Reflections on the Historical Limitations of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

The world today is undergoing changes unseen in a century, and both China and Western societies are experiencing rapid and profound transformations. Since reform and opening up, the Chinese people, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, have united as one and blazed a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Currently, in stark contrast to China’s rise, Western developed countries are encountering problems in their economies, politics, and people’s livelihoods. Not only have they failed to recover from the 2008 financial crisis, but they have also been unable to effectively respond to sudden public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. What has gone wrong with Western developed capitalist countries? The reasons are, of course, multifaceted, but many Western thinkers, such as Mark Lilla and Francis Fukuyama, have coincidentally pointed to “identity politics.” Since the 1960s, with the advent of post-industrial society, the political and economic structures of Western societies have undergone major changes, and traditional class politics has gradually declined. Against this historical backdrop, identity politics, primarily in the form of new social movements, has entered the historical stage of Western developed countries and plays a significant role in social and political life. Since the 21st century, mass social movements in Western developed countries, such as anti-globalization, anti-immigration waves, white racism, “Black Lives Matter,” “Me Too,” and the “queer movement,” all bear distinct characteristics of identity politics. In terms of political consequences, identity politics has profoundly influenced the development trajectory of Western societies, not only leading to a state of polarization in Western society and politics but also posing major challenges to the global governance system and world peace. Therefore, summarizing the manifestations of contemporary Western identity politics, comprehensively understanding its institutional roots and social dynamics, and reflecting on its historical limitations from the perspective of class analysis hold profound theoretical significance and urgent practical relevance. This helps us understand the current global changes and continuously advance the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

当今世界处于百年未有之大变局，中国和西方社会都经历着急剧而深刻的变化。改革开放以来，中国人民在中国共产党的带领下，团结一致，开辟出了一条中国特色社会主义道路。当前，与中国崛起形成鲜明对比，西方发达国家在经济、政治和社会民生方面都出现了问题，不仅迟迟没有从2008年金融危机中走出，而且无法有效应对新冠肺炎疫情这样的突发公共卫生事件。西方发达资本主义国家到底怎么了？原因当然是多方面的，但很多西方思想家如马克·里拉、弗朗西斯·福山不约而同地将问题指向了“身份政治”（Identity Politics)。20世纪60年代以来，随着后工业社会的到来，西方社会的政治经济结构出现重大变化，传统阶级政治逐渐衰落。在这样的历史背景下，身份政治以新社会运动为主要形式登上了西方发达国家的历史舞台，并在社会和政治生活中发挥重要作用。21世纪以来，西方发达国家的反全球化、反移民浪潮、白人种族主义、“黑命贵”、“Me Too”“酷儿运动”等群体性社会运动都带有鲜明的身份政治特征。从政治后果看，身份政治深刻影响了西方社会的发展走向，不仅使西方社会与政治出现极化状态，而且给全球治理体系和世界和平带来重大挑战。因此，概括当代西方身份政治的表现形式，全面理解其制度根源与社会动因，从阶级分析法出发反思其历史局限性，具有深刻的理论意义和紧迫的现实意义，有助于我们认识当前世界变局，不断推进中国特色社会主义向前发展。

I. Manifestations of Identity Politics in Contemporary Western Society

一、当代西方社会身份政治的表现形式

In traditional Western society, factors such as lineage, class, status, and gender determined the passivity and relative fixity of individual and group identity. “In medieval Europe, characteristics related to identity, such as lineage, gender, social status, and others, were always relatively fixed. To change them required a long time, but this was also constrained by institutional processes, and the individual’s role in it was relatively passive.” [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation. Only under the conditions of modernity does the uniqueness of identity get placed on the historical agenda of self-confirmation. In identity studies before the 1960s, the focus was primarily on the individual. However, once “identity” enters “politics,” its focus primarily involves a certain group. “Identity discourse seems perfectly suited for the following purpose: by prompting people to identify a shared history, way of life, mode of thought, or outlook on life, identity not only possesses explanatory power but also political potential, because it encourages strengthening solidarity within the group and expressing group-based pride.” [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. Within the political context of modernity, to confirm one’s identity, the subject must seek recognition from the other; this is the authentic connotation of identity politics. After “Identity” was absorbed by the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s, “Identity Politics” became an important category for understanding contemporary politics. For the purposes of this article, contemporary Western identity politics can be defined as a political form that has emerged in Western developed countries since the 1960s, which respects the differences of various groups and their cultures, acknowledges the value of different cultural groups, especially socially marginalized groups, and on this basis, protects the rights of various identity groups. We consider the new social movements of the 1960s as the beginning of contemporary Western identity politics; this trend of thought and movement has a history of approximately sixty years. Using the subject of identity politics as a classification criterion, the trends and movements of contemporary Western identity politics can be summarized into the following four main forms.

