In this research spotlight, a study by Leslie McCall and her coauthor, Ann Shola Orloff, calls for examining the connections among different dimensions of inequality.
The 2016 U.S. presidential election remains a touchstone in contemporary political discussion and debate. The results of the election came as a surprise to many, and one issue that has come to the forefront of analysis in this regard is the role of identity politics. For instance, the fact that a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump came as an unwelcome shock to Democrats who expected that women voters would — on the basis of their gender identity — support the candidate whose politics were far more woman-friendly. How had identity politics failed to help deliver a win?
Maybe the problem is not with identity politics, however, but with the way pundits, politicians, and scholars alike think about identity politics. In their study, “The Multidimensional Politics of Inequality: Taking Stock of Identity Politics in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016,” researchers Leslie McCall of the Stone Center and Ann Shola Orloff of Northwestern University argue that a robust definition of identity — one that is both multidimensional and politically mediated — is necessary to understand political alignments in the last few decades. Thinking of identity politics as it was originally meant to be understood, while also considering how the main political parties have often failed to connect with various groups, can help us understand the 2016 election results, and potentially the results of future elections as well.
The researchers analyze the many criticisms of identity politics that came in the wake of the 2016 election. On the left, Democrats sought a greater emphasis on inequalities based on class; some Democrats also blamed identity politics for fueling a backlash in the form of right-leaning populism, arguing that identities that have been overlooked — such as rural, Southern, and religious identities — needed to be brought to the forefront. On the right, populists were in effect promoting a different identity: one that is native-born, white, small town, working class, and religious. “Ironically, this may be the most fully intersectional version of politics on the contemporary scene, tapping as it does explicitly into racial, class, and gender themes,” the researchers note.
Responding to these debates over identity politics, McCall and Orloff call for a better form of identity analysis, one that examines the broad connections among different dimensions of inequality and thus potential coalitions among a wide range of disadvantaged groups: “The multidimensionality of inequality — complex inequality or intersectionality — is generally accepted (in practice if not always in name) in the study of gender and race across the social science disciplines, but has yet to be as successfully integrated into studies of class, electoral politics, and political institutions.”
The researchers also call for countering the tendency, both on the right and left, to pay insufficient attention to the degree to which identities are politically mediated and constructed. For example, they see conservative positions, including adherence to anti-feminist policies, as one of the many religious, political, and cultural traditions that make up the United States. “We reject the implicit notions of false consciousness and material buy-offs as the principal political mechanisms linking less-advantaged voters to the Republican party and conservative organizations, and the corollary assumption that better information — revealing women’s or workers’ true interests and how the GOP hurts these, via their tax cuts, race-baiting, and anti-reproductive rights agenda, for instance — will supposedly lead to them voting for Democrats,” they write. “Rather, the challenge as we see it is to construct a pro-equality coalition that confronts conflicts of interest and differing values among its adherents directly and effectively, particularly, in our view, among those who would benefit most from greater societal equality.”
Another way of putting this, the authors argue, is that currently neither of the major political parties are putting forward coherent solutions to the multiple forms of inequality facing broad swaths of the poor, low-wage, and even middle-class populations. Identity politics ought to be part of a broad-based inclusionary and coalitional strategy, not a narrow attempt to pander to the identity groups du jour.