Chasm of Isms: Pluralism and the “Threat” of Identity Politics

PART I

Note to reader: the title of this piece is intentionally and necessarily long-winded. While it may appear like mere pretentious intellectualism, this is quite simply the most practical solution to questions that have pestered me as I’ve been preparing to write this piece. After all, how can anyone address pluralism and identity politics without casting a very wide, perhaps too wide, net? And yet, aren’t pluralism and identity politics so inherently and intrinsically connected that it is impossible to address one without the other? By the same token, aren’t pluralism and identity politics also inherently at odds with one another? Yes. And Yes. And so we have a paradox—an irresistible challenge for anyone who, like me, enjoys making sense out of the seemingly nonsensical.

Since I can’t claim to be an expert in everything that would need to be addressed here, this piece will be broken down into more manageable pieces that will allow me the time for research. I’ll begin with an overview of why and how identity politics is a threat to pluralism. Please note that the underlying assumption throughout this piece is that both pluralism and cultural identity are assets that should be valued and protected. You can’t have one without the other.

I will then attempt to identify the current threats posed to pluralism as a result of identity politics or of movements that, by design or by default, have embraced a dominant culture paradigm. In particular, I will focus on the dominant culture (read Eurocentric) identity politics embedded in the feminist movement, the reproductive rights movement, the LGBTQ movement and the environmental movement.

I will also address how identity politics has inhibited the progress of people of color movements—namely, the immigrant rights movement.

Finally, I will make a case for the framing of this piece—for why, even though they appear to be inseparable, I value pluralism more than I do cultural identity. I will also conclude with some action steps for how we can promote and, where they actually exist, promote pluralistic societies that value cultural identities.

What is pluralism?

It might be helpful to clarify what I mean when I talk about pluralism and identity politics. The following definitions of the word “pluralism,” come from an obvious and popular reference site, Dictionary.com. Taken together, these definitions encompass my understanding of the term pluralism.

pluralism

n.

1. The condition of being multiple or plural.
2. 1. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.
   2. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial.
   3. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
   4. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
3. Ecclesiastical The holding by one person of two or more positions or offices, especially two or more ecclesiastical benefices, at the same time.
4. Philosophy
   1. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
   2. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.

Note that I include the ecclesiastical definition since I think it begins to capture the experience of women of color and other people who have multiple identities.

What do I mean by multiple identities?

The tem “identity” is particularly useful here. Since so much of our identity is socially constructed—race and gender—it makes sense that part of our identity is that with which we actually identify. This is not to say that identity is always a choice. In fact, for those who exist outside of the dominant culture, it is rarely so. It is those who exist within the dominant culture who have the luxury of exercising their identity or a particular facet of their identity—white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or “American”—when it is convenient. All queer people and all people of color are marginalized in this paradigm.

The reality is that some people live their identities while others rarely acknowledge certain aspects of their identity. The phenomenon known as “passing” is especially relevant here. Those who can “pass” as white or straight or Christian are often afforded certain privileges that are denied to those who cannot pass. Passing requires an individual to deny certain aspects of her or his identity. The benefits are fairly concrete and are usually social and economic.

In the United States, due in large part to the right’s success in defining who is an American (see “The Obama Step-Aunt/Immigration Wedge”), to be white is to be normal. Most white people rarely remember that they are white until the discussion, which rarely happens, is about race—that is, until they are forced to or until it is convenient to identify oneself as actually having a race…usually for the purpose of downplaying the importance of race. In the context of a society that promotes whiteness as the standard and the crown, it isn’t difficult to understand why a black person who “looks white” might pass as white.

(Note: Blackness in the United States has historically been defined by the “one-drop rule.” For the “colorblind,” postmodern liberals who would like to think of themselves as being the generation that has transcended race, this is why Barack Obama is black. I personally disagree with the school of thought that says that once someone has become successful, she or he sheds her or his blackness at the pearly white gates of the ivory tower.)

So what I am concerned with here is the lived identity—those aspects of identity with which we are faced, or forced to face, every day. I am concerned with the experiences of those who find themselves up against a white wall—literally, in the case of some immigrants—with little room to move or grow, without mobility.

What do people generally mean when they say identity politics?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The laden phrase “identity politics” has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

TO BE CONTINUED…

Advertisement