Identity politics fragment society, says Archbishop of Canterbury
Sarah Cheverton
WVoN co-editor
This week, Dr Rowan Williams went on the record to tell racial, sexual and sexuality equality activists that it’s time for us to quit talking about the differences between us and start talking about what unites us.
You can find coverage from The Telegraph here, although I can’t help but think the headline would have been more accurate if you took out the colon and added an apostrophe…
He started off by acknowledging what such activists have achieved under the banner of ‘identity politics’:
“Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last 10 or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome.
“And so minorities of various kinds and … women began to say ‘actually we need to say who we are in our terms not yours’ and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.”
No problems there, but then he went on:
“We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.”
Funny, because as a feminist activist, I thought that was exactly what social justice movements already do.
‘Identity politics’, as Dr Williams calls it, is not about asserting a politics of difference that demands to be recognised; it’s about demanding an even playing field.
It’s not about calling for recognition of difference; it’s about promoting inclusion on the basis of what we share.
To understand this, you first have to understand that our culture’s dominant viewpoint is that of white, wealthy, middle-aged men.
These men are disproportionately represented in government, the judiciary, business, the media and even (as one glance at Dr Rowan himself might confirm) in religion.
Identity politics is necessary – and will continue to be – all the time this is the case.
Because as long as this small social group dominates, it is necessary for everyone outside it to remind them – and ourselves, and each other – that being different from white, wealthy, middle aged men does not exclude you from membership of the human race.
My own feminist theory and practice, for example, holds that my uterus makes me different from a man, but it doesn’t exclude me from humanity.
Revolutionary, but definitely not divisive.
From this view, identity politics does not fragment society – the domination of one social group over others does. Identity politics are not divisive. The social conditions that create these movements – generation after generation – are.
I wonder how Dr Williams would feel if we tossed the ball back into his own court and started talking about the divisiveness of ‘identity religion’?
I’m an atheist and know nothing about religion, matters of faith or how believers should organise themselves or each other. Because of this, I like to leave religion to the people I consider to be experts on the subject – like believers and clerics.
It’s one of the reasons that while I might often share the beliefs of ‘militant atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins, I don’t feel the need to outlaw or attack religion, religious beliefs, or religious practices (until they start stepping on the safety or agency of others, that is).
I don’t feel qualified to make statements about anyone’s religious belief, but maybe that’s one of the reasons I’m not Archbishop of Canterbury.
And if Dr Rowan Williams really wants to understand identity politics, perhaps his first step might be to reflect on the fact that if he was a woman, he wouldn’t be Archbishop of Canterbury either.
“Once we start saying this is my identity and that’s it then I think we are in danger of really fragmenting the society we belong to.”
With that statement Dr Rowan demonstrates again his amazing ability to completely miss the point.
He totally fails to understand that for thousands of years, for millions of people, ‘belonging’ to a standard society involved subjugation and denial, hiding one’s true self for fear of, at best, alienation – at worst, persecution and death.
What’s actually happening (and he can’t see it because he is so much of the mainstream) is a whole bunch of ‘alternative’ people, and vast numbers of women, are standing and saying “This is my identity, I am also part of this society, and if you don’t like it, you can lump it.”
What he says amounts to ‘stop rocking the boat’ – put up and shut up.
You know what? I don’t think so. Sometimes you have to break something to put it back together the way it should be.
I think maybe he needs to examine what he means by ‘what’s good for all of society’. Prejudice and discrimination is not good for all of society, but it is good for white, middle class men. The golden age of integration is when all of humanity is celebrated by society – and the backlash he speaks of is the one being championed by the generation of lads mag readers now in charge of the country who are busy with their hands in the till and lying through their teeth at the Leveson Enquiry. And where is the church in all of this – sitting quietly in the corner attacking gays and women human rights as identity politics. Duh, what would Jesus say?
Rowan Williams is a very thoughtful man, to make such a basic mistake about the point of identity politics is suggestive of some basic prejudice in his thinking. That is not really surprising, given the environment in which he works. He may have forgotten, when he says the pendulum is swinging back, that there is still not a single female bishop in the Church of England. He seems to have a blind spot about women – he defended sharia without recognising its fundamental inequalities, he supported wearing the the veil the other day without recognising the oppression that underpins it. So long, Dr Williams, let’s hope we hear less of him in future.