It is not unusual to hear criticism of “identity politics”, especially in the online comments section of this newspaper. This criticism equates the notion of identity politics as a pejorative, and, in our society, quite often it is also referred to as “race rhetoric” or “divisiveness”. While the politics of race are probably the most common target of this dismissive approach to the politics of identity, we also see it frequently applied against anything vaguely feminist or the politics of sexuality and gender.

The curious aspect of this criticism is that, more often than not, those using identity politics as an insult are generally supportive of Make America Great Again — the irony being that Maga is, in large part, a reactionary movement fuelled by the identity politics of both Whiteness and patriarchy.

To me, much of the dismissiveness is fuelled by the perception (of those involved) that the White and male — and heterosexual and ableist — viewpoint is the default. As such, any narrative that dares threaten the security of that world view is inherently seen as a threat, as divisive, simply by pointing out that such a view is not a default, but merely a perspective rooted in power and privilege. Those who are in power have the privilege of not being subjected to systems of oppression, and so are blind to the perspectives of the oppressed — and see any challenge to the systems of oppression from which they benefit as an existential challenge to their power and positions of comfort. That is the root of the dismissive approach to “identity politics”.

Each of us exist within an ensemble of social relations — a worker is not simply a worker. The aspect of class is only one dimension in which one exists; one also exists within a reality of race, sex, gender, sexuality, ability, nationality, religion, etc. And each of those exist within different systems of oppression through exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence. In general, we all exist in a global system of oppression based on White supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, ageism, capitalist exploitation and Christian supremacy. The politics of identity is a reflection of this, as a reaction to oppression, and for liberation – it is inherently a politics of emancipation. In this sense, the politics of identity are fundamentally related to the idea of social, economic and environmental justice.

It comes down to the contested rights of those who argue for the freedom to dominate and exploit, and of those who seek freedom from domination and exploitation. As Marx noted, between equal rights — freedom to oppress and freedom from oppression — force prevails. And we see this very much today. At the moment, especially in the United States, the proponents of the right to oppress control the levers of power, which they came to have in no small part by riding a wave of reaction in response to the most superficial and moderate attempts to give voice to the politics of identity. Through limited approaches to diversity, equity and inclusion, the role of the state to execute these — through its civil service and redistributive potential — and even the symbolic “threat” of a non-White or non-male president.

I’m not sure if we can really argue for a universal concept of justice — it seems to me that the idea of justice is inherently a contested one and a field of struggle. The closest we can come to a universal concept of justice relies on those aspects of our lived reality that are universal to our species — that is, our humanity and its potential. To that end, I propose that justice in this case should be framed around ensuring each one of us is able to realise our full productive human potential, and looking to remove those barriers — physical, economic and social — that hinder the realisation of our full human potential. Justice, to me, must be about freedom from oppression.

Inasmuch as we also exist in the lived realities of race, gender, class, colonialism, sectarianism and more, and inasmuch as these exist within systems of oppression, it is imperative that any position to realise one’s full human potential requires a critique of these systems of oppression. It is also clear that any system of oppression can serve as a refuge for other systems of oppression. If we eradicate the issues of race and class, but not sexism or colonialism, all we do is a partial liberation, one that then rests on the continued oppression of others, and one that contains the potential for the resurgence of race or class bases of oppression.

Thus the position that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. A true movement for human liberation must then be simultaneously antiracist, antisexist, anti-imperialist, anti-sectarian, anti-ableist, and so on. And inasmuch as the issue of class — our relation to the means of production and distribution of resources — is central to all of us, this seems to provide a key factor in informing the others. Of course, this is dialectical, in the sense that just as the issue of class should inform the other aspects, so must the others inform the issue of class.

From this perspective, the issue of identity politics is a key aspect of the quest for human liberation, of freedom from systems of oppression. Attempts to deny the reality of identity politics are inherently attempts to deny the reality of these systems of oppression in an attempt to handicap the ability of the oppressed to truly understand and articulate their oppression. If one is unable to understand one’s oppression, then one’s ability to resist is limited to the occasional “blind” rebellion that is easily defeated or co-opted. It is an attempt to deny reality in order to prevent a true revolt against oppression. As such, those of us who stand on the side of human liberation, of freedom from oppression, must remind ourselves of the advice from Bertolt Brecht:

...it takes a lot of things to change the world:

Anger and tenacity. Science and indignation,

The quick initiative, the long reflection,

The cold patience and the infinite perseverance,

The understanding of the particular case and the understanding of the ensemble:

Only the lessons of reality can teach us to transform reality.

• Jonathan Starling is a socialist writer with an MSc in Ecological Economics from the University of Edinburgh and an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from Heriot-Watt University