MLK and Identity Politics (by Melvin Bray)
The 40th anniversary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination - April 4, 1968 - will soon be upon us. As I remember Dr. King against the backdrop of this 2008 presidential election cycle, I reflect on what a brilliant political strategist he was. He was able to bring corporations to the point of acquiescence without resorting to violence or bribery. He was able to pass legislation that changed the daily lives of not only blacks but also women, people of faith, and immigrants - without ever being elected to public office or attempting to buy political influence. He was able to garner and leverage the attention of the entire international community on behalf of America's poor, marginalized, and disenfranchised - without ever being appointed to an ambassadorship or other high-profile international post. He was able to remind U.S. citizens what a democracy was and to engender a sense of moral responsibility that, more than 40 years later, challenges us to be the good we want to see in the world. King was a political genius.
With a vision this grand, one would think that the lion's share of King's work would have been on the national and international stage, yet somehow King expected to bring all this about by local, contextual, direct action: organizing to gain political access and self-determination for Blacks, advocating on behalf of unemployed Appalachian whites, striking with sanitation workers. I believe his ability to accomplish each of these things was predicated on a very simple, but profound realization: All politics are identity politics. The question is: whom does one choose to identify with?
We must understand that King didn't identify with whom he did because he had to. King received early admittance into Morehouse College at age 15. He had secured his doctorate by the age of 26. From Boston University, he could have gone any number of places, but he chose to return to the South - the Deep South - the hot-bed of racial tension in America in 1953. This became a habit that he continued to practice all his life. He would position himself in the mist of injustice and turmoil, and though it did not serve him personally, he would stand in solidarity with the marginalized, giving voice to their plight. This was King's identity politics.
Nowadays, when we hear the talking heads in the media discussing identity politics, they talk about groups that share what the privileged like to term "special interests" - Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, women, the disabled, veterans, immigrants, etc. - as if the interests of these people groups are somehow outside or beyond the mainstream. What is never discussed is that the interests of the already privileged are no less specialized and linked to their identity as well.
Yet King never got caught up into pitting one group's interest against another. He took his cue from Jesus. Jesus consistently chose to identify with those who were oppressed, the captive, the outsider, the poor, the sick, the voiceless. His represented an others-interested politics, an others-interested identity. And his way turns our typical identity politics on its head.
We are admonished daily, at times even from the pulpit, to vote and to seek our own so-called "enlightened" self-interest. Yet I can't recall one story from the biblical narrative in which a situation was improved or resolved by the protagonist attending more carefully to his or her own self-interest.
In his parable of "The Reckoning" (Matt 25:31-46), Jesus tells of those who are rewarded for feeding, clothing, sheltering, and freeing him. They responded to their good fortune with bewilderment: "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry, needy, a stranger, or in prison?" And Jesus announces, "Insomuch as you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done unto me." Even in judgment, Jesus chooses to identify with all of humanity. I can imagine King sitting in his study reading this and saying like a good-ol' Baptist preacher, "If it was good enough for my Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
So in this politically charged season, when race and gender and ideology are, as we have seen already, apt to become weapons in a war for the hearts and minds and hopes and dreams of all U.S. citizens, all politics remain identity politics - but that doesn't mean we have to pit our identity against the identity of another. In the spirit of King - and Jesus before him - we can choose to identify with more than just ourselves. We too can be both privileged and unprivileged, black and white, Asian and Latino, Muslim and Jew, Christian and Pagan, rich and poor, citizen and immigrant, national and international, public and private, veterans and peacemakers, Republican and Democrat, homosexual and unborn, blue collar, white collar, and no collar.
We can know each other's suffering, be acquainted with each other's grief, and work on each other's behalf to heal the hurts that have for too long divided the human family and robbed us of the solidarity that is, perhaps, our only hope of a brighter tomorrow.
Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, and believer in possibilities. As founder of Kid Cultivators, he lives, loves, and dreams with friends in Atlanta, Georgia.









Add to Newsvine




Comments
Amen.
Posted by: Mark | March 13, 2008 12:53 PM
A story about King in jail makes this point. He got to talking with white racist jailers who nevertheless told him they were also being screwed by the "system." King said, "You ought to be with us."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 13, 2008 1:55 PM
'Nowadays, when we hear the talking heads in the media discussing identity politics, they talk about groups that share what the privileged like to term "special interests".'
Blatant theft, as most of what the privileged possess is. I remember when 'special interests' MEANT 'the privileged'.
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 13, 2008 3:07 PM
Thanks for articulating this, Melvin.
"All politics are identity politics. The question is: whom does one choose to identify with?" This has been bouncing around in my head since you first shared it at Indiana Wesleyan.
Posted by: Pat | March 13, 2008 4:48 PM
There’s much I agree with in this commentary. King’s willingness to make great sacrifices on behalf of other people is a model for all of us. He could have taken an easier route, but he didn’t. As Melvin mentions, he could have run for Congress and made a life of speaking about problems. While there’s merit to running for office, it also comes with numerous guaranteed worldly benefits (power, influence, money, prestige, etc). There were very few guaranteed worldly benefits in the route King took.
I have one minor gripe about the term “special interests”. Usually when I hear the term used by the media and politicians it’s used in reference to the privileged, not the oppressed. It’s generally used to describe wealthy, powerful, usually corporate, entities that buy influence with the government. It’s rarely used to describe the poor, religious minorities, veterans, etc. The fact is though, they’re all special interests. There’s nothing inherently wrong with advocating on behalf of a particular group; the right to petition the government is a Constitutional right. It’s all about your motivation. If you’re Halliburton asking for a no-bid contract or a teachers union trying to preserve your monopoly over teaching, that’s the wrong motivation.
