Identity Politics Challenging Universalism

Now in order to get down to explaining exactly how identity politics is challenging the notion of universalism. We must first understand what exactly is to be understood by the term identity politics and of course universalism. So firstly I will begin by explaining what is meant by each term and the secondly I will try to analyse how it is exactly that identity politics reflects a shift away from universalism and towards particularism. I will also explain a bit about particularism and how it relates to identity politics.
Identity politics is the recognition of the importance of the differences within society. It is a political focus upon the individual and seeing them as embedded in a particular culture, social, institutional and ideological sense. In a way, identity politics is the link between the personal and the social aspects of our lives. Heywood states that, “Whereas ‘social cleavage’ implies splits or divisions, encouraging us to treat social groups or collective bodies as entities in their own right, ‘identity’ links the personal to the social.” (Politics, pg.212) Identity is not only singular, there are many aspects of oneself that form a particular identity, things such as gender, ethnicity religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, traditional dominance, etc. A well put statement by Heywood is a good way to understand what is meant by identity, it goes as follows, “identity implies difference: an awareness of difference sharpens or clarifies our sense of identity.” (Politics, pg.212) This modern way of understanding identity has led to what we call ‘politics of recognition’, which stems from the view that identity should be acknowledged both formally and entirely, and that the difference should be accepted and even distinguished. Identity politics has also had a long existence, as far as I can tell; but the unequivocal term and movements associated with it really only came to fruition nearer the end of the 20th century. Most especially it can be found...