在传统西方社会，血缘、阶级、地位、性别等因素决定了个体和群体对其身份认同的被动性和相对固定性。“在中世纪的欧洲，与身份认同相关的世系、性别、社会地位及其他特征总是相对固定的。要想对此作出转变，需经过许久方能实现，但这又受到制度化过程的制约，并且个人在其中的作用是相对被动的。”只有在现代性条件下，身份的独特性才会被提上自我确认的历史日程。在20世纪60年代之前的身份研究中，其指向主要是个体。但是，一旦“身份”进入“政治”，其指向就主要涉及某个群体。“身份话语似乎已经完美地适用下述目的：通过促使人们指认一种共享的历史、生活方式、思考方式或人生观，身份不仅具有了解释力，而且具有了政治潜能，因为它鼓励加强群体内部的团结，表达基于群体的自豪感。”在现代性政治语境之下，为确证自己的身份，主体必须去寻求他者的承认，这是身份政治的本真内涵。“Identity”被20世纪60年代兴起的新社会运动吸纳后，“Identity Politics”就成为理解当代政治的重要范畴。就本文主旨而言，可以把当代西方身份政治界定为20世纪60年代以来西方发达国家兴起的尊重不同群体及其文化的差异性，承认不同文化群体特别是社会边缘群体的价值，以此为基础保护各种身份群体权利的政治形态。我们把20世纪60年代的新社会运动看作当代西方身份政治的开端，这一思潮和运动已经有大约60年的历史。以身份政治的主体为分类标准，可以把当代西方身份政治思潮和运动归纳为以下四种主要形态。

(A) Left-Wing Identity Politics Movements

（一）左翼身份政治运动

After the 1960s, the superposition of many subjective and objective factors led to the deconstruction of the Marxist revolutionary logic centered on class struggle, and the traditional model of socialist revolution gradually lost its soil for survival in developed countries. Western left-wing forces urgently needed to find new carriers and pathways to activate the revolutionary potential of resisting capitalism under the conditions of the new era. Left-wing scholars Laclau and Mouffe explicitly pointed out the difficult situation faced by the Western left after the 1960s: “Left-wing thought today stands at a crossroads. The past ‘clear truths’—classical political analysis and forms of reasoning, the nature of the forces of struggle, the true meaning of left-wing struggle and goals—are being challenged by the immense historical transformations that are undermining the foundations of these truths.” [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. Against this historical backdrop, the New Left movement arose. From an identity perspective, the New Left was mainly composed of progressive intellectuals and young students who were dissatisfied with capitalism but did not identify with the traditional left’s model of class struggle. The New Left had its own organizations and publications, such as the *New Left Review*, which has been hugely influential since its founding in 1960. To activate Marxism’s resistance to capitalism, the New Left fully turned to identity politics, combining with new social movements and playing a significant role in struggles for democratic rights, opposition to mainstream culture, opposition to the Vietnam War, and environmental movements. It can be said that the New Left movement, with its diverse subjects of struggle, rich themes of struggle, and varied forms of struggle, profoundly criticized and resisted capitalism in the “post-industrial era.” In some countries, factions even emerged that sought to change the existing capitalist social system through direct political movements and violent means. The “May 1968” events in France [4]4 The source of this quote is not identified in the original text. were the climax of the large-scale mass movements led by the “New Left.” Because they threatened the rule of the bourgeoisie, the “New Left” was suppressed and divided by the government. It can be said that the large-scale student protests and mass movements promoted by the “New Left” ended in 1968, but the “New Left” movement continued to participate in various forms of resistance and critique of capitalism in the form of left-wing identity politics, such as minority rights movements, feminist movements, green peace movements, and other new social movements. Today, there are many inheritors and practitioners of the “New Left” spirit in the intellectual circles of developed countries in Europe and America. “The left-wing social movements formed under the impetus of the radicalism of the ‘Three M’s’ (Marx, Mao, Marcuse) in 1968 were truly a movement to comprehensively overturn the mainstream socio-political order of modern society. To this day, those students who once charged into battle have gracefully transformed into university professors, thus making today’s European and American universities an important arena for left and right-wing identity politics to display their skills.” [5]5 “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was the primary campaign slogan of Donald Trump during his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Overall, as the most important critical force in identity politics over the past sixty years, the theory and practice of the New Left movement have activated various marginalized groups that cannot be integrated by the coercive structures of capitalism, becoming the most core and revolutionary political force among various identity politics movements. Left-wing identity politics has continuously criticized the inherent inequalities of capitalism, promoting social progress and development.

