When you’re writing laws that prohibit blacks and jews from buying houses in certain neighborhoods, that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you’re redrawing municipal boundaries in order to segregate schools and other public services, that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you’re systematically keeping women from certain career fields or prohibiting them from entering legal contracts without a husband’s cosigning, that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you’re denying gays the ability to obtain housing or adopt children, that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you’re applying a religious litmus test to political candidates, that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you deride cities as not “real America” and the educated professionals within as not “real Americans,” that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
When you apply a bunch of double standards to people whether they’re in your favored group or not (e.g. Birtherism), that’s “seeing the world through identity.”
These are all true but I am not sure they relate to identity politics of today. Just about everything can be linked to identity even without identity politics. I would say though identity is associated with the above acts they are more about bad behaviour such as descrimination and bigotry.
But we could also say looking from todays position especially if this is distorted by ideology that some of the past so called oppression was not actually oppression but just the normal evolution of hyarchical systems that happen as a result of natural differences but is blamed on oppression.
For example though women have been denied equal rights some if not much of the differences in outcomes is not about oppression but that males just happen to be in those positions for other reasons such as work was limited and more physical in the early days and societies beliefs about mothers being best for child rearing. When I say society I mean both sides of politics.
Identity politics today is a specific political policy whereas in the past there was not specific policy for identity politics. In fact up until recently both sides supported universialism rather than dividing society into identies competing against each other.
As mentioned Identity politics today is based on Postmodernism which only came in during the post modern era.. Its underpinned by intersectionality and equality or social justice theory which only came in around the 90's when Leftist academics created it.
My point is though there may have been some identity politics involved in the past and oppressive behaviour the response, the solution created as a reaction to that which was suppose to make things better, make things more equal and united has actually made it worse. Its actually cultivating the same mentality even more. We use to be at war over race and gender. Now we are in culture wars over an ever growing list of identities.
Fifty years ago, the rhetoric of pro–civil rights, Great Society liberals was, in its dominant voices, expressly group transcending, framed in the language of national unity and equal opportunity. Although the Left was always concerned with the oppression of minorities and the rights of disadvantaged groups, the dominant ideals in this period tended to be group blind, often cosmopolitan, with many calling for transcending not just ethnic, racial, and gender barriers but national boundaries as well.
A new movement began to unfold on the left in the 1980s and 1990s – a movement emphasizing group consciousness, group identity, and group claims. The anti-capitalist economic preoccupations of the old Left began to take a backseat to a new way of understanding oppression: the politics of redistribution was replaced by a “politics of recognition”. Modern identity politics was born.
“What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier [movements] is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition ... The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of ‘universal humankind’ ... nor is it for respect ‘in spite of’ one’s differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different.”
In recent years, whether because of growing strength or growing frustration with the lack of progress, the Left has upped the ante. A shift in tone, rhetoric, and logic has moved identity politics away from inclusion – which had always been the Left’s watchword – toward exclusion and division. How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division
I’m not as familiar with Canadian politics, but in the US, identity politics predates the modern left by quite a bit.
Identity politics as we know it today as in group identity above individual identity and universialism. The one that is at present causing conflict and division was created by the Left and only came about post 60's revolution. Though I agree that some on the Right are buying into the same games which is the inevitable end result of a zero sum game of identity politics.
But if you understand the ideology behind identity politics today such as intersectionality and DEI and ideas like white priviledge, white fragility, inherent racism, positive decrimination you will see the evidence in the rhetoric of the Left.
I watch the US coingress hearings on certain issues like Critical race and Trans ideology in policy and on freedom of speech and belief and constantly see how the Left revert to such language in grilling people and on policy. Its also evidence in that much of the policy has Critical theory underpinnings.
Canada is just an extreme example of taking the ideology to its logical conclusion. Its based on socialism and Marxism so of course its going to end up bec oming totalitarism as in Canada. Its happening to some extent in all Western Nations that have Leftist governments. Look at the conflicts we are having with cancel culture, PC, and Woke which are all hallmarks of identity politics today. We did not have such conflicts even 10 years ago.
The Left’s Social Contract Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It
A relentless focus on dubious forms of ‘oppression’ is alienating traditional leftists. Saving the progressive movement means returning it to its liberal roots
quillette.com
www.spectator.co.uk
ipa.org.au
