Identity Politics is BS

Identity-based thinking, whether from the left or the right, endangers individualism and obscures the true causes of social inequality.

This article was originally published in German at Richard Dawkins Foundation Germany.

Questions of identity are increasingly the focus of political debate. This trend is driven by loud commentary from both the right-wing identitarian movement and advocates of left-wing identity politics. Although ideologically opposed, these camps share surprisingly similar logical structures and assumptions. While the right-wing identitarian movement emphasizes cultural and ethnic differences to justify exclusion and superiority, left-wing identity politics aims for inclusion and reparation for historical injustices. However, both schools of thought are subject to fundamental logical fallacies that weaken their arguments and threaten social cohesion. This article explores the ideological origins of both movements, highlights their commonalities, and explains why focusing on identity markers—regardless of political orientation—leads to misleading and often dangerous conclusions. The goal is to offer a nuanced perspective that goes beyond the simplistic dualism of these ideologies and places the individual at the center.

Upon closer inspection, ethnopluralism reveals itself as little more than classic racism with extra steps.

Right-Wing Identitarianism and the Illusion of Ethnopluralism

Right-wing identitarian ideology is based on the notion that ethnic and cultural homogeneity must be preserved to maintain the identity of a group, people, or nation. Identity is seen not as a dynamic or individual construct, but as a collective heritage passed down through generations, constantly threatened by external influences such as migration, cultural mixing, or globalization. In short, proponents of right-wing identitarian ideas seek to exclude people from society based on certain identity markers. To distinguish itself from the racial theories of National Socialism, this ideology introduces the concept of "ethnopluralism," as it is euphemistically called by its advocates. Unlike the racial hierarchy promoted by the Nazis, the identitarian concept seeks a "diversity of peoples," where different cultures and ethnicities are considered equal but strictly separated. In practice, ethnopluralism often serves as a pretext for justifying discriminatory and exclusionary ideas. Upon closer inspection, it reveals itself as little more than classic racism with extra steps, particularly appealing to those who harbor feelings of superiority based on their origin or ethnicity.

The most prominent manifestation of this ideology is the Identitarian Movement (IM), which emerged in France in the early 2000s and has also gained traction in Germany and Austria over the past 12 years. The IM frequently engages in attention-grabbing, media-savvy actions—such as attempting to single-handedly stop refugees in the Mediterranean—and uses social media to spread its ideas and mobilize, especially among young people. The movement's primary goal is to incite a "culture war" aimed at influencing public opinion on issues like migration and multiculturalism. Some of its followers have also committed crimes, including assault and coercion. The movement has been under surveillance by the German domestic intelligence agency since 2016 and was officially classified as far-right extremist in 2019.

Right-wing identitarian ideology, however, is not limited to IM members. With growing fears of a "border crisis," the conspiracy theory of the "Great Replacement," and populist fantasies of mass-deportation, identitarian ideas have also spread to the mainstream. The psychological causes that make people receptive to such ideas are well understood—fear, especially of the unfamiliar; the need to identify with something larger than oneself; and feelings of inferiority in an era that places great value on economic success while being marked by growing economic insecurity. Nevertheless, ethnopluralism is by no means a desirable solution: History shows that the strict separation of "peoples" according to vague identity markers like culture, ethnicity, and religion, along with contested geographical boundaries, would more likely lead to bloody territorial conflicts and ethnic cleansing than to a utopian coexistence.

Right-wing identitarian thinking is definitively incompatible with humanistic values and an open, pluralistic society. However, the popularity of such ideas should give critical minds something to think about, as identitarian ideology also influences legislation and individual actions, causing enormous damage: Just last year, 3,155 people died trying to flee across the Mediterranean to the "Fortress Europe." Xenophobia and the rise in attacks against immigrants are alarming signs of how deeply ideological concepts can penetrate society and the devastating impact they can have.