20世纪60年代后，诸多主客观因素叠加，使以阶级斗争为政治旨归的马克思主义革命逻辑被解构，传统社会主义革命模式在发达国家逐渐失去了生存土壤。西方左翼力量迫切需要找到新的载体和路径，在新的时代条件下激活反抗资本主义的革命潜能。左翼学者拉克劳和墨菲明确指出了1960年代之后西方左翼面临的困难局面：“左翼思想今天处在十字路口之上，过去‘鲜明的真理’——经典的政治分析和推理形式、斗争力量的本质、左翼斗争和目标的真正意义——受到了瓦解这些真理基础的巨大历史转变的挑战。”在这样的时代背景下，新左派运动兴起。从身份角度看，新左派主要是由一批对资本主义不满但又不认同传统左派阶级斗争模式的进步知识分子和青年学生组成。新左派有自己的组织和刊物，如自1960年创刊至今一直产生巨大影响的《新左派评论》。为激活马克思主义对于资本主义的反抗，新左派全面转向身份政治，与新社会运动相结合，在争取民主权利、反对主流文化、反对越南战争、环保运动中发挥了重要作用。可以说，新左派运动以多元的斗争主体、丰富的斗争主题、多样的斗争形式，深刻批判与反抗“后工业时代”的资本主义。部分国家还出现了以直接的政治运动和暴力手段改变现存资本主义社会制度的派别。1968年法国的“五月风暴”是“新左派”领导的大规模群众运动的高潮。“新左派”由于威胁到资产阶级的统治，遭到了政府的压制和分化。可以说，“新左派”所推动的大规模学生抗议和群众运动已经在1968年终结，但是“新左派”运动继续以左翼身份政治的形式参与各种资本主义的反抗与批判，如少数族裔的权利运动、女权主义运动、绿色和平主义等新社会运动。今天欧美发达国家的知识界有很多“新左派”精神的继承者与实践者。“1968年在‘三M’（Marx、Mao、Marcuse）激进主义思想的促使中形成的左派社会运动，真正是一场全方位颠覆现代主流社会政治秩序的运动。到今时今日，当年那些冲锋陷阵的大学生们华丽转身为大学教授，因此，让今日欧美的大学已然成为左右翼身份政治认同施展身手的重要场所。”总体而言，作为60年来身份政治最为重要的批判力量，新左派运动的理论和实践激活了不能被资本主义强制结构所整合的各种边缘化群体，成为各种身份政治运动中最为核心也是最为革命的政治力量。左翼身份政治持续不断对资本主义内在的不平等展开批判，推动了社会的进步和发展。

