Against the New Politics of Identity

How the Left’s Dogmas on Race and Equity Harm Liberal Democracy and Invigorate Christian Nationalism

Book review by Graeme Kemp

Ronald A Lindsay issues a heartfelt plea in his book ‘Against the New Politics of Identity’ to save contemporary society from the divisive culture wars raging all around us. His bleak observation is as follows:

“The choice is stark: we can either have a liberal democracy that allows us to transcend our differences or a fractured nation where our group identities define and divide us.” (Page 230).

Lindsay’s rich and detailed book is a forceful defence of liberal democracy. It is a defence of the best of the Enlightenment values that influenced and supported the idea of democratic rule: the belief in the value of free speech; arriving at the truth through the use of reason and evidence; the rejection of arguments from authority; and the right of anyone to question knowledge claims. Universal human rights and personal freedom were derived from these Enlightenment values, he reminds us.

So far, so good. So, what are the challenges to these Enlightenment values and rational policy making? The answer is the divisive theories and dogmas sometimes called identity politics, sometimes labelled Critical Social Justice. Lindsay also points to ideas around gender ideology. These beliefs often rely on concepts known as standpoint theory, systemic racism and equity. These three anti-liberal ideas form the basis of this revealing book. There is also a discussion towards the end of the book about the counter movement from some on the political right, the anti-secular ideology called Christian Nationalism. Although there is a large focus on politics in the USA, the impact of these belief systems will be instantly recognised by others in countries like the UK too:

“There are continual efforts to silence those who question the new orthodoxy, such as by “de-platforming” those with opposing views, firing employees who take issue with corporate pronouncements, and intimidating anyone who does not fall in line by classifying them as sexist, transphobic, or racist… (Page 12).

As Ronald Lindsay points out: this can only be described as a cultural revolution. The death of George Floyd in 2020, in Minneapolis, fanned the flames of this cultural revolution: something more must be done about racism, it was claimed. Yet, as Lindsay points out: the theories of controversial figures like Ibram X Kendi (author of ‘How to be an Antiracist’) and others offer no real solution to social problems. The right-wing backlash to these ideas isn’t always pretty either, he argues. 

Yes, there may still be racism and racial discrimination by individual bigots today, but real progress has been achieved. So why does standpoint theory form part of the new, identity-based solutions so dominant these days in ‘progressive’ thought?

Lindsay explains that standpoint theory is an explanation of how we acquire knowledge and what knowledge we value. It is based around the ‘lived experience’ of often marginalised groups. This includes ethnic groups, for instance. According to standpoint theory, the ‘oppressed’ status of such groups gives them valuable insights into their marginalised position in society. This gives them enhanced knowledge-producing skills when analysing society and its structures. By contrast, those who dominate a society because they are white, straight or male lack any full understanding of what things are like for the less privileged. It limits the oppressor’s understanding of wider society and culture, too.

While it is true that no-one fully knows what it is like to be someone else, Ronald Lindsay explains that standpoint theory negatively impacts unexpected areas, including science. He points to the views of writers like Sandra Harding, who argues that science is not neutral and reflects bias. Dominant male scientists, for instance, may be unaware of their gendered impact on scientific conclusions. And as Lindsay notes, according to standpoint theory and the words of one Chanda Prescod Weinstein…

“As with sex, so too with race. There is no race-neutral knowledge. Even some aspects of physics are adversely affected by “white empiricism”, which is defined as the specific practice of epistemic oppression paired with a willingness to ignore empirical data”.

Moreover, “the presence of white empiricism involves a refusal to acknowledge that white supremacy has limited the scientific community’s capacity for knowledge production.” (Page 23).

So, the dominance of white (often male) scientists is seen not just as unfair but limiting the creation of scientific knowledge. According to standpoint theory all knowledge is socially situated within the existing power structures, it is not objective or neutral.

As Ronald Lindsay points out: standpoint theory therefore flies in the face of the idea that in a liberal society we should listen to all parties in a discussion, that we should evaluate all claims or beliefs using rationality and a respect for the evidence, not the identity or status of the person making a claim. Objectivity matters. 

In the past some scientists did make flawed claims about different racial groups, but today few believe such pseudo-science. Genuine science corrects itself.

The idea of Intersectionality is derived from the work of Kimberly Crenshaw, who argued for multiple axes of disadvantage impacting marginalised groups. For example, a woman who is black may be oppressed on account of both her sex and her race. As Lindsay points out, this is reasonable enough. However, combined with standpoint theory it creates endless combinations and variations about who is most oppressed (or not) in any social situation. This can result in an increasingly complex “conceptual tangle” (Page 35). Lindsay cites the example of some black scholars arguing that some feminists have ‘whitened’ intersectionality by not emphasising the importance of race enough, as evidence of how disputes in this area break out.

