Identity Politics
- Amy Compare
- Oct 18, 2020
- 6 min read
Resources:
Monroe, K.R., Hankin, J. and Van Vechten, R.B. (2000). The Psychological Foundations of Identity Politics. Annual Review Political Science, 3, 419-447.
Getting into a rhythm with this blog has been difficult, especially working 10 hour days instead of 8 hour ones, which leaves me writing a post or two on the weekends. I decided to look more into identity politics today, which I knew about at a surface level. I read/skimmed the three articles above, and this is what I learned.
Identity politics refer to discussion and politicking around issues pertaining to one's identity. The focus typically falls on women, racial minorities, immigrants, LGBTQIA community, and religious minorities, but also an influential identity in politics which is often not discussed (although I think probably now more than ever it is) - white identity (which seems to have played a large part in how the current president was elected). Modern liberal identity politics is largely a reaction to history and attitudes surrounding race in the US.
It also seems like identity politics refers to how we come to base parts of our identity on how we fall politically. I was curious about the science behind this phenomenon, which seems to have become way more pronounced on both sides of the aisle in recent years, so I read a paper called “The Psychological Foundations of Identity Politics.” It was a little dense, and I just skimmed it and pulled out some information that seemed relevant. The article distinguished social identity from personal identity by defining it as “the social categories, attributes, or components of the self-concept that are shared with others and therefore define individuals as being similar to others. In contrast, personal identity is made up of those attributes that mark an individual as distinct from others” (421). They offered two social psychological explanations of social identity: Schema Theory and Social Representation Theory. In Schema Theory, schemata are “highly organized and generalized structures in memory that guide cognition and memory recall” (423) that allow for efficient management of information by offering templates of interpretation that diminish the cognitive processing an individual must undergo. In identity research, schemata reflect the values and normative expectations of an individual’s social group. People have categories for themselves as well as others. It is hypothesized that schema may actually form physical pathways of neurobiological material (like well-worn roads). Events that fit an individual’s self-schema are more likely to be processed and accepted than contrary information which is often distorted or ignored, and individuals may engage in distorted perception because of the need to maintain self-esteem or a consistent view of self or others. This theory leads to conceptualization of self that is passively constructed (through learning or socialization) and static, because once in place, they produce automatic cognitive processes. By contrast, Social Representation Theory emphasizes the collective nature of social cognition and the role of interaction in the interpretation of events. Social representations are “collectively held explanations of reality that are continually reproduced in interaction” (424). They create a crossroads between individuals’ schemata and collective social knowledge because generalized truths about the world become schematic.
This article also provided two models of information processing that highlight motivational bases of identity: Social Attribution Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Social attribution theory highlights the “intuitive process by which individuals attribute causality to social events” (425). This creates self-serving biases that play a role in maintaining and positively defining personal and social identity. Cognitive dissonance theory refers to the motivation to change attitudes based on the desire to relieve tension or the feeling when one holds cognitions that are inconsistent with each other or when cognitions/beliefs are inconsistent with one's actions.
What I took away from all of that is that a large part of why we identify with political stance so tightly is largely due to things we are unaware of, including how our brain automatically functions and the influence society has on us that we often do not realize. While I am not a psychologist and do not have an opinion on which of these theories prevails, this information does provide me the awareness to stop and question why I think the way I do and why I hold on to views and perspectives (and why others do so too). It helps me to be more critical of myself and others, and I think everyone should have a basic understanding of how their brain works (or if nothing else, and understanding that we as humans work in ways that we are often unaware of, and becoming aware of those things).
Going back to the notion of identity politics in the United States, I thought this quote from The Guardian article summed up nicely how they are perpetuated: “When groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism. When groups feel mistreated and disrespected, they close ranks and become more insular, more defensive, more punitive, more us-versus-them.” It seems like identity politics is playing a huge part in this election, and folks are turning against each other both on the left and right, with no one really advocating for a country without identity politics (in the political arena at least).
I’m not sure I’m well-versed enough on identity politics to have a solid opinion formed. However identity politics as discussing issues pertaining to one's identity seem really important (as some people’s rights, like women’s right to decisions about their own bodies or LGBTQ+ rights to health care are on the line), and equally important is acknowledging how your brain works to receive and reconcile information that ties you to a particular group. I’m not sure where I’m going with all of this, but while identity politics may have a reputation of people being “soft” or “snowflakes” for wanting to be recognized for who they are, this sort of condensation is really off-putting to me because no one should have to fight for their rights on things they can’t change or that are deeply part of who they are, like skin color or religion. One article state that it has been argued that identity politics served as a distraction from issues that are more important, like growing income gap, shipping of jobs overseas, and abuse and corruption in the US financial system, and although this may be the case, it ignores the possibility that we can talk about economic and identity issues at the same time (the world is not one of binaries). As an individual, I can focus on these issues while also working on issues related to identity politics.
I suppose the dangerous part of identity politics happens when folks start following groups blindly, and not questioning their own perspectives or not exposing themselves to other perspectives. That is something I don’t want to do, but at the same time, I think we can’t separate our identities from anything that happens to us, and it’s remiss to look at politics without the lenses of our individual and collective identities because no matter how much we try to remove them, they either influence the decision or the outcome of a decision.
I had a sort of conflicting experience this week at work. I was using a chainsaw to cut down some small trees, and the crew I lead commented several times on how cool and badass I was with the saw, which makes me feel good (and part of the reason why I wanted to learn how to use a saw). And yet at the back of my head, I wonder how they would have responded if I was a man, and if the same sort of enthusiasm would be there. Maybe it would be, as none of them have ever really used a chainsaw, but the fact that the women on my crew were most vocal about it makes me think that the fact that I can use a chainsaw as a woman is still a novel concept in the world. For me, just being able to use power tools and teach others how to do the same is still breaking barriers in my field, and I’m working towards a world where my act of using power tools is not something that others would comment on - where it’s just normal. So I guess what I’m saying is that my identity as a woman is important to me, and when policies are in place to undermine me because of my genitals, that feels really personal to me. And I’m sure other folks can say similar things for the color of their skin or their sexual orientations or their physical abilities. And sure, I have a lot of privileges now as a woman that my grandmother and even my mom didn’t have at my age, but that doesn’t mean we have to celebrate and leave it alone because it’s better than it was - it means we have to celebrate and then raise the bar higher to push for greater equity.
Although this was a rambling post, I think what I took away from it the most was to be critical of my own brain and how I come to my beliefs and perspectives, to not fall into identity politics blindly without critically thinking about why I support something, and to recognize that I can push for issues related to identity as well as other political issues (that still affect me in a certain way because of my identity).
Comments