Trump, gay marriage, women on
boards, Black Lives Matter.
What do they have in common?
They've all been used as examples
of so called identity politics.
It's the idea that groups are
calling for special treatment
based on race, religion, sex,
or other characteristics.
And some fear that a politics
based on protecting narrow group interest
rather than broader political
movements can be dangerous.
Identity politics emerged because groups
that have been historically ignored
or harmed demanded their
rights be protected.
From civil rights or women's
rights, to gay rights.
The idea was that
safeguarding these rights
makes society fairer, more
tolerant, and more equal.
But some now think that these
protections have gone too far
by focusing so much on their
own rights and interests,
they threaten the rights of others.
If you oppose affirmative action
you may be labeled a racist.
If you comment on a woman's appearance
you might be called a
misogynist or a sex pest.
The belief that political
correctness has gone too far,
fueled the rise of Trump, who's
campaign was nakedly un-PC.
And it isn't just a
western phenomenon either,
nor is it new.
India's ruling party
espouses Hindu nationalism,
sometimes at the expense of
the country's muslim minority.
So identity is part of politics everywhere
and probably always will be,
but there is a way forward
and it starts with
resisting the temptation
to see politics as a zero sum game.
If the LGBT community gets
more rights or protections,
heterosexuals don't
automatically get fewer.
Supporting women's interests
doesn't simultaneously
undermine the interests of men.
So the question is not
whether identity politics
should exist, but in what form.
Knee jerk actions or quick fixes
like quotas aren't the best way to go
but there is a role for better information
such as improving public data on diversity
and companies or universities.
The challenge is to make
identity politics constructive
and inclusive, rather than
destructive and divisive.
Open, not closed.
