as if we are reducing this whole immensity to just two hostile divisions. The creation of such separations builds an “us vs. them” narrative that disconnects people and gradually annihilates their ability to think critically. It is happening through the use of identity discourse that pushes an individual to accept the offered values, believing this is what they should hold on to. The absurdity comes from a fear of being excluded for holding different views from the group of unofficial structures. One chooses silence over an expression in order to avoid confrontation. Explaining your own political choices is not a violation, it proves the ability to argue for the point that is clearly understood by one if they can have their own opinion on it. However, the problem comes with misjudgment of the personal views or circumstances that led him to such a political conclusion.
The political arena is not and should never be a two-way street. The virtue of belonging to a group does not fully determine the completeness of political inclinations. Collective identity is one thing, a political event is another. The final decision is reached by interpreting these two components from an individual perspective and through one's own experiences and needs. The desire to help another person may be preceded by the need to pay one’s bills.
Seeing the (political) world schematically is one of the most immature decisions to make. By perceiving every issue as solely black or white, it becomes undemanding to overlook the myriad of other existing hues, some of which are composed of elements from these two shades. We then begin to lack points of view, which expands to a lack of empathy, imagination, and knowledge. Identity politics is a great tool for understating the needs of a given community. But the ability to construct one’s worldview, independent from any form of external pressure, is the most liberating of all human expressions. It signifies overcoming the barrier of fear of potential rejection or the mere feeling of being isolated.
Good politics should not stand for faction affiliation. It is, after all, created not only through a composition of mere events but their interpretation by individuals too. Remaining in a coherent social group is nothing wrong as long as we can accept that the political realm is a complex structure that requires one’s open mind to be comprehended. It is built upon many different shapes but none of those are perfect circles.
Comments