Identity Politics
The Trap of Speaking for Yourself
The moment you claim an identity loudly enough to be heard, you've already started to lose it.
The Idea
Identity politics begins with a genuinely radical insight: that who you are shapes what you know, and that mainstream culture has long pretended otherwise. The feminist, postcolonial, and queer theorists who built this tradition were making an epistemological argument, not just a political one — that knowledge is always situated, always produced from somewhere, always by someone. Ignoring that didn't make it disappear; it just made the dominant perspective invisible to itself. But something strange happens when identity becomes a political tool. To mobilise around an identity, you have to fix it — draw its edges, name its members, speak in its name. And the moment you do that, you've committed a kind of violence against the very thing you're defending. Because lived identity is messy, contradictory, and always in motion. The 'Black experience' or 'the working class' or 'women' are not monoliths; they're categories containing multitudes, internal disagreements, and people who actively resist being enrolled in them. The philosopher Gayatri Spivak called this the problem of 'strategic essentialism' — sometimes you have to speak as if a group is unified in order to be heard, even though you know that's a fiction. The strategy can win concessions. But it also creates a new orthodoxy, a new margin, and new people who find themselves outside the coalition built in their name. Identity politics, at its sharpest, is always aware of this paradox. At its bluntest, it forgets it entirely.
In the World
In 1977, a group of Black feminist activists published a document that would shape critical theory for decades. The Combahee River Collective Statement didn't just argue for Black women's rights — it made a structural argument: that their oppression couldn't be separated into neat categories of race, sex, and class, because they experienced all three simultaneously and inseparably. They coined the logic that Kimberlé Crenshaw would later name 'intersectionality.' But here's the part that gets forgotten in most retellings. The Collective was also deeply suspicious of identity as a foundation for politics. They wrote explicitly that they didn't want to 'reproduce the dominant ideology' within their own movement — that building power around shared identity risked replicating the same exclusions they were fighting. Their coalition was deliberately uncomfortable, full of internal tension. By the 1990s, 'identity politics' — a phrase the Collective themselves had used — had migrated into mainstream political discourse and largely lost that self-critical edge. It became, for its critics, a synonym for narrow self-interest, and for its champions, a banner of solidarity. Both uses flattened what the original framework had tried to hold open: the idea that identity is real enough to organise around, but never stable enough to treat as solid ground. The founding document of identity politics was, from the start, a warning about the limits of identity politics.
Why It Matters
This tension isn't abstract — it shows up wherever groups form around shared characteristics. A community built around a particular identity can become the most supportive room you've ever been in, and then, almost without noticing, it starts policing who belongs and who doesn't. The same dynamic runs through online spaces, activist movements, arts scenes, and workplaces trying to build more inclusive cultures. Understanding the paradox doesn't mean abandoning the project. Marginalised groups have real, material interests that differ from dominant groups, and naming that matters. But holding the paradox means staying alert to the moment your coalition stops being a tool for liberation and starts being a new form of border control. It also reframes the exhausting culture-war debate about identity politics. The sharpest version of this tradition was never about reducing people to their group membership — it was about refusing to let the dominant culture pretend that group membership didn't matter. Those are opposite things, and conflating them is how the debate gets stuck. The question worth asking isn't whether identity matters, but how to act on that without letting the category become a cage.
A Question to Ponder
When you speak as part of a group — any group — how do you know whether you're amplifying shared experience or quietly silencing the parts of it that don't fit the story you need to tell?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable