Why debate and discussion has shifted towards identity politics - Emma Gilland

The concept of identity politics can fail to acknowledge the importance a sense of self has had in forming the basis of liberal politics throughout the 20th century. Yet, as the so-called ‘millennial generation’ are escaping their age of political disengagement, coinciding with the rise of Generation Z’s ‘political activism’ on social media, it is clear that the way in which younger generations are connecting to debate and discussion has changed. Due to the failure of the government to connect with the youngest section of the electorate, this means there is a need for a separate connection through an over-emotionalisation of ideas and movements.

Despite the use of identity throughout political history, we should acknowledge that a different type of identity politics has developed. As the focus on ‘groups’ in society has distorted the notion of community and solidarity, we are infatuated with who we are and where we belong, not about what we are doing beyond ourselves and how it affects others. The rise of identity politics has aligned with the growth of social media and online ‘filter bubbles’ (referring to the spaces on Twitter and Facebook where people feel free to express their ideas and opinions on modern day issues) which has come with a lack of exposure to views and experiences that are different to our own. It is a device sectioning society into factions with people most similar to yourself, those with common interests and demographics, thus, people become attuned to a community of people no different to themselves. Here identity becomes a key, allowing you into a limited political sphere. As a result, this is changing the nature of political discussions to one that is much more personally and emotionally attached, alongside distorting perception of global opinion.

However, identity politics could be used as a way to unite opinion and create change. Many of the biggest political changes such as the Suffragettes, the Civil Rights Movement, the Brixton Riots and the UK miners’ strikes of the 1980s consolidated a unified sense of self which drove their movement through common ambition and shared identity. Without this, they would have been lost in breadth, making their movements unsettled without a clear agenda. The difference now is that this growth of identity politics is not coming with a sense of self, but rather, identity politics has become a label. Thus, it is no longer helping people be the driving factors of their own lives, yet it is the lifeline of Millennials- but why?

My guess is detachment. Detachment from values, priorities and the traditional structures of society, meaning there is a need to be different to be worth something, while being entirely normal to fit in. At heart of the issue, the ‘vacuum’ of life is trying to be filled by identity politics since no other sense of certainty, community or structure are deemed to be ill-fit for this purpose. This has very little meaning or use in everyday lives, as it simply tells you where you ought to belong, making it more heartbreaking and isolating when you don’t, thus, creating a greater aura of self-doubt and instability. Therefore, a change is for society, as a whole, to give structure and certainty for people’s lives.

The rise of channelled political thought and identity politics only reflects our deeper estrangement from the main body of politics; the climate strikes in 2019, alongside the Black Lives Matter movement and protests, both reject the notion that voters don’t care about the society they live in, but also highlights the disbelief and cynicism in governance. There needs to be an acknowledgement of the damage caused by a fractured and separated society, which may come with the expansion of identity politics, as this could lead to a different sense of societal progression.

Politics on social media allows larger groups to empathise through identity, liking their needs to those perceived to be similar to themselves, to create change in what they see as needed. On the one hand, this could reinvigorate politics because it opens avenues for discussion much closer to the heart, filling the void of passion and the disengagement from formal parliamentary discussion. However, alongside this, the idea of ‘group-based threat’ has risen through leaders, such as Trump, through demonising and divisive campaigns as a way to evoke emotion and divide voters further which is a mounting threat to democracy. This may develop a dangerous idea that politics will become futile and weak, permanently damaging the legitimacy of government. Therefore, greater changes need to be made to the use of identity politics within the formal political sphere to fill a growing vacuum created by the loss of class-voting in the late 20th century in a more stable and less abhorrent way.

Identity politics is not on its own harmful. It is needed in a stratified society to purpose to individual lives and politics. However, this does not eliminate the fact that it can be hugely dangerous as the intense emotion, vulnerability and fluidity of the movement makes people more exposed to demonisation, exploitation and detachment from others. There needs to be a sense of direction and movement without limiting the idea of community, as in the end, this will be the cause of a divided society on a much deeper level than mere economic inequality.