(B) Minority Rights Movements

（二）少数族裔权利运动

From a racial perspective, there exist in Western developed countries minority groups and vulnerable groups that are treated unjustly, such as the African American community, Native American indigenous peoples, Asian American communities, and other immigrant groups. As is well known, the bourgeois theory of natural rights proclaims liberty, equality, and fraternity, yet in American society, Black people have long suffered unjust treatment, becoming a "burden on the American conscience." [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation. After the end of the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, Black people legally obtained the status and rights of "free persons," but the system of racial segregation meant that the treatment of African Americans did not substantially improve compared to the pre-Civil War period. During this era, the struggle for identity rights by Black people was mainly conducted in the courts. After World War II, in the process of the United States evolving into a post-industrial society, an intergenerational shift in values was triggered, what political scientist Ronald Inglehart called a "silent revolution." [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. This cultural and value shift laid a solid foundation for the Black rights revolution. In 1963, a large-scale organized mass march of hundreds of thousands of people, the "March on Washington," had as its central theme the demand for equal rights for Black people and opposition to racial discrimination. At the same time, African Americans, through various forms, asserted their identity and rights, pursuing their racial, cultural, and historical characteristics on the basis of identity equality. "Black people were no longer ashamed of being different from whites in terms of their names, skin color, hairstyles, or clothing; on the contrary, they began to do their utmost to display these differences, in order to emphasize their racial and cultural characteristics." [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. All this provided spiritual impetus for the Black struggle for equality. Under the pressure of the civil rights movement, the U.S. government in the 1960s successively passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, formally abolishing the system of racial segregation and legally guaranteeing the voting rights of minority ethnic groups. After the 1960s, the U.S. government adopted "affirmative action" policies that gave special consideration to the Black community, leading to substantial improvements in Black people's rights in education, employment, and other areas. However, the economic, political, and cultural foundations for the discrimination against Black identity still exist; American society has not eliminated systemic discrimination against Black people. Judging from the wave of protests that swept the entire Western world triggered by the "George Floyd" incident in 2020, [4]4 The source of this quote is not identified in the original text. the Black community still has a long way to go to achieve genuine identity equality. The rights movement of the Black community is a microcosm of the identity politics of other minority ethnic groups. Influenced by the Black civil rights movement, other minority ethnic groups, such as Latino immigrant communities, Native American indigenous peoples, and Chinese American communities, have also waged sustained struggles for identity equality, and their treatment has also achieved a certain degree of improvement. However, due to the deeply entrenched white racial consciousness and cultural prejudice in the West, the identity politics of minority ethnic groups pursuing equality will continue to exist in Western society for a long time to come.

从种族的角度而言，西方发达国家存在受到不公正对待的少数群体与弱势群体，如美国黑人群体、印第安原住民、亚裔群体以及其他移民群体。众所周知，资产阶级的天赋人权学说宣称自由、平等与博爱，但在美国社会中，黑人长期遭受不公正对待，成为“美国良心的负担”。19世纪中期美国内战结束后，黑人虽然获得了法律规定的“自由人”的身份和权利，但种族隔离制度让美国黑人的待遇并不比美国内战之前有实质改善，这一时期黑人争取身份权利的斗争主要在法庭上。第二次世界大战之后，美国在向后工业社会演变的过程中，引发了一场代际间的价值观转变，即政治学家罗纳德·英格尔哈特所说的“无声的革命”。这一文化和价值观的转变为黑人的权利革命奠定了坚实基础。1963年，几十万人参加的有组织的大规模群众游行“向华盛顿大进军”，主题就是要求黑人权利平等，反对种族歧视。与此同时，美国黑人通过各种形式展开身份的认同和权利的伸张，在身份平等的基础上追求自己的种族、文化、历史等特征，“黑人不再为自己的名字、肤色、发型、服装方面与白人不同而感到羞愧，相反他们开始尽力展现这些不同，以强调自己的种族文化特征”。这些都为黑人追求平等的斗争提供了精神动力。在民权运动的抗争下，1960年代美国政府先后通过《民权法案》和《投票权法案》，正式废除了种族隔离制度，并且以法律的形式保障少数族群的投票权。在1960年代之后，美国政府采取了对黑人群体特殊照顾的“平权行动”，黑人的教育、就业等权利有了实质性改善。但是，黑人身份被歧视的经济政治文化基础依然存在，美国社会并没有消除对于黑人的系统性歧视。从2020年发生的“弗洛伊德”事件引发的席卷整个西方世界的抗议浪潮来看，黑人群体要想获得真正的身份平等，还有漫长道路要走。黑人群体的权利运动是其他少数族裔群体身份政治的一个缩影，其他少数族裔如拉美裔移民群体、北美印第安人原住民、华裔群体在黑人民权运动的影响下，为争取身份的平等也展开了持续抗争，他们的待遇也获得了一定程度的改善。但是，由于西方根深蒂固的白人种族意识和文化偏见，少数族裔追求平等的身份政治将继续在西方社会中长期存在。

