Introduction
In recent decades, identity politics has become one of the most frequently used and controversial concepts in political philosophy and sociology. At its inception, this concept emerged as a response to the historical injustices experienced by ethnic, racial, gender-based, or religious minorities in Western societies. Originally, identity politics aimed to recognize differences and defend the right to speak for groups that had been marginalized for centuries from centers of power and official narratives. However, what began as a movement for justice and equality gradually turned into a paradigm that can itself hinder the formation of human solidarity.
On the one hand, identity politics has succeeded in raising collective awareness of historical oppression and challenging systems of domination; yet on the other hand, this very politics has, in practice, led to the fragmentation of society, the erosion of global empathy, and the collapse of the idea of a “common humanity.” As a result, we now live in a world where individuals are identified more by their identity labels than by their humanity. This situation has left profound political and ethical impacts not only in the West but also in non-Western societies, including Iran and the Middle East.
From this perspective, the central question of the present article is whether identity politics serves as a tool for liberation or whether it has become an obstacle to unity, justice, and global conscience. To answer this question, it is first necessary to rediscover the historical and intellectual roots of identity politics, and then to examine its consequences at both national and global levels.
-
The Historical Origins of Identity Politics: From Resistance to Distinction
Identity politics emerged within the intellectual and social transformations of the 1960s and 1970s in the West. This period witnessed the rise of the civil rights movement among African Americans in the United States, the second wave of feminist movements, and student uprisings against structures of power. During this time, various groups realized that modern political systems—despite their claims of equality—effectively silenced the voices of minorities. Therefore, the concept of “identity” became a tool for redefining social position and resisting domination.
At the theoretical level, the roots of identity politics can be traced to thinkers such as Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, and later Charles Taylor. Fanon, in Black Skin, White Masks, emphasized that colonialism had colonized not only bodies but also minds. Hence, genuine liberation would only be possible when the colonized reclaimed their own identity. This idea rapidly spread through postcolonial and anti-racist movements and formed the theoretical foundation of identity politics.
Over time, however, the discourse of identity shifted from the level of anti-colonial struggle to within modern societies themselves. In universities and the media, attention moved from “structures of power” to “lived experience.” The human being was no longer defined as a rational and universal subject but as a member of a particular group. Consequently, the political sphere moved from the public domain to the private and personal.
At first glance, this change appeared democratic, since it allowed marginalized individuals to express themselves. Yet in practice, identity politics, through its excessive emphasis on difference, weakened social cohesion and the sense of shared humanity. What began as a tool for resistance against domination gradually became a new source of domination and exclusion, as each group, in order to maintain its position in the political space, found it necessary to highlight and exaggerate its distinctions.
-
From the Universal Human to the Particular Subject: The Postmodern Consequences for Identity Politics
In the final decades of the twentieth century, the rise of postmodern theories and the critique of grand narratives further paved the way for the expansion of identity politics. Jean-François Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition, declared that the era of grand narratives such as “progress,” “humanity,” and “universal reason” had come to an end. In their place, each group or individual now claimed the right to offer their own narrative of reality.
While this intellectual shift encouraged diversity of perspectives, it simultaneously weakened the concept of the “universal human.” In a world where everything is reduced to personal experience and individual difference, no shared moral standard remains. Consequently, concepts such as justice, freedom, or dignity—which once formed the core of modern political ethics—were replaced by notions such as “the right to recognition” and “group belonging.”
Within this context, identity politics turned into a politics of distinction. The human subject was no longer in pursuit of truth or justice, but rather of being seen as the representative of a particular identity. As a result, the space for dialogue was replaced by a battlefield of competing identities. Instead of cooperating to transform unjust structures, groups became entangled in conflicts over whose suffering deserves priority. This is what some theorists refer to as “Victimhood Politics.”
-
Identity Politics and the Crisis of Solidarity in Multiethnic Societies
One of the profound consequences of identity politics is the weakening of collective cohesion in societies composed of diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural groups. In such societies, the concept of the “nation” can only retain its political and historical function when smaller identities find meaning within a shared framework. However, identity politics, by emphasizing differences and distinctions, gradually erodes this common framework from within.
In the past, national projects in developing countries were built around shared ideals such as independence, social justice, or development. But with the expansion of the logic of identity politics, the public sphere has turned into a competitive arena among particular groups. Each group seeks to highlight its historical suffering or cultural uniqueness more than others to gain a larger share of power, resources, or public attention. This process, though seemingly a form of identity awakening, in reality leads to the decay of national belonging and the collapse of the concept of citizenship.
