Twenty years ago, it was cool to be laid-back about identity. “Some people are white, some are black. Some are straight, and some gay. Let’s not make a big deal out of our differences. We’re all people.” That was how political decency often manifested back then, a group hug and a group shrug at the same time.
The 2010s revitalized a more resolute philosophy. “Society is unfair, plain and simple. Black people are worse off than white. Gay people are worse off than straight. We should make a big deal out of our differences, or else we’re blinding ourselves to the injustice that rules them.” Ethnicity, gender, and sexuality went from things you don’t talk about to battle flags of identity and allyship.
I think there’s value in both philosophies. The laid-back one is good for building friendships between people of different backgrounds, which is essential to social harmony. The resolute one is more conducive to political action and social reforms.
I also think both philosophies fall short. The laid-back one doesn’t account for unconscious bias or invisible minorities. Despite our best intentions, our group hugs probably exclude more people than we realize.
The philosophy of battle flags, meanwhile, can agitate and polarize. The more militant our identity camps become, the more they frustrate and distrust each other. Worse, the super-rich enjoy this polarization, and exacerbate it, making sure we always have more flags than we need. It’s a lot easier to splinter and subjugate the working class when its factions are at odds.
I don’t know what the next identity paradigm might look like. But I hope it’s more class-aware. Class is the only dimension of identity that corporations fear, and can’t easily distort.