(III) The New Feminist Movement

（三）新女权主义运动

Before the 1960s, the main goals of the feminist movement were to win the right to vote and equal economic rights for men and women in labor; this can also be called the first wave of the feminist movement. Identity politics endowed feminism with new connotations, integrating the feminist movement after the 1960s into the broader new social movements. The new feminist movement had already broken through the original limitations of being mainly participated in by female social elites and began to develop into a mass movement with broad participation. Starting from the perspective of identity equality, the all-round struggle of the new feminists shook the patriarchal-centered values and social structure, and the concept of equality between male and female identities has become a social consensus. The new feminist movement achieved significant results in areas concerning women's rights, such as political participation, education and employment, abortion rights, property independence, and opposition to sexual harm. It is noteworthy that the new feminist movement shared common values with other new social movements such as the New Left movement, the counterculture movement, and the Black civil rights movement. These various identity politics movements promoted and influenced each other, jointly advancing the improvement of identity equality and living conditions for vulnerable groups in capitalist society. With the resurgence of conservatism in European and American societies in the 1980s, the large-scale mass movements promoted by feminists had receded. However, the spiritual essence of pursuing identity equality from the new feminist movement of the 1960s was inherited by the feminist movements after the 1980s. Not only did major theoretical breakthroughs occur—Marxist feminism, postmodern feminism, cultural feminism, and eco-feminism are continuations of feminism in the new era—but a group of new feminist thinkers also emerged, such as Nancy Fraser, Iris Marion Young, and Juliet Mitchell. Nevertheless, judging from the reality of contemporary capitalist countries, the status of women has not been fundamentally improved. The latest development form of the feminist movement, the "Me Too" movement, indicates that the revolution for women's rights in Western capitalist countries still has a long and arduous path ahead. It can be said that if the feminist movement remains merely a demand for identity equality, without fundamentally criticizing the capitalist social exploitation mechanism that produces gender inequality, genuine gender equality cannot be achieved.

20世纪60年代之前，女权主义运动的主要目标是争取选举权和男女劳动平等的经济权利，也可以称为女权主义运动第一次浪潮。身份政治赋予女权主义新内涵，使20世纪60年代以后的女权主义运动融入更为广泛的新社会运动。新女权主义运动已经突破了原来主要由女性社会精英参与的局限，开始发展成为广泛参与的群众运动。从身份平等的角度出发，新女权主义者的全方位抗争动摇了以父权制为中心的价值观念及社会结构，男女身份平等的观念已经成为社会共识。新女权主义运动在政治参与、教育与就业、堕胎权、财产独立、反对性伤害等关乎女性权益等方面取得了重大成果。值得注意的是，新女权主义运动与新左派运动、反主流文化运动和黑人民权运动等新社会运动分享了共同的价值观，各项身份政治运动相互促进、相互影响，共同推动了资本主义社会的弱势群体身份平等与生存处境的改善。随着欧美社会20世纪80年代保守主义回潮，女权主义者推动的大规模群众运动已经退潮。但是，20世纪60年代新女权主义运动追求身份平等的精神实质被20世纪80年代之后的女权主义运动所继承，不仅在理论上出现重大突破：马克思主义女权主义、后现代女权主义、文化女权主义、生态女权主义是女权主义在新的时代的延续，而且涌现出了南希·弗雷泽、艾利斯·马瑞恩·杨、朱丽叶·米切尔等一批新女权主义思想家。然而，从当今资本主义国家的现实来看，女性地位并未得到根本改善。女权主义运动的最新发展形式“Me Too”运动表明，西方资本主义国家女性权利革命任重而道远。可以说，如果女权主义运动单纯停留在对身份平等的吁求，而不从根本上批判产生性别不平等的资本主义社会剥削机制，真正的性别平等就不可能实现。

