How and when do people strategically deploy identities?

    In the article “Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement,” author Mary Bernstein argues that identity politics are more complicated than previous literature has suggested, and discusses the manifold ways that identity can be “deployed” by activists to pursue political or cultural change. The article examines several activist movements including the lesbian and gay movement, the feminist movement, and the Civil Rights movement to drive home the point that key differences in the role of identity in these types of movements are largely dependent upon the specific objectives and location of the movement among other factors. Bernstein focuses on the extent to which an identity is highlighted or concealed in a given movement, making a distinction between “identity for critique” which seeks to challenge cultural norms and “identity for education” which seeks to alter attitudes about minority groups. Bernstein claims that in reality, the decision to deploy or highlight an identity in a movement depends on numerous other situational contexts such as whether an organized opposition exists or whether activists have access to their public officials.

I found this article to be quite fascinating and very observant. I think Bernstein is correct that the deployment of identity is largely contingent upon external factors in combination with the stated objectives of the movement. In other words, different strategies need to be used in different locations to encourage participation and cooperation within the community. As I read, I found myself wondering about the differences between explicit and implicit presentation of identity in movements. The cases that Bernstein chooses to analyze are clearly ones in which people explicitly chose to present or embrace their identity as a central part of the movement. As Bernstein alludes to, this is partly due to the fact that the groups she intended to study have been categorized as minority or oppressed groups, which frequently use their identities to attract support or gain leverage (as they may not have many other tools at their disposal due to a lack of social and political power). I would argue that the term “identity politics” she mentions early in the article should be applied to dominant groups as well. Bernstein seems to imply that only minority groups participate in identity politics, but I would say that dominant groups are playing the game of identity politics too, they just do not have to explicitly “deploy” their identity in the same way because they enjoy more power and thus have more options for gaining support and encouraging mobilization among their ranks. Even among dominant groups, an identity is still being created and mobilized to pursue objectives that benefit that group. In sum, I think that people often deploy their identities to gain power, whether it be social or political. I also think that identity is inherently a part of almost every political and social movement, though it may be presented explicitly or implicitly in the case of dominant groups.

This article prompted me to consider the different ways that identity is underscored in social and political movements in attempts to gain support. I somewhat dislike the term “identity politics” that is used to frame the article because I think it suggests that only minorities leverage their identity, when identity actually plays a critical role in a wide variety of movements. I enjoyed reading Bernstein’s work and the way that she pointed out the obstacles minority groups face when structuring movements to create lasting change. I think it is a good reminder that there is no one “right” way to create change and different situations call for different responses.