Ronald A Lindsay then turns to the argument that systemic racism in society is the best explanation of racial inequalities. Systemic racism includes the concept of disparate impact. This is the belief that political policies or laws impact some (usually oppressed) ethnic groups more than others. Yet, as Lindsay points out, the search for this ‘system’ that structures society in a racist way can be elusive. He does not deny that racist attitudes can play a part in how ethnic minorities are treated – this was certainly the case in the past. However, he argues that things are a bit more complex that the proponents of systemic racism admit. 

The author points out that much of the claim of systemic racism relates to statistical disparities between black and white people in areas such as income, wealth, home ownership, education and incarceration rates. Yet, as Lindsay points out: many of these racial disparities may have explanations that are not to do with society being structurally racist.

Lindsay points out that some racial disparities are clearly nothing to do with racism. He cites the examples of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Football League (NFL) in the USA. Players are very well paid in these sports. Although people who are black make up 12.4% of the American population, they make up 74% of NBA players and 58% of NFL players. So, how could this be possible in a society structured around racism against minorities? Some NBA players can earn more in a year than many Americans will earn in a lifetime. So perhaps other factors create these racial disparities in certain areas of life?

Lindsay explains what these other factors might be. Generally, there does seem to be evidence that a black and white wealth gap exists, Lindsay admits. So, what can help us explain this? After all, the wealth gap in the USA is broadly like the 1920s, when racism was more deadly and widespread and before civil rights laws rightly started to tackle genuine discrimination. Lindsay claims that it is family structure that is the strongest predictor of wealth outcomes. The wealth gap between single-parent households and those headed by couples is large; he notes that…

“Significantly, the median net worth of black two-parent families exceeds the net worth of white single parent families, confirming that family composition is a major contributor to any racial wealth disparity.” (Page 105).

Yet, as Lindsay perhaps controversially points out: single mothers with children are disproportionately black and have been for years. A staggering 64% of all black children live in single-parent households, compared to 24% for whites. Lindsay cites black scholars such as Glenn Loury in acknowledging that black underachievement is not solely due to racism; racism and discrimination can still exist, but family structure is important, too. Lindsay also points out that people who are black are more likely to come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, which can impact scholastic success. In short, social class matters as well. And the less well-off have generally worse health, another factor in limiting individual success. As Lindsay notes: establishing universal health care for all in the USA would probably benefit everyone: black and white.

And Ronald Lindsay has stated, when it comes to racial disparities in some areas of life, white people fare worse than black people. For example, suicide is far more prevalent among white people than black people. This is not what one would expect in a society defined by white privilege. 

The second-to-last section of Ronald A Lindsay’s book, before the Conclusion, deals with the phenomenon of what he terms Christian Nationalism, a very American phenomenon. Essentially, Lindsay explains that the excesses of the identitarian Left have seen a reaction from a kind of Identitarian right-wing movement that seeks to ‘return’ the USA to being what they say was the ideal of America’s founders: a specifically Christian nation. It is a very anti-secular movement in its approach to government and the state. Although interesting, this section of the book is most relevant to those with an interest in American politics, as it deals with some complex U.S. legal and constitutional issues.

Some assumptions and claims in Lindsay’s books deserve to be questioned. I’m not sure racial disparities in health outcomes can always be attributed to individual choice or lifestyle among people who are black in the USA.  Also, in the section of this book on equity (or equality of outcomes), the author seems rather naïve when it comes to men who identify as women (transwomen) having access to women’s toilets. Lindsay claims that if you banned transgender women from women’s sports, then they would effectively have to give up competitive sports altogether, as their gender identity is just too important. Really? It might be better, some have argued, to have a category for specifically women in sport with an ‘Open’ category for everyone else.

The book ends its critique of increasingly authoritarian identitarian politics on a rousing note:

“Liberalism, the liberalism that is based on universal rights and other Enlightenment values, can still be saved; however, it needs vocal defenders. Those who recognize the importance of Enlightenment values need to speak up.” (Page 229).

And I think many would echo that sentiment. Ronald Lindsay has written a generally excellent book.

---

Graeme Kemp is a former teacher and civil servant who currently lives in the Midlands. He is an English and Cultural Studies graduate of several universities in England and Scotland. He has also contributed book reviews to the Don't Divide Us website and 'Bournbrook' Magazine.

---

Our upcoming event with Coleman Hughes is taking place in a couple of weeks. Don't forget to secure your tickets on Eventbrite! Paid subscribers are entitled to a free ticket. Email ada@theequianoproject.com to redeem your code.

Tickets here → https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-end-of-race-politics-with-coleman-hughes-tickets-852494603307