(IV) White Conservative Identity Politics

（四）白人保守主义身份政治

During the 1960s, when various new social movements were surging in the Western world, a group of conservative intellectuals, such as Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset, worried that traditional values would be abandoned, liberalism would face a crisis of legitimacy, and social order would be challenged. [5]5 “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was the primary campaign slogan of Donald Trump during his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. These conservative intellectuals severely criticized the identity politics movements influenced by the New Left. Objectively speaking, the conservatism of that time was mainly manifested as a cultural critique and had not yet combined with traditional American racism. However, with the political changes in Western societies after the 1960s, the long-dormant white identity consciousness rapidly combined with conservatism, becoming an important manifestation of conservative identity politics. Historically, the white group constituted the majority in Western societies and held a natural position of social superiority. However, the struggles of minority groups for social rights and the rise of multiculturalism led to a relative decline in the status of white identity, thereby stimulating white people's attention to identity consciousness. Particularly with the free flow of labor, commodities, and capital driven by economic globalization, a large influx of immigrants poured into Western developed countries, causing significant changes in the demographic structure of these countries. Taking the United States as an example, leveraging geographical advantages, Latino immigrants have surpassed African Americans to become the second largest ethnic group in American society. Changes in the U.S. population structure have brought about diversity in culture, religion, and even language. American society has shifted from a "melting pot" to a "mosaic"—divided into small communities of different immigrant groups. This diversification of population composition has profoundly influenced the direction of American identity politics, leading to an increase in potential political conflicts. "Different population structures mean different voter structures, different power structures, and different ideological structures." [6]6 “Withdrawals from groups” refers to the Trump administration’s policy of withdrawing the United States from several international agreements and organizations, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. American conservative thought reacted most strongly to this change in population and its structure, expressing the white group's sense of crisis regarding the possible "extinction of their race and nation." After Reagan came to power, [7]7 Samuel P. Huntington was an American political scientist. His “clash of civilizations” thesis, published in 1993, argued that future conflicts would be cultural rather than ideological or economic. conservatism launched a backlash against the identity politics of Black people and other minority ethnic groups. Together with the Christian Right, it mobilized a large number of conservative white voters, tightly linking economic issues with social and cultural issues, thereby fully "activating" white identity politics. For modern white conservatives, their aversion to the civil rights movement and multiculturalism is almost equivalent to their hatred of big government and social welfare. They harbor a strong nostalgic attachment to the American "Golden Age" of the 1950s and fear that white people will lose their demographic majority and corresponding political and cultural power. They are deeply convinced that the loss of white status and privilege is caused by the government's "reverse discrimination" policies, and that every gain obtained by minority ethnic groups comes at the expense of white interests. An American political analyst pointed out incisively that the subtext of Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" is "Make America White Again." [8]8 Quote from Huntington’s *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*.

