Richard D. Parker's Views On Identity Politics

When it comes to “identity politics”, as with many controversial matters, there are always many pros and cons that come along with them. One of the pros is that “identity politics” build self worth when a minority member is offered more respect by the so-called mainstream. The minority could feel special and or important when given the respect they demand. Another pro is the bond that the groups have with one another. The groups can connect with each other through similar experiences and have the same information. In the YouTube video, “Episode 1 Identity 1 – Pros and Cons to Group Identity” one individual said that people who are in the same “group” share an unspoken brother or sisterhood in which they can communicate. On the other hand, one
Parker, the two articles are similar but also bring up different points. The article by Smith is mostly about oppression and how, who and what can help to stop or help it. Smith claims that “identity politics” is the idea that only those experiencing a particular form of oppression can either define it or fight against it. She also brings up the fact that it is not only minorities who suffer from oppression, even working class people have to deal with it. The second article by Parker gives a short list of theses about “identity politics”, the first one is that all politics is “identity politics”. Second one is that “identity politics” can dampen or smother democratic political freedom, third is that “identity politics” tend to portray and purvey differences and grievances (rather than similarities and bonds) among groups and individuals. The fourth thesis is that “identity politics” are likely to be resistant and vulnerable to revision and finally the fifth thesis is the identification of a group not in terms of a trait such as race or ethnicity or sexual orientation, but as a “minority”