In fact, identity politics relies on “difference,” while the concept of the nation is founded upon “commonality.” When social groups no longer see themselves as part of a collective project, the relationship between people and the state shifts from one of “shared destiny” to one of “competing interests.” This shift has particularly serious consequences in societies ruled by authoritarian governments, for such regimes can exploit identity-based conflicts to weaken any united social front of opposition. As a result, identity politics, instead of being a tool for liberation, becomes a mechanism for the survival of despotism.
-
Case Study I: Iran and the Obstruction of National Unity by Identity Politics
Iran, with its long history of coexistence among diverse ethnicities, religions, and languages, is a clear example of a society that can fall victim to the excesses of identity politics. On the one hand, Iran’s cultural diversity is a valuable asset that has contributed to civilizational vitality throughout its history; yet on the other hand, transforming this diversity into a political or ideological tool—especially within the contemporary media environment—can be perilous.
When authoritarian governments seek to weaken any form of national solidarity against the power structure, the excessive emphasis on ethnic or gender-based differences—whether intentionally or unintentionally—serves the interests of oppressive systems. When a social movement, instead of addressing the issues of freedom or justice, turns into a struggle between local or cultural identities, the possibility of forming a collective political will disappears.
In recent decades, parts of Iran’s political and virtual landscape have witnessed the rise of discourses that, while claiming to defend the rights of ethnic or specific groups, have effectively undermined public solidarity. This phenomenon does not necessarily stem from malicious intentions but is rather a natural result of the logic of identity politics—an identity that seeks difference rather than commonality. Consequently, authoritarian regimes can exploit these divisions to fragment their opponents into small, incoherent segments.
In other words, within societies like Iran, identity politics, instead of generating liberating awareness, can lead to the formation of “political islands.” These islands, though they may separately cry out against injustice, remain incapable of creating a unified voice. Such a condition is precisely what every authoritarian system desires: a society that appears pluralistic on the surface but is incapable of collective action in practice.
-
Case Study II: Gaza and the Selective Morality of Identity Politics
At the global level, the destructive effects of identity politics can also be clearly observed. One of the most tragic examples is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. During this event, tens of thousands of civilians were killed, while a significant portion of the media and international institutions failed to respond adequately to the catastrophe. To understand this global indifference, one must look at the intellectual foundations of identity politics.
In its Zionist form, identity politics has defined Israeli society based on ethnic and religious belonging. Within this framework, the human value of individuals is not measured by shared human dignity but by membership in a particular group. The result is that, from this logic’s perspective, Palestinian lives possess lesser moral worth. Although such reasoning is often presented under the guise of defending national security, it in fact perpetuates a kind of political ethnocentrism that stands in stark contrast to the universal spirit of human ethics.
Yet the same logic exists on the other side of the conflict as well. Hamas’s deadly attack on civilians attending a music festival revealed that parts of the Palestinian resistance are also trapped within the same identity-based logic that defines the enemy in terms of ethnicity, religion, or nationality. In this worldview, the killing of Israeli civilians is not seen as a crime but as a sacred and legitimate act. Such a view differs little from Zionist identity politics; both are nourished by the same moral foundation—the superiority and priority of the lives of “one’s own” over those of “the other.”
From this perspective, the tragedy of Gaza is not merely a political conflict between two nations but a manifestation of the failure of the global moral conscience in the face of the logic of identity politics. When ethnic or religious identity replaces humanity, violence—whether perpetrated by a modern state or by a resistance movement—takes on an appearance of legitimacy.
On the other hand, the reaction of the Western world and even many so-called “justice-oriented” movements has also been influenced by this same logic. Movements that in recent years have been deeply engaged in defending the rights of particular groups—such as radical feminist or woke movements—have often remained silent or marginal in their response to the collective suffering of Gaza’s people. This silence most vividly reflects the dominance of identity-based perspectives over the moral conscience of the contemporary world.
Indeed, when the moral value of political action is measured by group identity, human suffering as such ceases to matter. Only the suffering of those within our own identity framework is acknowledged. This is the dangerous logic that allows the freedom of twenty hostages to appear more justified than the loss of tens of thousands of human lives. From this viewpoint, part of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza can be seen as a direct result of the domination of identity politics over the global mind and conscience.
If, in today’s world, the concept of the “universal human” still formed the core of moral values, the response to Gaza could have become a global ethical movement against injustice. But in a world where identity politics defines the standards of judgment, moral boundaries themselves are drawn along lines of ethnicity, religion, or gender. This is precisely the point at which identity politics transforms from a project of liberation into a project of new injustice.
