**Tl;dr: Identity politics and group identity are ruining democracy because in attempting to account for all society’s inequalities, each group searching for recognition ends up alienating others who could be allies.** [Identity politics]( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/) refers to the political movements and ideas of groups of people, most commonly minorities in society, who share similar experiences with discrimination and oppression; race, sexuality and gender are just a few examples. Originally, this provided a collective voice for the group’s troubles to be heard and to bring attention to a particular issue in society. However, the [fragmentation]( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) and proliferation we see now has meant that each of these social and demographic groups looks out largely only for themselves. While all of these issues deserve to be heard and addressed, in practice, it is impossible to prioritise everything at once, leading to the division of what could be a united movement for more equity and a fairer society. This leads politicians to pander to the loudest voices, creating an environment where inclusivity and equality are the biggest buzzwords but very little is done to solve the very issues being advocated for. Identity politics has created an “every group for themselves” mentality which causes discord between different groups seeking recognition and equality, and alienates potential allies outside of these groups, as they feel their interests cannot possibly align. Is there a [better way]( https://www.ft.com/content/09c2c1e4-ad05-11e8-8253-48106866cd8a)? I don’t know. But the divided are famously the conquered, and Donald Trump’s election proved this point clearly. Each identity and minority group deserves recognition, absolutely. But that will not be achieved until there is a clear voice heard, not a cacophony of outcries over who the most oppressed group in society is.

**TL;DR: Identity politics is probably the most unifying force we have against social injustice, yet can also grow to threaten democratic tolerance when certain identity lenses are used as the only filters through which we understand and value the experiences and hardships of others.** As much as our individuality rebels against labels, no one lives without fitting into certain societally defined boxes. We are not the labels that we collect throughout life, yet labels are the only ways we can draw commonalities among actors in an ultimately solitary, individual world. So even when all the labels ever conceived cannot form the correct silhouette of an individual’s identity, it’s often necessary to buy into abstract labels to form coalitions with people of similar backgrounds and experiences in order to enact social change. Political strength is found in political numbers. It's more effective to rally for equal pay with other females struggling with the wage gap, and to rail against black-baised police brutality with other blacks. Taking to the street with a megaphone to shout about how the government doesn’t help your individually unique and personally dynamic life situation is a non starter, despite attracting approving snaps from passing english teachers. The problem with identity politics arises when participants conflate their labels and coalitions with their individual identity. Identity politics turns destructive when participants begin asserting that they really are nothing more than their collection of labels, when they view people only through a discrete number of identity lenses and ascribe the associated assumptions of each lens to individuals. Devaluing a white man’s commentary on minority hardships simply because he has not experienced those same trials is one such destructive example. This breed of identity politics values some voices over others, depending on where the speaker fits into the caste system of disadvantage. It essentially aims to give the plight of certain select, multi-disadvantaged groups more value than the hardships experienced by others. It’s weapon-x is the power of assumption, which expedites the endeavor of categorizing the ever-complex world into a cut-and-dry process. This mode of thought allows for the statement: “you have it better than me because I have brown skin and you have white skin,” ignoring the fact that “better” is relative and that experiencing the pain of the death of a family member hurts those in Gucci Sweaters as much as those in tattered, 20-year-old, tomato sauce stained shirts. Identity politics is probably the most unifying force we have against social injustice, yet can also grow to threaten democratic tolerance when certain identity lenses are used as the only filters through which we understand and value the experiences and hardships of others.

**TL;DR: Our current practice of identity politics only works in certain cultural and political environments.** Identity politics broadly refers to the emphasis of one’s marginalized identity in political discourses. In practice, many politicians have tried to utilize it to appeal to racial minorities and other marginalized groups. A candidate can emphasize their own identity as one from marginalized groups to consolidate support. Alternatively, they can choose to emphasize the interests of said groups or hire people from those groups. While simplistic, the practice represents a strong incentive for politicians to appeal to vulnerable groups and consider their interests. That said “interests” can take different forms in different contexts. All societies and countries have racism or other types of discrimination. However, these discriminations come from different historical and cultural contexts and symbolize power imbalance between different groups. Oppression against black people does not take the same form in the U.S. or the Netherlands, simply because the two cultures have different conceptions of race. While categorically the same, they do not represent the same problems. Therefore, identity politics must take different approaches to address these issues. However, our current practice of identity politics relies too much on American culture. Often associated with racism, the United States became the birthplace of identity politics. While controversial and complicated, the idea has brought some benefits. Joe Biden won the U.S. presidency thanks to strong support from the African American communities. In return, he appointed several African Americans to many cabinet positions and nominated three [black female judges](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/biden-judicial-nominees-478442) to U.S. circuit courts. The same practice has mostly backfired in many other places. For example, [a bitter infighting](https://www.politico.eu/article/french-left-tears-itself-apart-non-white-meetings/) broke among several leftist politicians in France over the practice of identity politics, when they are seeking unity ahead of the 2022 presidential election. France does not conceive race in the same way America does. As a result, racism takes a different form and requires a different type of identity politics. Identity politics represents a viable and realistic way to raise the voices of the unheard. However, it must incorporate specific cultural contexts to become effective. The current American-centric way of identity politics will only backfire in other places. For this reason, identity politics can, but will not necessarily, destroy democracy. If practiced right, its benefits outweigh the costs.