Shmolitics as Identity of Politics

Ever felt like you’re in a maze where every turn reveals another wall? That’s often the experience of well-meaning individuals navigating today’s identity politics. Let’s explore this paradox where good intentions meet preconceived notions, creating a labyrinth that can stifle even the most altruistic efforts. However what are politics if not vying interests? What as an interest without it involving identity? Impossible. All genuine political interests are indeed identity based. Even the actor choosing to not consider identity in anything have taken upon themselves an identity against identities seeking their interest, in theory.

Imagine walking into a community meeting with a plan to organise a volunteer programme. You’re met with nods and smiles, but beneath the surface, there’s an undercurrent of scepticism. “Why is he doing this?” some will inevitably wonder. “Is it genuine, or is there a hidden agenda?” This paradox is not about dismissing valid concerns but acknowledging that our perceptions can often overshadow good intentions.

In a society increasingly aware of systemic inequalities, the burden of proof often falls on those who seem to benefit from these systems. All help from White men, outside of complete submission to people with foreign identities, is seen as trying to empower the self, enable other White men, or assuage guilt rather than genuinely wanting to make a difference. This mindset creates a catch-22 where any good intentions are met with suspicion, and even well-executed actions can be dismissed as insincere.

Identity is the first filter through which actions are judged. A man’s act of kindness will be viewed differently than that of someone with a different identity, and rightly so. Identity exposes purpose in most actions. Those perceived as undeserving of whatever success they may have are often further forced to bear the burden of proving sincerity. This stifles genuine efforts to do good, with every action scrutinised under a microscope. While awareness of systemic issues is crucial, it can sometimes overshadow individual actions. Good intentions are lost in the broader narrative of supposed systemic injustices, despite the wartime-like conditions brought about by the plethora of identities.

Consider the example of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, popular yet still met with derision. Companies led by White executives still faced backlash for their efforts simply because of identity. The identity ameliorating actions of providing scholarships, supporting local communities, or various diversity programmes were seen as tokenism rather than any genuine commitment. This was based purely on identity. It was never taken seriously, and most people, for whom such programmes were designed, viewed it as though the organisations were doing it under force, for their own good somehow or otherwise not of their own will. It was never enough, and would never be.