I was intrigued by this statement: “We are admonished daily, at times even from the pulpit, to vote and to seek our own so-called "enlightened" self-interest. Yet I can't recall one story from the biblical narrative in which a situation was improved or resolved by the protagonist attending more carefully to his or her own self-interest.” I’m interested in what other people think about this. Is it wrong for someone to vote for candidate X solely because that candidate says I’m going to provide Y benefit, which is something you need? This was the whole premise of the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” book - that low and middle-income heartland whites were voting Republican supposedly against their own economic interests. Is there anything wrong with that? The author certainly thought so. Is it wrong for a veteran to vote for candidate Y solely because he or she has promised to raise veterans benefits? I’m interested in thoughts…
Posted by: Eric V. | March 13, 2008 5:31 PM
thanks for raising that question eric v. i too am looking forward to discussion on that point.
i do not, however, believe there is anything wrong with people voting toward their interests. i just don't believe that should be the sole, or even the primary, criterion for a follower of GOD in the way of jesus.
Posted by: melvin bray | March 13, 2008 6:04 PM
Melvin - That's an important distinction you make - sole or primary reason vs. one of many reasons.
Posted by: Eric V. | March 13, 2008 6:43 PM
I have never looked at public officials as instruments of my agenda. I look at them as doing the public's work. And I seldom find pundit commentary about my "identity groups" that makes any sense to me it understanding my own political actions.
I think this article about King very encouraging. I tend to think the current identity politics may apply more to how politicians and media conduct their actions and storytelling than it does to how folks behave (and why they behave) on the ground. If nothing else this is because our self-identities are often distinct from the labels/categories applied to us.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 13, 2008 6:56 PM
Consider spending the 40th anniversary of MLK's death in Montgomery AL for 12-hr fast/prayer with planned 20,000. info at www (dot) the call (dot) com
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 13, 2008 7:00 PM
Dear Melvin,
A fine post, in my estimation, on identity politics that I would like to weigh in on with regard to its science and the campaign.
There are scary results coming out of neuroscience that suggest that we all have inborn “mirror neurons”, confirmed, so they say, from functional MRIs. These little guys, apparently, act to reflect the feelings, appearances and whatnot from those within our perceptual fields. That is, some researchers say that they reflect and set up the bonds within which we identify with those in our environs such that if our contexts are yellow, or red, or black or white or etc. ad infinitum the neurons fire to fix our somatic markers (the neurons—see Demasio) with these inputs.
Now, the horror of this is that it suggests that identity politics is of the woof and warp of our wiring. Being the liberal I am, I would prefer to believe that this could be overcome, as it has historically been, by culture—witness the universalism of Jesus in this wise.
Thus, given this overcoming, the suggestion that all politics is identity politics may be a mere political construct that is just an ideological formation, one that has no real purchase on the world because it is a vision of the world that some would impose on us. I am reminded of a story Sen, the Indian Nobel Laureate, who noted in horror in one of his books that a servant was killed simply because he was not one of them—identity politics carried to its ultimate. True, we are different but not indifferent nor so different to the putatative common values that may define our humanness such as. That is, difference does not preclude the temporary coming together to go beyond a narrow interestedness in one’s political or social identity. It amounts to a modus vivendi, a truce that could suspend crass identity politics for a King-like brotherhood.
On a political front, I fear, unfortunately, that the Clinton campaign continues to foreground race and identity politics as a strategy to engender fear among the white working class (once, perhaps, Regan Democrats), as she foregrounds fear and difference of race because it is, as in identity politics, a politics of an alienating difference, one that has no mediating grace.
Some say it may be a bad thing to go beyond identity politics to a politics of inclusion, but, clearly in my view, there is no place for an identity politics that does not include us all in this great experiment that is American Democracy.
Posted by: Brent | March 13, 2008 9:25 PM
Yet King never got caught up into pitting one group's interest against another.
This is so true. I have students in one of my classes read King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Whenever I assign it, I re-read it myself. It's that kind of piece--I always learn something new each time I read through it. One of the things I always point out in class is how gracious King was to those who disagreed with him--not only to those he was responding to directly, but even to the ardent segregationists he talks about in the letter. He never forgot that they too are made in God's image, no matter how wrong or hateful he thought their actions were.
I always tell the students that we could learn a lot about how to conduct political debates from King. He is a true role model on so many levels.
Thanks for your comments, Melvin.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 11:03 AM
I wonderful assessment of where King would perhaps, have stood today. But let us remember that he repudiated the Vietnam War and stood against the President that advanced it, Johnson. He did not "identify" with those who stood neutral, in fact he repeated Dante, "The hottest places in hell..."
Just as Jesus and Gandhi before him, he called the "special interests" and the "powers that be" out on the carpet as the hypocrites they were to profit on the misfortune of others.
It got them all killed, and Dr. King assassinated by elements within his own government.
If you haven't read An Act of State you really should, then get active my friends. That's how we learn from and honor Dr. King.
I John 3:18 "Dear Children, Do not love with words, but with ACTION and DEEDS."
Posted by: Lisa LeDonne-Stan | March 15, 2008 12:39 AM
The most active influence of the mirror neuron is actually empathy. If we can focus the perceptive power of this neurons on those things help to make our children emotionally wiser I think they will be able to over come the supperficial judgements that we might otherwize make. By placing our collective mirror neurons in an environment of fear, their greatest potential will be wasted. Influenced by a rich environment of human sensitivity and empathy our mirror neurons have the ability to help us over come our greatest obstacles with one another.
Reverend King had the extraordinary ablitiy to slip past our assumptions and remind us that it was in everyone's "Special Interest" to be concerned for the poor and the marginalized.
I would like to learn more about the development of His mirror neurons.
Melvin, Thank you for such a a great piece.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 16, 2008 4:13 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?