Identity politics

Douglas Todd puts across the argument that identity politics diminishes the idea of common good and basis his views on Charles Taylor, Canadian philosopher, proposition that every member of a society belongs to minority group. He starts by describing himself as not being a member of what can be referred to in Canada as visible ethnic minority but he do belong to several minorities especially the Families of the Mentally Ill, but who are non-visible.  He points out that his farther, World War II veteran ended up becoming mentally ill in 1950s-1970s periods, when such illness was met with a lot of stigma (Todd, 2013). Todd suggests that identity politics can build self-worth if the member from the minority group is respected more by the mainstream. He points out the downside of the identity politics as being over-focusing on past mistakes. He also points out that there are many minority groups bring forth evidence of persecution and exploitation they have underwent.  Using various groups who consider themselves minority groups, and the opinions of personalities such as Martin Collacott, a former Canadian diplomat, Todd highlights the dangers of identity politics and political apologies (Todd, 2013).

The writer’s suggestions leave me with a question of when people, the world over should focus on the common good. Is it after taken into account everyone’s voice or before then?  Is the common good not recognized and advanced mostly by the straight, white and able-bodied men belonging to the middle-class men? Until such questions are addressed adequately, I could not say we are done.  In a world where the child born by an average woman is subjected to political debate and where someone can be killed for the crime of belonging to a particular race or ethnic group, such an argument can results to some division.  To an extent a can differ with Todd’s suggestion on the basis that one should put their fundamental basic rights aside for the sake of common good.  The voices of the marginalized groups also matter and looking at the issue from the political perspective may add up to missing the point. At this juncture, the language of ‘minority’ should be rejected since the phrase deems the liberation efforts small and inconsequential. When liberation is understood, privilege is also understood and Todd’s suggestions fail to acknowledge this.  Not all minority groups are undergoing stigmatization, exploitation or persecution. Liberation is what Todd calls identity politics and which essentially does not damage the common good in the society. Rather what should be advocated is for everyone regardless of their gender, creed and race to understand that the battle for equality is always aimed at common good. It is one which everybody should accept responsibility for.

To an extent, when Todd allude that identity politics can go too far, he may be right. This is shown by the fact that even though it has led to a lot of progress in minimizing misogyny, ageism and racism, inequality still persists. The fight for inclusion, respect and equality has not been won.  Where Todd can be said to be right is the suggestion that an identity which is narrowly focused can erode the intended common good for all. Attacking equality and diversity may fail to acknowledge that indifference and criticism can increase antagonism which can lead to more divides.

Reference