<p>The identity-based approach to social analysis is no more defensible than the argument that Genesis is literally true. Maybe more people need to do critical analysis of the critical analysis. </p>
<p>There are innumerable ways people can group themselves and innumerable different possible identities. Individuals tend to choose to claim membership in popular identity groups that are fashionable and/or that benefit them in some way, i.e., they are generally following their own narrow, selfish, short-term interests in choosing what identity to embrace. </p>
<p>A wealthy, beautiful, white woman who benefited from having male ancestors who were privileged often tries to create even more advantages for herself by identifying as a woman rather than as a white, wealthy, or beautiful person, so she can demand compensation for the past history of discrimination against women (which is somewhat nonsensical, as the effects of gender discrimination do not pass down through generations like the effects of racial discrimination – a man suffers if his mother suffered and a woman benefits if her father benefited).</p>
<p>The conservatives in this argument have taken the broad, long-term, responsible approach (something that is not necessarily associated with conservatism) in arguing that there should be more focus on what binds us together than on what divides us. The liberals have taken the narrow, short-term self-interested view (something that is not necessarily associated with liberalism) in arguing that we should focus on the differences, even if that makes it more difficult to agree on common values and common goals and to live in harmony.</p>
<p>Ironically, I suspect that most predatory elites prefer to side with the liberals in this argument, even if the liberals generally demonize predatory elites, because it makes the opposition fractured, weak, distracted, and confused and unlikely to threaten the plans, privileges, or positions of such predatory elites.</p>