There are certain code phrases that automatically send my blood pressure soaring. One of those is “identity politics”; others include “reverse” discrimination and “political correctness”. ALL of these embed white and male privilege as they assume that White and Male “identities” are the norm, the accepted baseline. The variations on this theme are as ever-present as the dust in the air that we never see until the light is just right. Then we stare in horror that we are breathing all that – forget all the stuff that you can’t see with the naked eye.
Unless otherwise specified, “identity” references are generally reserved to identify those of other racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious groups than White, male, heterosexual, Christians. It is assumed that people of these “questionable” identities will only represent their own group and not “everybody”. Only White Christians (preferably male) can be counted on to fairly represent “everybody” in an “unbiased” way.
In the following article, Paul Street uses identity issues in a complex of ways. First is the assumption by voters that newly elected Black lesbian Chicago Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is a political (and social) outsider who will wreck the political machine and bring the interests of the people to the fore. Street’s argument is that Lightfoot is far from being the outsider, and will effectively continue following the neoliberal agenda and corruption that has been a hallmark of the political infrastructure of Chicago (and Illinois). This argument seems to be based on Lightfoot’s legal career, but also on her class interests which Street believe aligns with the monied class.
One of the interesting things about Lightfoot’s experience as outlined by Street is that it is remarkably similar to that of Kamala Harris (Democratic California Senator and Presidential candidate). While holding different positions, both Lightfoot and Harris have a history of being “pro justice” and representing perceived racist offenders, or perpetuating racism within the criminal justice system . A similar “class” argument could also be made for both, and certainly the assumption of “identity politics” is thrown at both of them.
As a sociologist I well understand the importance of “identity” and how it is formed. While it is obviously individual, it is virtually inseparable from the collective process of the society and its structures and biases. Characteristics totally beyond our control have strong social meaning that physically, socially, and psychologically place us and shape appropriate paths, patterns, and agency. People who share these socially significant characteristics also largely share the socially structured environments and rules. While these things may shape identity, they can also shape our sensitivity to the broader world and people’s situations. This is particularly true if one falls outside the privileged normative group with the invisible identity that supposedly subsumes “everyone”.
Whether Street’s analysis that Lightfoot’s success in the legal field and her (assumed) resulting class affinity will override her (perceived) outsider status remains to be seen. However, it is very likely that the power of the situation – the embedded political and business structure – will not be shifted far or fast without broad and persistent effort by any one person.
