Today’s overwhelming identity politics are truly abysmal for all but about 12 Americans who gain political power through them. We are so busy these days parsing people by race, gender, sexual orientation and (especially) political party that we’ve lost sight of a factor that’s actually constructive to consider: are people choosing to do good things or bad things?
I use that phrasing very intentionally. As a human being, I know every day I experience some truly lofty and noble impulses and also some that are far, far less impressive. I think that’s a nearly universal human trait. We all have the makings of good and bad within us. And while it’s often challenging, nearly all of us are ultimately in control of the choices we make.
Ignoring Lessons We’ve Already Learned
The other day, Joe Biden claimed that 10-15% of Americans are “Just not very good people.” I think his proclamation runs counter to hard-won wisdom accumulated over thousands of years by people experiencing great things and terrible things then carefully reflecting upon their experiences.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn makes the point profoundly in The Gulag Achipelago:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.”
If you’re looking for a fantastic 600-page version of that statement, check out East of Eden by John Steinbeck. It’s pretty much dedicated to the idea that being good or being evil is a choice we all make throughout our lives.
I think if we stop for a minute to remove ourselves from the powerful currents of the moment, we all (I really hope) understand there are Republicans and Democrats out doing great things right now. There are also Republicans and Democrats out doing lousy things right now. The same goes for police and people of every gender, race, sexual orientation and religion.
Inadvertent Damage from Within
What I think is most devastating about today’s identity politics is the way it excuses awful behavior within each group. Any community’s strength is ultimately built on a foundation of its members making good – even correct – choices far more frequently than they make bad ones. There’s nothing magic about that.
When you see murderers excused because of their profession, or vandals and thieves excused because of their political leanings, you are watching those groups weakening themselves, not making themselves stronger. For any community to thrive, it must encourage its members to make the right choice between our better impulses and our lesser impulses as often as possible.
That is the most powerful weapon for good any of us have in our arsenal on a daily basis. Unfortunately, it’s being tossed aside in the rush to circle the wagons and support members of each of our identity groups, no matter how abysmal their choices and actions may be. You’d be hard-pressed to design a system to encourage more of the behaviors of which we all want less. We need to stop focusing on irrelevant differentiators between us and start focusing on what actually makes a difference, or we’re going to end up in a permanent version of 2020. I don’t think any of us want that.
Identity politics takes all our eyes off what really matters… getting more people choosing better actions more frequently. It ultimately supports bad actors in every group because calling out someone from your own tribe would simply lead to your banishment. That fear prevents people from demanding more from members of their own in-group. What a shame. We would all benefit by having each of these groups as strong and solid as they can be.
Hey Mr. Strong, I read over your article and wanted to share some more nuance to this piece’s perspective. Please engage with it as you wish 🙂
I have trouble defining what is “good” and “bad” in a society that is systemically inequitable along social identity lines. Is “good” any movement towards a reinforcement of the status quo, or something different? Because U.S. society has been inbred with these social differentiators, many aspects of society are directly linked to the potential options that individuals and communities have.
I’m not sure if you are alluding to the recent protests regarding the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. I’d consider this a relevant example in relation to your article: I’m not sure of the intention of people who looted/vandalized (if these people can even be homogenized), but to clarify one perspective, I’ll argue that their reasoning was in support of Black Lives Matter. I do not feel that I am in the social position to judge their means of protest as “good” or “bad.” Being a White person (as well as other social identifiers) differentiates me from the experience of Black people in the U.S., not just in protesting, but on a daily basis. Everyday life for a Black person is different along racial lines than it is for me as a White person (again, other social identifiers make this daily living more complex). That being said, casting judgement on actions of looting/vandalism that has been judged in an anti-Black racist punishment system as “bad” is not something that I personally want to perpetuate as my own judgement.
All of that being said, I find social identities to be further lenses to critically consider social, economic, political realities that people in the U.S. are experiencing. Digging deeper into why people, individually and/or collectively, make “good” or “bad” decisions could be important to understand as richly as possible before casting a judgement on whether that decision is (a)moral.
Thank you for considering this comment; I would be open to having a further conversation if you’d like.
Hey Kathleen,
Thanks for reading and thanks for your thoughtful comment!
I tend to think of most of these issues in a meaningfully different way than what you’ve expressed here. In my experience, the right and wrong choices are usually (but not always) pretty darn obvious. It’s often more work to do the right thing, frequently slower, sometimes emotionally painful and unfortunately even deals you setbacks for doing it sometimes. None of that makes right and wrong less obvious.
I’d say we obviously cross a line between right and wrong when we knowingly and intentionally initiate action that will damage or destroy another person’s life, liberty or property. I don’t believe anyone’s life needs to clear some similarity bar with someone else in order to differentiate right or wrong. I’m not a cop or from Minneapolis, but I’m pretty comfortable saying it’s wrong to kneel on the neck of a guy who is no longer a threat to you for nine minutes while you extinguish his life. Would you agree? If so, why are you comfortable assuming you understand life from his perspective any better than life from the perspective of a person of another class or color?
By the same token, I’m quite comfortable saying the destruction or theft of the property other people have expended their life’s effort building is bad. Further, as someone who would love to see better things for the black community, I’m fairly certain destroying the businesses that serve their communities runs counter to that objective.
I find the idea of moral relativism to be a cop-out. You finish your third paragraph specifying a third-party action you don’t want “to personally perpetuate as your own judgement.” That’s fine, but I think we all have it in us to open-mindedly reflect on what we see and experience in the world. From there, we can make some sound judgements based in solid, sustainable moral and philosophical grounding. Once you’ve done that, I think it makes sense to perpetuate the hell out of them.
There are some standards that have been upheld in virtually any society that provided well for the people who lived in it. Those standards aren’t unclear to humans and haven’t been for thousands of years. To pretend otherwise is to dissemble for questionable purposes.
Matt
Just a few thoughts; thank you for your reply. I definitely agree that George Floyd’s murder was wrong. I’m not claiming that I understand life better than anyone, but I am claiming that my life according to my social identifiers in the U.S. is structurally different from the life of someone with different social identifiers. Racism, classism, misogyny, ableism, citizenship status discrimination, homophobia, ageism are part of U.S. society and culture, so I’m comfortable that my life presents various differences on institutional, relational, and opportunistic levels.
I’m cautious in making moral judgments in a society that has concealed and transformed many of its oppressive institutions and ideologies across time. In terms of race, the institutions of slavery, convict leasing, voting oppression, Jim Crow segregation, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration have been a morphing of anti-Black racism. I find myself needing to question underlying meanings and histories of institutions and structures in order to more fully comprehend the particular language (and/or remembered histories) that has been used to cover up broader ideological intentions. Maybe I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt for wanting to be “good” and rather looking at the structures that could affect an individual’s life first before looking at the individual. Regardless, I definitely recognize your points.
Thanks again for talking about this. Definitely important and I appreciate being able to discuss with you.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts Kathleen!
These are really important topics that are legitimately challenging to work through in a thoughtful way. Nearly every topic you mention is its own tangled mess to attempt to sort out. I’ve been working at it for 30 years and and am still learning all the time through interactions like this one with you.
Matt