Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Five Theses On Identity Politics
Five Theses On Identity Politics
Five Theses On Identity Politics
RICHARDD.PARKER*
ThekindoffreedomIwanttoaddressisthemostvitalkind:
politicalfreedom.BythatImeanthesummoningandexertion
of energy to engage one another on matters of collective gov
ernment.WhatIhaveinmindspecificallyisdemocraticpoliti
cal freedom. By that I mean political freedom in a context
shapedbythreesimplenorms:politicalequality,popularsov
ereigntyand,therefore,majorityrule.
What should we make of identity politics as an exercise of
democratic political freedom? Let me respond with five con
nectedtheses.
NumberOne.Allpoliticsisidentitypolitics.Politicalactivity
isand, at its best, isanimated by efforts to define and de
fendwhoIam,orweare,oryouare,orhopetobe,orhopeto
beseentobe.1Byextension,itismotivatedbyourimagination
of what is or ought to be mine or ours or yours. It is not only
aboutselfgovernment.Nordoesitalwaysinvolvemuchinthe
wayofpublicdebate.Whatstructuresit,oftenbeneaththesur
face, is the always unfinished enterprise of selfconstruction
andselfpresentation.
Thereason,firstofall,isthatpolitics2involvesmakingcom
parisons and choices amongand commitments tovalues
and interests and groups and individuals (including choices
not to choose among available choices). The choices and the
commitments we make in politics are ones with which we
meantoorbywhichwecannothelpbutidentifyourselves.3
*WilliamsProfessorofLaw,HarvardLawSchool.Someoftheassertionsmade
here will be developed toward the end of an essay to be entitled Constitutional
LawmakingattheBallotBox:APopulistCritiqueofaProgressiveCritique.
1.ThisisapremiseofRICHARD D. PARKER,HERE,THE PEOPLE RULE: A CONSTI
TUTIONALPOPULISTMANIFESTO(1994)(arguingthatpoliticalactivityisaneffortto
expressanddefendidentity).
2.Politics,asIunderstandit,maygoonincontextswecallprivateaswell
asinoneswecallpublic.
3.Allthatmaybetrueofshopping:Wedefineourselvestoothersandourselves
bywhatwebuy,afterall.Hence,thereismoretoit.
54 HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy [Vol.29
4.These are answers that I assume are familiar to the multitude assembled at
theFederalistSocietyconferencewhereImademyremarks.
No.1] FiveThesesonIdentityPolitics 55
56 HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy [Vol.29
8.A moment of illumination for me was the afternoon I walked by our open
dooredfacultyloungeandoverheardagroupofmycolleaguesearnestlyattesting
that,needlesstosay,itwouldbeterribleifidentitypoliticswereevertoexcitethe
consciousnessofwhitemales.
No.1] FiveThesesonIdentityPolitics 57
tity.Ultimately,itsidentitymaybesuckedintosuchblackhole
characterizations as the powerless or the disenfranchised
orthesubordinate.Thisisthevictimhoodsyndrome.Like
theotherpathologies,itismuchdeplored.Butliketheothers,
onceentrenched,itisdifficulttodislodge.9Thereason,again,is
that it is so useful a weapon in democratic conflict. It is a
weapon with which to denigrate the terms of the conflict and
thentoshortcircuitthepoliticalfray.This,however,isnotthe
worstofit.Theworstisitspotentialforselffulfillingprophesy,
thetendencyofvictimtalktoundermineselfresponsibility,
eventoseverthenerveofpoliticalaction,amongvoterswhose
supposedimpotencehasbeenmadetodefinewhotheyare.
Number Five. It follows that one of the more problematic
identities in todays identity politics may be one of the most
common.WhatIhaveinmindistheidentificationofagroup
notintermsofatraitsuchasraceorethnicityorsexualorienta
tion,butasaminoritygroupand,worse,theidentification
of an individual member of such a group as a minority.
Thebanalityofthelabelblindsustoitssignificance.Consider
thewaysitcanexacerbatethethreepathologies.
You might think there is no essentialist tendency to worry
about in this case. How could so abstract and ambiguous a
termexcitethatconcern?If,however,itisasapractice,rather
than as an idea, that essentialism is worrisome, then things
lookdifferent.For,comparedwithmoreconcreteidentitycate
gories, the greater abstraction and ambiguity of minority
evenofdisadvantagedminorityordiscreteandinsularmi
noritycreatesevengreaterleewayforpoliticalmanipulation
anddiscipline.Authoritieshanddownandenforcedefinitions
ofminoritiesandtheirmembers,definitionsused,ineffect,
tokeepsomegroupsinsideandothersoutside.10Howeveruse
ful this enterprise may be in the wider political struggle, it
tendstoacceleratethesclerosisofdemocraticengagement.
