Steve Biko, anti-apartheid activist

When Steve Biko spoke for the Black Consciousness Movement in apartheid South Africa, he was particularly critical of many anti-racial groups at the time, stating:

“The basic problem in South Africa has been analyzed by liberal whites as being apartheid. They argue that in order to oppose it we have to form non-racial groups. . . .[T]he thesis, the anti-thesis and the synthesis have been mentioned by some great philosophers as the cardinal points around which any social revolution revolves. For the liberals, the thesis is apartheid, the anti-thesis is non-racialism, but the synthesis is very feebly defined. They want to tell the blacks that they see integration as the ideal solution. Black Consciousness defines the situation differently. The thesis is in fact a strong white racism and therefore, the antithesis to this must, ipso facto, be a strong solidarity amongst the blacks on whom this white racism seeks to prey. Out of these two situations we can therefore hope to reach some kind of balance— a true humanity where power politics has no place. . . .the failure of the liberals is in the fact that their antithesis is already a watered-down version of the truth whose close proximity to the thesis will nullify the supported balance.” — Steve Biko, The Quest for a True Humanity

One of the most fascinating aspects of Biko’s analysis is that, at least through a modern lens, he saw identity politics as an imperfect-yet-necessary political strategy to overcome the political deadlock between South Africa’s apartheid government and anti-racial groups. Taken out of context, on first reading Biko’s position might be interpreted as racist, suggesting that perhaps he was anti-white and that black separatism was the end goal of the Black Consciousness Movement. In truth his goals were neither vengeful nor separatist, as he eloquently explains in this interview:

“We see a completely non-racial society. We don’t believe, for instance, in the so-called guarantees for minority rights. Because guaranteeing minority rights implies the recognition of portions of the community on a race basis. We believe that in our country there shall be no minority, there shall be no majority, just the people. And those people will have the same status before the law and they will have the same political rights before the law. So in a sense it will be a completely non-racial egalitarian society.” — Steve Biko

Steve Biko saw identity politics as simply a means to an end: a non-racial egalitarian society where identity politics would no longer be necessary. When we speak of identity politics today, this egalitarian vision is completely absent from discussion. Instead, it is replaced with the singular idea of building larger and larger identity coalitions, without examining or outlining what political changes would be necessary to render identity politics non-existent.

In the United States, unlike South Africa, there is a minority black population living inside a majority white ruling class. However, if we extend the definition to include the modern broad coalition of various minority groups, a different picture emerges: a majority non-white population ruled by a minority white ruling class. Even more confusing is the inclusion of white liberals in the form of white allies.

Isn’t this non-white coalition itself a manufactured identity? By it’s very definition, identity politics is about building self-determination and solidarity within a specific group. It is not, at least without a larger political ambition, about building a coalition that becomes a new type of super-majority.

Modern progressives are stuck thinking that with a large enough coalition they will eventually defeat their right-wing adversaries. Unfortunately, this cynical strategy will fail, as it precludes any revolutionary potential to change the underlying system, and will simply result in the emergence of a different minority-majority dynamic. Additionally, without proper direction, this identity coalition will manufacture a new self-awareness that cares more about it’s own existence and survival, thus avoiding a permanent solution to its original goals in a self-fulfilling prophecy — exactly the type of problem Biko observed with well-meaning white liberals and anti-racial coalitions in South Africa.

Finally, identity politics without forward momentum will backfire, resulting in a regression. Today we see the emergence of a new form of right-wing identity politics: the identitarian movement. Many on the left have chosen to double-down on their coalition strategy, morphing language and meaning as needed to exclude the unwanted identitarians, who are built upon the same foundation. Refusing to engage in any self-analysis, these progressives cry out “Resist!”, with no vision of what the world should look like assuming their coalition were to actually succeed.

So how do we move past this cyclical minority-majority pattern?

First, we must understand that identity politics is a powerful method to build solidarity, but by itself contains zero revolutionary potential.

Secondly, we must consider the possibility that identity politics has outlived its current usefulness. With the rise of right-wing identitarianism, the thesis and antithesis of identity politics appear much too similar to result in any synthesis solution. Engaging further may simply be shouting while treading water, or worse: treading quicksand.

Lastly, accepting it as a necessarily imperfect and temporary condition, identity politics must be connected to a broader political mission and vision: one that actively challenges the inequalities in capitalism, imagines a truly egalitarian society without minority-majority divides, and fights to remove all barriers that stand in the way of human freedom.

Only when we seriously consider the above points will we be able to move beyond identity politics and towards “a true humanity where power politics has no place.”