-
Identity Politics as a Deviation from Global Justice
One of the most significant consequences of the rise of identity politics in recent decades has been the gradual deviation of the discourse of justice—from a global to a group-based level. Justice, which in its classical meaning was universal and founded on human dignity, has, within the logic of identity politics, turned into a relative concept dependent upon collective belonging. In other words, what was once considered a “human right” is now redefined as the “right of groups.” This fundamental shift has had deep implications for humanity’s moral conscience and the structure of global relations.
6.1. The Link Between Postmodern Individualism and the Crisis of Collective Conscience
In the postmodern world, the human being has become more self-centered than ever before. Digital media, neoliberal economic systems, and consumerist culture have turned the modern subject into a self-referential individual who seeks meaning and value through the representation of personal identity. Within this context, identity politics is not only a product of this individualism but also one of its sustaining forces—because instead of calling the individual to participate in a shared destiny, it encourages focus on personal distinctions and unique experiences.
This process has led to a crisis of collective conscience. There is no longer such a thing as “shared human responsibility”; rather, each person is responsible only for defending their own identity and that of their group. Empathy, once a cornerstone of global ethics, has been replaced by competition among groups. In such an atmosphere, the concept of “global justice” becomes marginalized, as no common moral standard remains for judgment.
6.2. How Media and Social Networks Turn Identity into a Commodity
The media—especially social networks—have played a decisive role in intensifying this trend. In the logic of today’s media, identity has become a commodity that must be displayed in order to gain value. By representing themselves through ethnicity, gender, or specific orientation, individuals not only express their identities but also sell them. Each post, image, or hashtag becomes a form of symbolic capital whose worth depends on the degree of visibility.
Under these conditions, identity politics becomes an instrument of cultural consumption. Groups and individuals, instead of pursuing justice or structural change, become absorbed in identity performances that resemble a marketplace of signs more than political action. This phenomenon—one might call it the “spectacle economy of identity”—has hollowed out the moral soul of politics from within. Justice is no longer understood as the fair distribution of power and wealth but rather as the fair distribution of visibility in virtual space.
6.3. From “Human Rights” to “Group Rights”; From “Common Humanity” to “The Competition of Victims”
Another transformation arising from identity politics is the replacement of the concept of “human rights” with that of “group rights.” Whereas the former was grounded in the intrinsic dignity of the human being, the latter rests upon the boundaries of collective belonging. This shift, while seemingly promoting the recognition of diversity, in practice has led to competition among groups for the status of victimhood. Each group strives to portray its suffering as unique and exceptional, because only then can it attain moral and media legitimacy.
This situation has created a “market of victims,” where empathy gives way to a contest of grievances. In such an environment, not only does the possibility of forming a global conscience diminish, but justice itself becomes fragmented and contradictory. This is precisely the moment when identity politics, once a movement for justice, turns into a mechanism for producing new injustice.
-
Conclusion and an Alternative Proposal
In conclusion, it can be said that although identity politics began with intentions of liberation and justice, in practice it has become a tool for division, isolation, and global indifference. Through its constant emphasis on distinctions and boundaries of belonging, this politics has deprived humanity of the possibility of living within an ethical and universal community. As a result, we now inhabit a world in which human suffering has lost its value—because each form of suffering is recognized only within the limits of a particular identity.
To move beyond this impasse, we must once again revive the concept of the universal human—a being who, above all else, is moral, and whose responsibility is not confined to any specific ethnicity, religion, or gender. Reconstructing such a vision is possible only through three essential pillars:
7.1. Moral Rationality
This means a return to a rational understanding of ethics, one whose standard is not group affiliation but the capacity to discern the common good. Within this framework, justice must be evaluated according to principles applicable to all human beings, rather than by cultural or political boundaries.
7.2. Transnational Justice
Justice in the contemporary world cannot be confined within national or group borders. Experiences such as Gaza have shown that human suffering transcends political frontiers. Therefore, a form of global ethics must emerge in which our responsibility toward others is independent of their identity.
7.3. Shared Human Dignity
Ultimately, every sustainable moral and political system must be grounded in the belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings. This dignity is neither a gift of governments nor dependent upon religion or ethnicity; it is a truth that must be reaffirmed at every level of contemporary politics and culture.
Based on these three pillars, one can propose an alternative to identity politics: open identity.
Open identity is both a normative and practical concept grounded in the assumption that individual and collective identities should be organized in a way that both promotes the “recognition of difference” and strengthens “shared moral responsibility.” In other words, open identity is neither a “command to erase differences” nor a nostalgic return to ideological uniformity; rather, it is a middle path that accepts diversity while situating it within a framework that emphasizes mutual commitment to human dignity and transnational justice.