The Contradictions and Dangers of Left-Wing Identity Politics

Left-wing identity politics is rooted in the social movements of the 1960s and Critical Theory, which is based on the idea that the identity of marginalized groups—whether race, gender, sexuality, or other characteristics—is the key to political mobilization and social justice. Academic work in Critical Theory and its sub-fields aims to analyze power structures and deconstruct social injustice. Identity is understood as a collective construct based on shared experiences of discrimination and oppression. Alongside gender, race is given the greatest weight as an identity-defining characteristic.

Identity politics attempts to translate the ideology of Critical Theory into legislation. While the goal—promoting inclusion and equality for marginalized groups—is praiseworthy, this approach brings significant logical and practical problems. In practice, identity politics often leads to an excessive focus on group affiliation and identity markers, causing new forms of exclusion and polarization. Theories that, for example, broadly claim that all white people are racists tend to simplify complex social realities and reinforce stereotypes. These simplifications do not lead to constructive dialogue but instead exacerbate social tensions. Moreover, it is evident that statements like "all people with [skin color A] are [B]" follow a deeply racist logic—yet such ideas are developed and spread by supposedly anti-racist proponents of Critical Theory. Pointing out the logical fallacy often results in a false dilemma, claiming that there are only two possible views on this topic: "Either you support identity politics, or you deny racism." Of course, there are many nuanced positions that both acknowledge the existence of racism and criticize certain aspects of identity politics. The reduction to only two positions fosters polarization and prevents a constructive discourse that considers the complexity of social phenomena.

Another problematic element of identity politics is the concept of cultural appropriation. Originally intended as critique of the exploitation of minority cultures, the term is increasingly used as a tool to regulate cultural interactions—i.e., to enforce "cancel culture," which serves as a left-wing counterpart to right-wing "culture war" fantasies. In practice, cultural appropriation leads to a paradoxical situation where intercultural exchange, historically a source of innovation and mutual understanding, is portrayed as problematic and oppressive. Critics argue that this view reinforces existing boundaries and undermines the natural, dynamic character of culture. Additionally, it is questionable whether all people who share certain identity markers of a colonized culture seek a lifelong, intergenerational victim role. The logic of cultural appropriation quickly becomes absurd: Technically speaking, someone who applies the Pythagorean theorem without being of Greek descent would be considered a racist. The end of intercultural exchange would lead to cultural stagnation, as people would be excluded from certain knowledge and practices based on their origin or skin color. Such thinking is clearly incompatible with the pursuit of universal truth that usually motivates scientific research and critical minds.

The flawed logic in the theoretical foundation of identity politics also manifests itself in practice. Examples of well-intentioned identity-based laws leading to unintended negative consequences can be found in my home country, Spain: The progressive transgender law, which allows an unbureaucratic change of official gender, has enabled numerous violent offenders to avoid restraining orders and prosecution for gender-based violence by registering as trans women. Previously, the "Only Yes Means Yes" law, intended to protect rape victims, resulted in the early release of hundreds of rapists due to the legal definition of rape being so broad that the penalty had to be reduced.

Despite their well-intentioned goals, identity politics risks deepening social divisions and creating new forms of injustice. The focus on group identities based on characteristics like ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation can lead to social fragmentation by placing people into rigid categories, thereby weakening the potential for solidarity and common goals. Instead of fostering an inclusive society, identity politics risks creating new exclusions by overemphasizing external differences and undermining the universal claim to equal rights and opportunities. In a pluralistic and open society, the focus should be on universal rights and individual freedoms rather than categorizing people according to fixed identity markers.

What Left-Wing and Right-Wing Have in Common

Although left-wing identity politics and right-wing identitarian ideology seem to pursue opposite goals at first glance, they share fundamental ideological similarities. Both movements assess individuals based on identity markers such as origin and ethnicity, placing these markers above the individual. For example, left-wing identity politics emphasizes belonging to oppressed groups as a central factor for one's identity and the resulting social claims. Right-wing identitarians, on the other hand, promote the superiority or need for protection of their ethnic group and reject cultural mixing. In both cases, stereotypes are used to simplify complex social and individual realities, leading to generalizations and prejudices.