To that tendency, add the pathologies of demonization and
victimhood.Shufflingthelabelsinordertoconstructandpre
sentcertainindividualsandgroups,notasLatinosorSpan
9.Indeed,itisdifficulttodislodgeevenfromtherhetoricofthosewhopurport
todeploreit.
10.See, e.g., JOHN D. SKRENTNY, THE MINORITY RIGHTS REVOLUTION 142 (2002)
([TheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommissionsandOfficeofFederalCon
tractCompliances]designationsofofficialminorityhoodshapedthetrajectoryof
Americanpoliticsandthestructureofopportunityforthenextseveraldecades.).
58 HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy [Vol.29
ishspeaking(orwhatever),butasminoritiestendstodoa
subtlebutdeepkindofdamage.Thetermdoesnotpointto
any actual trait of a person (ethnicity, gender, and so forth).
Instead,itplacesapersoninagroupthatisdefinedbyitsplace
inalargerstructure.Notitsplaceinapalpablesocialstructure
(say, class). But in a political structurespecifically, a democ
raticpoliticalstructure,asystemofmajorityrule.Theimplica
tionofidentificationasaminorityisthatthegrouptowhich
apersonbelongsisnot,hasnotbeen,andwillnotbepartof
anymajoritycoalition(whichis,ofcourse,allthatshiftingma
jorities canever be) and, therefore, that she isbound to be ig
noredorabused(victimized)bythat(demonized)majority.As
to nearly all persons nowadays, this representation is absurd.
Howthentoaccountforitscurrency?Itisuseful.Itoffersaleg
up in democratic political conflict. But the costquite explic
itlyis the trashing of majority rule, political equality, and
popular sovereignty. When educational and economic elites,
whohavemuchtogainfromsuchtrashing,takeupthecause
andmassageminoritarianidentitypoliticsintohighminded
conventionalwisdom,democraticpoliticalfreedomforevera
threattotheprivilegedisundermined.
WhatshouldaFederalistmakeofthis?TheSocietyslogoisa
silhouette of James Madison. Didnt he famously (maybe too
famously) fret about majority factions? Isnt he often (if un
justly) associated with Tocquevilles snooty hysteria about the
tyranny of the majority? Havent members of the Federalist
Society often constructed and presented an identity as a sup
pressedminorityinAmericanlawschools?
All true. But consider the practice of the Society. Though
spurred by a healthy sense of grievance, it has not insulated
itself.Ithasnotsoughttoshortcircuitengagementwith,orset
up enclaves protected from, dominant points of view. It has,
instead, thrown itself into the fray. Indeed, it has invited the
frayintoitsownevents.MostFederalistgettogethers,asfaras
I know, involve debate with nonFederalists and anti
Federalists. Whats more, they tend to include debate among
Federalists, debate about the very identity of the group. Most
everything is up for grabs. These are hallmarks of an identity
politics that is opennot obsessed with victimhood or with
demonization of its adversaries, not defensive. It invites the
heterodoxintoitsmeetingsbecauseithastakentoheartanold
political secret, the secret of the power of optimism: believing
No.1] FiveThesesonIdentityPolitics 59
thatonedayagainstpresentodds,itmayprevail,itvastlyen
hancestheoddsthatitmayberight.
Hence,Ioffera(notveryserious)suggestion.Itstimetogive
up the Madison silhouette. Madisons association with a de
pressivedefensive democratic politics really doesnt fit the
FederalistSociety.Withwhatlogo,then,mightthatonebere
placed?
Heresa(still lessserious)suggestion.Whataboutasilhou
etteofLenin?Itwouldconveytwomessages.Ononehand,a
warningofthedangersofidentitypolitics:Whentheconstruc
tion and presentation of identities becomes a weapon of ma
nipulation with which to stifle conflictespecially if taken to
theextremeofclaimingtocreateanewmanitbecomesthe
deadlyenemyofpoliticalfreedom.Ontheotherhand,Lenins
silhouettemightofferalessoninpoliticaloptimism:Hisfaction
wasintheminority.Hence,thenamehechoseforitwasnoth
inglessthanBolshevik...which,ofcourse,meansthema
jority.