Link back to comment

It is worth considering possible relationships between the pervasiveness of identity politics and inequality of power. I speak from a social policy perspective and in relation to social justice. Historically, Australian social policy developed within the broad concepts of charity and the ‘deserving poor’. Generally, our social policy has focused on those considered most disadvantaged and those to whom we have a duty of care.

Those disadvantaged was generally determined by factors such as income, (poverty) and vulnerability (duty of care). Vulnerable groups included young children, the frail aged, the mentally unwell, people with disabilities and those experiencing violence or homelessness. At a structural level social policy was also focused on those that experience systemic disadvantage such as Aboriginal Australians, women and those living in remote communities with less access to a range of essential services. From a policy perspective the priorities were reasonably clear.

What has emerged in the last couple of decades and become embedded is the overlay of identity politics into this framework. This has included factors such as gender /sexual preference, race/nationality and religion/beliefs etc.

I do not dispute the validity of these factors; we have become a more complex society. What I find concerning is that a middle class, tertiary educated citizen who is or identifies as a Asian Muslim or Christian homosexual feels entitled to consider themselves seriously disadvantaged and in need of media attention and government intervention. This may well be their opinion, and one shared by many, but this trend has shifted the focus away from the basics of inequity and power relationships. This seeps through to laws, policy priorities and a pronounced media focus on identify politics. In Australia it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, intersex status, gender identity and sexual orientation. But not poverty.

Lobbying for resources and striving for public recognition of the issues has always been the part of the social policy landscape. However, now it is much more difficult partly due to ever expanding criteria of what constitutes disadvantage or inequity.

In some respects identify politics has contributed to us losing our way in terms of social justice; proportionality and priorities have been lost in a competition that the most ‘unequal’ cannot and do not win. Intersectionality specialists at universities are kept busy adding variables to their overlapping systems, while poverty and homelessness are at unacceptable levels.

This has skewered the focus away from critical debates about what are our policy priorities and which issues/ groups come first. This can create a weird kind of competitive martyrdom, so many people now seem to want to be the ‘victim’ or think their ‘rights’ trump all others.

The focus is too often on issues I regard as important but secondary in terms of priorities. The well off and well educated can usually look after themselves. Still, the unisex toilet and breast feeding room at the inner city park gets funded, while a clean and reliable water supply for a remote town is deferred, again.

Inequality can be more effectively addressed if the priorities are clear. This country does not have a good track record in the areas of child protection or Aboriginal disadvantage. These are not intractable issues; we have simply accepted that they are.

My view is that this is partly due to a crowded market place of demands for ‘social justice’ driven by identify politics and a 24/7 media dominated by a middle class that is obsessed with itself. Continually expanding the definition of who is unequal or disadvantaged results in policy grid lock and those most in need, with the least power, are the losers.