Stanley Fish's Essay 'When Identity Politics Is Rational'

As a nation, we discuss the notion of equality of race, gender, wealth, and representation, but with identity politics, and politics in general, it easily allows people to separate in distinct groups. The classical liberal view of the equality of opportunity is the concept that all individuals are open to same set of circumstances to achieve the same goals. However, in the past the presence of discrimination has set restrictions against the minorities by always using legal recusants to block people out. As it was so for Sotomayor, people who are on the out had to find different ways to work around. “One thing that has not changed: to doubt the worth of minority students' achievement when they succeed is really only to present another face of the prejudice that would deny them a chance to even try. It is the same prejudice that insists all those destined for success must be cast from the same mold as those who have succeeded before them, a view that experience has already proven a fallacy ( p.245 ).” People, such as Sotomayor, from a disadvantaged background faced criticism and harsher circumstances, were not as easily open to all opportunities compared to others. The result of resentfulness towards the challenging and prohibitive conditions that previous generations encountered,

Identity is the characteristics that determine who a person is, not all factors in a person’s identity are chosen for example race or gender, whereas being a New York Yankee fan is a chosen aspect in someone’s identity. Following that statement there are certain pre-determined assumptions about particular pieces that make up one’s identity, those assumptions, however are not chosen by the person with said identity. If you are a woman in today’s society you are under constant criticism, whether it is in your work ethic, the way you look, and even the way you conduct yourself. Sadly, being a woman is not the only aspect of someone 's identity that is constantly under scrutiny. Race is a major part a person’s identity, whether they themselves think so or not. This is a white man’s world that we live in so consequently if you are anything other than that you will most definitely encounter hardships in life.

“My President Was Black” written by Ta-Nahesi Coates has many arguments between Coates and the former president Barack Obama. They both had many differences and similarities throughout this passage. Barack Obama is the only black man that could of have pulled of the job of being President in this racist “White America”. The reason why he pulled it off is because of his great personality, the way he sees the United States as a whole and his policies. I believe in this because in “ My President Was Black” there is many evidence that can prove my fact about Barack Obama.

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.

Shelby Steele uses repetition and historic examples in his effective essay, “The New Sovereignty,” to inform the public of the negative effects that collective entitlement of minorities has on everyday citizens in America.

The article “Race card: Meet Kevin Jackson, the black Tea Party activist disgusted at the prejudices of Obama's supporters” by Melissa Kite is an article that is retitten about prejudice. The author tells the story of an man named Kevin Jackson who is an activist has is disgusted by the prejudice that has been shown to Obama. Kevin Jackson calms it is racist to vote for Obama because the only reason why he got elected was because Americans wanted a black president. Kevin also states that Obama “got elected based on his colour because he was not qualified to be a president ”. This is discrimination because it is infreing that the color of your skin has an effect on if you should be president or not.

The way America as a whole handles integration and equality in society has been subject to some debate. It is not a debate of whether or not it is right or wrong, for that choice has already been made. In order for progress to occur, there needs to be equality. The debate lies in how equality and integration should be exercised effectively, so as to have our society be truly equal. Shelby Steel, in his article “The New Sovereignty”, does a successful attempt in explaining how current methods are not in favor of equality. A man of the civil rights movement, and a well-known commentator on race relations, Steele does a good job of illustrating to grievance groups that what is currently installed in the place of integration is in fact collective

Elizabeth Chang’s perspective of Obama is filled with hope and progressive movement for America, since he became the missing piece to help our country become accepting of diversity. She starts off appealing to the readers ethics, which in turn helps persuade the readers. “I knew Obama self-identifies as African American, but I was disappointed when I read that’s what he checked on his census(Chang 330).” Saying this, she lets the audience realize that Obama’s morality does not include pride. Though people believes he is only African American, he should be proud of being more than one race. By the author stating an opinionated statement, it makes the reader think about how the simplest thing can affect the world in a big way, and shows that

Politics has always been a controversial topic that has been actively separating the American society for many years. It has been fueled by the different ideologies that have been formed and passed down from past generations. The United States government has two front-running parties: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These parties are both criticized by one another, and the political candidates are kept under a microscope at all times. One wrong sentence has the ability to bring the wrath of societal shame. With this term’s presidential race the Republican Party and its lead candidate have accelerated at these mishaps, which has conveyed a racial bias stigma. The denotative meaning of the Republican Party is to be, relating to, or the nation of a republic. Each party has a denotative meaning, but the connotative meaning is what viewed in the eyes of the American society. Republicans are believed to be all white, rich, over privileged, business hungry, and the oppressors of other minorities.

This is quite prevalent and reflected heavily in the monologues the “invisible man” (Ellison pg. 285) has through-out the passage. The narrator even begs the question “does this skin of mine, make me?” (Ellison pg. 137) Which further complicated Ellison’s point does race dictate or identity? Look today with the new Administration assuming office, the principals of Ellison’s conflict still bear evidence, are we simply seen as superficially as we like to believe or, is their more to it? This question has a degree of perplexity that seems to resonate the idea of identity is ascribed to us or do we define

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.

An identity is the state of being oneself. Your character is comprised of your past, present, and future. Some individuals are ashamed of who they really are and try to change themselves, or mask their identities. One of the dominant themes that is conveyed throughout The Namesake is the theme of identity. In the novels, everybody is a little lost, or a lot lost, frankly. Practically every individual struggles with his or her identity, because every person feels the tug and pull of different cultures, different traditions, and different dreams. The Namesake is about this perpetual dilemma faced by immigrants as they fight to maintain their identities while trying to shake them off at the same time while The Great Gatsby is about people

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.

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.