Rhetoric Of Identity Politics

Stuart Hall defines identity as an ‘already accomplished fact, which the new cultural practices then represent’. We should think instead of ‘identity as a ‘production’ which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation’ (Hall 1994 p.392). An individual’s sense of belonging to a particular group, thinking, feelings and behaviour can also be referred to as identity. One’s cultural image can construct identity; such features as hair, skin tone and height. History shapes our identity.

Identity can mean different things to different people, but for most people, it’s about one’s personality and experiences. The 21st century has seen young people in various parts of the globe have a preference for some desired identity, which they deem superior, rather than accept their own identities. For example, in Goin Gangsta, Choosin Cholista: Claiming Identity, Neil Bernstein makes a case on how a number of people have claimed ethnic individualities other than their own and this is not an evil obsession (Bernstein, 1995). In this essay, a girl named April and her friends (and by extension most young people) believe that “identity is not a matter of where you come from, what you were born into, or what colour your skin is, but it’s everything

Our identities are key to our understanding of the world. Mental models through which information is processed are built off of life experience, taught ethics and morals, and upbringing. Identity is discussed in the following texts - The Politics of Exile by Elizabeth Dauphinee, “Unlearning the Myth of American Innocence” by Suzy Hansen, and “Letter to America” by Aida Hozic - through various themes of American culture. Dauphinee, in particular, examines the depth of personal identity and its ability to change. All three works consider the many components of personal identity and its formation as well as its undoing.

It’s evident that identity politics is nothing more than labeling as described in the case of Susie Guillory Phipps. She sued the Bureau of vital record for declaring her negro according to the state of Louisiana anyone with one-third-second would be labeled black. The government began to label the different ethnic groups and according to them it was all in the name of science. According to them the reason for the record keeping was for the prevention of genetic diseases. Before the nineteenth century there was no labeling for sexual preference. Since the beginning we follow the example of Adam and Eve assuming that is the normal and anything else unnatural and abnormal. The “normal” became so powerful that no one would question one could say

“The Danger of a Dominant Identity,” discusses what one columnist believes to be one of the largest problems facing America today. David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, argues that reducing people to nothing more than a label with a singular identity is one of the largest problems America faces. Through the appropriate use of rhetorical appeals, David Brooks writes an effective article by informing and firmly convincing the reader of the danger in viewing others as one-sided.

     Identity is one of the main questions throughout all of our readings, because it is hard for people to accept who they are in society. Accepting their identity as a minority with little if any freedoms

“’Identity has been increasingly used to refer to the social and historical make-up of a person, personality as a construct. Sometimes such identities are conceived narrowly psychological, individualist terms, as the cumulative result of personal experience and family history”

Within dystopian literature, identity is something that can be seen as an individual’s most core and precious element. Exposed against a scarcity of freedom in self-expression, we can begin to fully appreciate and understand the importance in the role of identity as well as its robustness. The role of identity and its manipulation is often explored within dystopian literature to exemplify weaknesses in human psychology as well as to destroy false images of strength and superiority that we apply to ourselves. In both The Road and

However, today I will be arguing against this concept as a suitable method of dealing with issues as I believe that identity politics encourages segregation in society. I will let you know that I am not against the concept of identity politics as a whole because there are benefits from the idea. But I am against how it has been executed since it encourages division based on personal factors, dismisses individualism in situations and promotes the idea of only being able to contribute towards an issue if part of a specific group.

Throughout my life, certain identities have remained consist. And these identities have come to shape my perspectives and my needs and wants within American culture. Typically, my social

In Amin Maalouf’s book “In the Name of Identity” Maalouf emphasizes that we should not judge people on one singular identity. He argues that, “Identity can’t be compartmentalized. You can’t divide it up into halves or thirds or any other separate segments. I haven’t got several identities: I’ve got just one, made up of many components in mixture that is unique to me, just as other people’s identity is unique to them as individuals.” The essence of Maalouf’s argument is that one should not define another based solely on a singular component of their identity but rather their identity as a whole.

There are various kinds of identity (individualized or shared) that people are expected to possess. (Hollinger, 2004) namely; personal identity which is known as a

In recent years, identity has been open to discussion and reflection. One's identity has now been subject to change. There are still major cultural categories of identity, for example:

Would you ever vote for a candidate simply because they came from the same ethnic background as you, even without knowing any of their political views? In the article “When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational,” written by Stanley Fish, a strong argument is made explaining and defending instances where identity politics is used and why it is important that citizens understand that it exists. Identity politics is when a candidate is only supported because of his or her identity, not their political views or beliefs. Through Fish’s mixed use of logical reasoning, somewhat strong reliability and a minor use of emotional appeal, he is able to construct a solid argument as to when identity politics are appropriate. Fish explains a multitude of examples in a cogent manner that allows the reader to easily follow along. He then continues by using credible evidence, which he provides citations for, that add an immense amount of validity to his article.However he does also make certain assumptions that he does not provide evidence for. Fish also includes a subtle amount of emotion that grasps the reader and pulls them deeper into the article. Fish argues that certain cases exist where identity politics is valid and appropriate, however, depending on the way one understands the definition of identity politics, it can be used in a way that it incorrect and biased.

Identity is “the process that informs the way in which people see themselves and the groups they belong to and also how other groups categorize a person.” Pountney and Maric (2015) pages 144-5. “Identity is relational, situational and multiple. It is better to understand identification as a process of continual negotiation and renegotiation.” This statement confirms our identities are forever changing due to our circumstances or surrounding environments and certain aspects of our identities are chosen and negotiated. The Sikh youths in the UK prove this theory through this statement; ‘There’s a time to be Indian and a time to be British’ K. Hall (2002).