This Martin Luther King Day, I decided to adapt a part of something I wrote on racism, specifically tailored for white readers, as I can only speak from my perspective as a white male.
I’ve come across various white Buddhist practitioners who are strongly against “identity politics,” arguing that it contradicts Buddha’s teachings. But what does “identity politics” mean? According to Satya Mohanty, a professor with expertise in colonial and postcolonial studies, identity politics is “joint political action by individuals united by membership in a marginalized social category (ethnicity, gender, class, religion) that gives them common political interests.”
By this definition, movements like the civil rights movement, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and gay pride are all forms of identity politics. However, spiritual practitioners often misunderstand identity politics. For example, in an online discussion, one Western Buddhist suggested identity politics means focusing solely on group identity over individuality, while another claimed it involves classifying and either praising or criticizing people based on their group identity.
The more people oppose identity politics, the more their definitions deviate from the academic one—and the more negative attributes they associate with it. These definitions often don’t align with what we see in real life within organizations campaigning for marginalized groups’ rights or individuals supporting these groups.
People from minority ethnic groups rarely claim ethnicity is the most crucial aspect of their identity. Instead, they tend to stress roles like being a parent or spouse, alongside class, religion, profession, etc. Most people generally do not obsess over their race; they become aware of it in moments of racial discrimination—like being asked, “But where do you really come from?” or being stopped by the police often. In a discriminatory society, those at the receiving end become more aware of their ethnicity.
Only a small fraction of marginalized group members assert inherent superiority over others; most strive for equality. Critics of identity politics often worry that it could suppress individuality in favor of group identity, leading to tribalism. While tribalism can be found in various political movements, it’s not inevitable when campaigning for equal rights. Evidence is lacking to show that marginalized individuals lose their individuality more than members of other political movements. Recognizing group membership due to marginalization doesn’t necessarily lead to tribalism, which involves seeing one’s own group as entirely good and others as bad. Instead, identity politics seeks equality, not dominance, and views oppressors as potentially redeemable.
It’s expected that some individuals may adopt unskillful attitudes towards their oppressors, but it’s rare. Overall, marginalized groups generally desire equality over vengeance, highlighting a fundamental goodness in the human heart.
Another concern is that practicing identity politics might lead individuals to feel superior due to their victim status. While some individuals, including non-minorities, might feel victimized and special, the real issue is that discrimination and oppression do exist. The goal should be a fairer world. Blaming oppressed individuals without equally criticizing oppressors isn’t helpful.
Both fears—loss of individuality and assumptions of superiority or inferiority—can sometimes be true for some individuals but are not inherent to identity politics. These dangers are present in any group setting, including spiritual communities like Buddhism, where one’s group identity could overshadow personal individuality if not careful. However, maintaining individuality and avoiding superiority is possible while being part of a group.
To achieve equality, recognizing and highlighting discrimination is necessary. Concerns about group identification and perceived superiority are valid descriptions of racism, historically exhibited more by white people. White identity politics, driven by a sense of racial superiority, has led to racial oppression. Not all white people oppress others, but the concept of whiteness has shaped many areas of life, from citizenship to job opportunities. Even today, studies show racial bias in job applications and traffic stops, demonstrating that race often remains a key factor in judgment.
The history of racism in the West is a history of white identity politics and assumptions of superiority, leading to racial oppression. Anti-racism efforts fought these white identity politics and the associated oppression. Ethnic minorities have had to unite for protection and equality due to these oppressive attitudes, which some white people now criticize as identity politics.
Critics of identity politics, including some Buddhists, often reference Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a color-blind society—where individuals are judged by their character, not skin color. However, King’s approach involved joint political action against racism, acknowledging oppression, and demanding justice. He recognized the need for militancy in achieving equality, involving both Black and white allies. King highlighted the issue with “white moderates” who favored order over justice, which hindered true progress.
As a white Dharma practitioner, I recognize my role in addressing both active oppression and the passivity that perpetuates it. I aim to overcome complacency and actively oppose racism while supporting oppressed communities.
It’s heartening to see many speaking out against racism, but it’s also important to extend the ideal of equality to non-humans. Anthropocentrism—the belief that humans are the central or most important entities in the universe—leads to the exploitation of nature and other beings. Recognizing and resisting this mindset aligns with the broader concept of equality and compassion within Buddhist teachings.