Attitudes toward Identity Politics: Principled Support, Concrete Skepticism

• In Event: Political Identity, Partisanship, and Preferences

Abstract

One of the most debated political developments in recent years is the emergence of the phenomenon commonly referred to as “identity politics”. Social identities are widely considered to be among the most important causes of social and political behavior, and as such, identity politics is by no means a new phenomenon. However, the center of this debate is a newer and more specific incarnation of identity politics. While still a contested concept, a core aspect of this version of identity politics is arguably an emphasis on experiences and/or feelings of oppression—as members of minority groups and other vulnerable groups—as a basis for political claims.
While the concept of identity politics and, not least, its potential consequence for society more broadly, have been hotly debate, there has been little analysis of people’s attitudes toward identity politics. This goes for neither (i) the principles underlying modern identity politics as well as (ii) specific issues or episodes that are generally viewed as expressions of identity politics.
In this paper we address the lack of measurement of attitudes toward identity politics by developing a survey instrument to measure attitudes toward identity political principles as well as measures of attitudes toward specific episodes associated with identity politics. We fielded these instruments in two multi-wave panel surveys in Denmark---a country largely representative of the broader trend toward increasing politicization of identity politics. Additionally, we also field the instrument gauging attitudes toward identity political attitudes in a 20-country cross-sectional survey.
Preliminary empirical analyses from the Danish panel surveys reveal several interesting findings. First, the majority of citizens appear to hold reasonably meaningful attitudes toward the principles underlying identity politics in the sense that they respond consistently to the items in our scale as well as hold consistent attitudes over time. Second, people are generally supportive of the principles underlying identity politics (i.e. agreeing with more progressive stances). Third, by contrast, people are overwhelmingly skeptical about the episodes associated with identity politics in the media. Fourth, respondents who were randomly assigned to respond to questions about the concrete episodes associated with identity politics before (as opposed to after) responding to the abstract principles, displayed significantly less progressive stances on these principles. Fifth, attitudes toward identity political principles significantly, but rather moderately, predict attitudes toward specific episodes associated with identity politics. In future iterations of the paper, we plan to include results from the 20-country survey fielding the instrument measuring attitude toward identity political principles.
Collectively, the results reveal an interesting schism between citizens’ attitudes toward the abstract principles and concrete manifestations of identity politics. In the abstract, people support the underlying ideas of identity politics, but when it comes to concrete manifestations of identity politics, they are much more skeptical. Furthermore, support for the principles and concrete manifestations of identity politics are only loosely connected empirically, and support for these principles appear to have a somewhat shallow quality in the sense that they are modified when linked to specific episodes. From the perspective of proponents of identity politics, our results pinpoint the challenge of capitalizing on generally sympathetic attitudes toward its principles in the wider public, while at the same avoiding the potential backlash animated by opposition to specific high-profile episodes covered by the media.

Authors

• Peter Thisted Dinesen, University College London

• Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, Aarhus University