The real problem with identitarian thinking is that it reduces people to a few characteristics, neglecting the diversity and complexity of the individual. Even if there are statistically measurable differences between groups with certain inherent characteristics—such as men being more aggressive on average than women, or poverty being more prevalent among black people in the United States than among white people—these differences do not justify generalizing about all individuals in these groups. Statements like "all men are aggressive," "all black people are poor," or "all white people are privileged" are obvious fallacies that can be empirically disproved. Moreover, people can define themselves by countless characteristics—profession, interests, hobbies, political views, preferences in literature, music, and coffee, to name just a few. These characteristics are often dynamic and change over time. Inherent characteristics like origin, ethnicity, gender, eyesight, or height, which cannot be easily changed, do not allow for conclusions about personality or character. Therefore, it is irrational to evaluate people based on these characteristics. Similarly, being proud of one's race or sexual orientation is not an indicator of intelligence or moral superiority. Identitarian ideology, whether from the left or right, ignores the fact that it is wrong to reduce people to such identity markers—even in the name of seemingly noble goals. The overemphasis on group identity leads to a narrowing of focus on the complexity of human existence and ultimately promotes social division. Both left-wing and right-wing identity ideologies aim to subordinate individual freedom and universal human rights to collectivism, which in the long run leads to new forms of discrimination and provides fertile ground for the emergence of totalitarian systems.

Why Don’t We Talk About Economic Inequality?

While left-wing and right-wing proponents of identitarian ideology primarily focus on visual and cultural identity markers, from a purely practical perspective, a fundamental truth remains: Poor people are the least privileged. The greatest and most real form of injustice is living in poverty, and this injustice is perpetuated by the unchecked accumulation and concentration of wealth. This is, in my view, the decisive factor that creates and exacerbates social differences—not belonging to a particular identity group. The IM presumably recognizes this fundamental truth and deliberately shifts the focus to so-called "culture wars." By fueling debates about race, gender, and sexuality, they may be contributing to distracting the political left from its traditional focus on economic disparities. Hence, the focus on identity issues weakens the leftist movement by losing sight of the real foundation of social inequality—economic conditions.

A vivid example of the significance of wealth disparities compared to visual identity markers can be seen when looking at the top earners in the U.S. Black people are disproportionately represented among the highest-paid U.S. stars—currently, Kylie Jenner and Howard Stern are the only two white people in the top six. This gives the impression that skin color no longer significantly influences a person's economic opportunities. However, a glance at the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans reveals a very different picture: Among the 100 richest Americans, there is only one black person—investor Robert F. Smith, currently ranked 89^th. One could argue that this overwhelming presence of white people among the wealthiest is evidence of ongoing structural racism. But what really distinguishes Kanye West and other top-earning black individuals from those on the list of the wealthiest Americans is not skin color or lack of opportunity for high income, but the lack of access to capital accumulated over many generations. It seems that intergenerational wealth and the control of assets are today stronger dividing factors in our society than skin color. Instead of debating identity categories like race or gender, we might be better off talking about the categories "debtors and creditors," "tenants and landlords," "poor and rich." In the realm of identity politics, whether left or right, the political debate has shifted away from economic metrics and instead fully focuses on visual and cultural identity markers. This shift distracts from the real causes of inequality and leads to the structural problems caused by the unfettered concentration of wealth remaining largely unaddressed.

The Smallest Minority

At the end of the day, the individual is the smallest and most important minority, which is why humanistic principles place great value on protecting individual rights and freedoms. In this sense, we must always remember that it is prejudiced to judge someone solely based on outward characteristics such as skin color, gender, or ethnic origin. Every person carries their own burdens, and inherited visual traits are not a reliable indicator of how difficult someone's life journey has been or how privileged they actually are.

This does not mean that sexism, racism, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination are not real problems that require attention. But the practice of labeling people as "privileged" without considering their individual experiences and challenges is not a solution. On the contrary, when identitarian leftists categorize people based on superficial characteristics and label them as privileged, they risk alienating potential allies and harming their own cause.

The real challenge is to create a society where the individual is recognized as a unique

person, not as a representative of a particular identity group. Only by recognizing and protecting individual rights can we build a just and inclusive society in which all people—regardless of their external characteristics—enjoy the same opportunities and freedoms.