Sotomayor, white men, and identity politics

In the past few weeks, we’ve all been inundated with news about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court and now well-known 2001 speech at Berkeley Law. 

All of the major media outlets and political talk shows, including this morning’s Meet the Press and State of the Union, have taken this on as one of their primary topics.  In fact, they’ve replaced coverage of their favorite national security issue with policymakers, pundits, and regular folks debating back and forth about whether or not Sotomayor is a “good pick” for Supreme Court Justice. 

It is, however, understandable why Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court has captured the nation’s political imagination!  President Obama has just nominated the first Latina woman to serve on the highest court of the land!  Sotomayor’s nomination represents the hopes and dreams of so many who have fought for or otherwise believe in gender equality and racial justice—of those who believe in the representation and full, meaningful engagement of women and people of color in all aspects of this country’s leadership. 

But I also don’t have to tell you that Sotomayor’s nomination represents some folks’ worst nightmare!  I can just hear it now: “Wasn’t electing a Black President enough?”  “What happened to the ‘post-racial’ Obama (if you’ve been reading between the lines of his speeches, you know that he never existed to begin with!)?” “What is this? A Black and Brown takeover?”

Fear of gender and racial justice has stirred many conservatives to their core…leading de facto party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to call Sotomayor a racist.  Or rather, excuse me, a “reverse racist”—whatever that means given that the very definition of racism involves a dominant or hegemonic racial group exercising social, economic, and political power over another based on some socially and historically constructed definition of “race,” which the dominant group holds near and dear to its heart because of the privileges that it confers upon its members. 

An important focal point of these conversations has been whether or not Sotomayor’s statement that her identity as a Latina woman shapes her judicial judgment makes her unfit to serve on the Court. We’ve heard all sorts of accusations that Sotomayor is playing “identity politics”—which is of course, completely unacceptable given that the playing field is entirely level  for everyone in this country and that struggles for gender and racial justice are oh so passé!  

Wherever you stand on the issue, whatever “identity politics” means to you, and regardless of whether or not you like or agree with the use of the term, I’m sure you can appreciate how ironic it is that accusations of “playing identity politics” only come up when we’re talking about women or people of color or both, but never when we’re talking about white men. 

Is being a man not a gender identity? 

Is being white not a racial identity?

The way that the debate has been unfolding, you would think not! 

In fact, the only people whom I’ve heard throw around this accusation of “identity politicking” are white men.  The white women, women of color, and men of color who have appeared on political talk shows have all acknowledged and reaffirmed the inevitable truth that one’s life experiences, which in turn affect one’s professional judgment and interpretation of seemingly objective aspects of social life such as the law, are shaped by one’s gender and race/ethnicity.  Is this really surprising given that where you stand in the social hierarchy—which is based on not only your gender and race/ethnicity, but also socioeconomic position, sexual orientation, and immigrant status (among others)—affects the types of social, economic, and political opportunities that you are not only exposed to but afforded? 

The conversations surrounding the Sotomayor nomination have made it crystal clear that white men constitute the “baseline,” “standard,” or “normative” identity in this country—a kind of apolitical hegemonic identity-less identity, if you will—that is thus above any kind of “identity politics.”  Anyone who somehow deviates from this norm—and dares to bring it up in the context of social or political life—is a whiner or agitator.  Never mind that being a white man is attached to social, economic, and political power and that this power has been secured through violence (physical, economic, sexual, cultural, structural, and symbolic) against other social groups.  And never mind that being the hegemonic social identity is a source of power in and of itself.  It’s the norm and therefore beyond any scrutiny.  

In his book entitled “The Gendered Society,” Michael S. Kimmel (2000, p. 7) states: “Sometimes, I like to think that it was on this day that I became a middle-class white man. Sure, I had been all those before, but they had not meant much to me.  Until then, I had thought myself generic, universally generalizable.  Since then, I ‘ve begun to understand that race, class, and gender don’t refer only to other people, who are marginalized by race, class, or gender privivlege.  Those terms also describe me.  I enjoyed the privilege of invisibility.”  He goes on to note: “Invisibility is a privilege in another sense—as a luxury. Only white people in our society have the luxury not to think about race every minute of their lives.  And only men have the luxury to pretend that gender does not matter.” 

The reality is that no decision is ever devoid of “identity politics.”  You could easily see how having all white men on the Supreme Court could also constitute “identity politics.”  Having all white men on the Board of a major financial institution?  Easily “identity politics” as well!  Even if they are not blatantly made on race or gender (although many still are), these are political decisions made on factors such as level of experience, level of education, socioeconomic status (including occupation and social prestige)—all of which are shaped by one’s social position.  And, you guessed it, one’s social position is influenced by one’s identity—or rather, I should say, the value that our society has assigned to that particular identity.

“Identity politics” just seem more covert, less obvious, and even non-existent when white men are appointed to positions of power.  Afterall, these are the images that have dominated our social, economic, and political landscape throughout history.  It’s just business as usal.

So because people like Sonia Sotomayor, who deviate from the “normative white male identity,” are challenging the baseline assumptions of who can be in a leadership position—while noting their gender and race/ethnicity in the process—they’re playing identity politics? 

What they’re really doing is pointing out who’s been dominating the game all along.

 m.