在1960年代西方世界各种新社会运动风起云涌的时候，有一批保守主义知识分子如欧文·克里斯托尔、丹尼尔·贝尔和西蒙·李普塞特等担心传统价值遭到遗弃，自由主义遭遇合法性危机，社会秩序受到挑战。这些保守主义知识分子严厉批判新左派影响下的身份政治运动。客观而言，当时的保守主义主要体现为一种文化批判，并未和美国传统的种族主义相结合。但是，随着20世纪60年代之后西方社会的政治变迁，一直蛰存的白人身份意识迅速与保守主义结合，成为保守主义身份政治的重要表现形式。历史上看，西方社会的白人群体占社会多数，具有天然的社会优越地位。但是，少数群体追求社会权利的抗争和多元文化主义的兴起，使白人的身份地位相对下降，从而刺激了白人对身份意识的关注。特别是随着经济全球化推动的劳工、商品、资本的自由流动，移民大量涌入西方发达国家，发达国家的人口结构出现了重大变化。以美国为例，凭借地缘优势，拉美裔移民已经超越非洲裔，成为美国社会的第二大族群。美国人口结构变化带来了文化和宗教甚至语言的多样性，美国社会由“大熔炉”转向了“马赛克”——被分割为不同移民群体的小型社区。这种人口构成的多元化深刻影响了美国身份政治的走向，导致潜在政治冲突的增加。“不同的人口结构就是不同的选民结构、不同的政治力量结构以及不同的意识形态结构。”美国的保守主义思潮对这种人口及其结构的变化反应最为强烈，表现了白人群体对于可能出现的“亡族亡种”的危机感。里根上台后，保守主义掀起了对黑人和少数族裔身份政治的反弹，与基督教右派共同动员了大量保守的白人选民，把经济问题同社会文化议题紧紧捆绑在一起，完全“激活”了白人身份政治。对现代白人保守派而言，对民权运动、多元文化的反感就近乎等同于憎恶大政府和社会福利。他们对20世纪50年代“黄金时代”的美国怀有浓厚的依恋情绪，担心白人失去人口多数的优势与相应的政治、文化权力。他们深信白人地位和特权的丧失是由政府“逆向歧视”政策所致，而且少数族裔获得的每份收益都是以白人利益受损为代价的。美国有政治分析家一针见血地指出，特朗普“让美国再次伟大”口号的潜台词是让“美国再白起来”。

II. The Historical Causes of the Rise of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

二、当代西方身份政治兴起的历史动因

Since the 1960s, identity politics, carried by new social movements, has used culture and ideology as its medium. Through the struggles of various identity groups for recognition, it has sought to establish a democratic social form that transcends the capitalist status quo, opening up a completely new path for the critique of and resistance to capitalism. However, as long as the structure of domination based on private ownership of the means of production remains unchanged, capitalism will continuously find itself in crisis, and the crisis of identity is precisely an important manifestation of the capitalist crisis.

20世纪60年代以来，以新社会运动为载体的身份政治以文化和意识形态为中介，通过各种身份群体争取承认的斗争，力图建立一个超越资本主义现状的民主社会形式，开辟全新的资本主义批判与反抗道路。但是，只要建立在生产资料私有制基础上的宰制结构没有改变，资本主义就会不断处于危机之中，而身份认同危机正是资本主义危机的重要表现。

(I) Economic Driver: Neoliberal-Dominated Economic Globalization

（一）经济动因：新自由主义主导的经济全球化

At present, the globalization dominated by neoliberalism is in fact a form of “differential globalization,” creating fault lines not only between nations but also between new winners and losers within nations. The political and economic orders of many Western developed countries have failed to effectively address the problem of inequality, leading to social fragmentation and the emergence of ethnic antagonisms between those who support and those who oppose globalization. Taking the United States as an example, globalization has brought enormous economic dividends to the country, but the inherent flaws of free trade and the global flow of capital have directly exacerbated income and wealth inequality among the American populace, with the gap between rich and poor becoming increasingly severe. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that from 1968 to 2017, the share of total U.S. household income held by the wealthiest one-fifth of families rose from 42.6% to 51.5%, while the shares of the remaining four quintiles all gradually decreased, with the decline being faster for poorer families. “Because of outsourcing and international competition, the system of global free trade, which truly intensified after the upheavals in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, led to many jobs flowing from wealthy countries to other places. This also caused the economic situation of a large portion of the former working class to deteriorate.” [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation.

当下，新自由主义主导的全球化实际上是一种“差异性全球化”，不仅在国家之间，而且在国家内部造成了新的受益者与挫败者之间的断层线。很多西方发达国家的政治经济秩序未能有效应对不平等问题，导致社会分裂，出现了支持与反对全球化的族群对立。就美国而言，全球化给美国带来了巨大的经济红利，但自由贸易与资本全球流动的固有缺陷也直接导致美国民众收入和财富不平等加剧，贫富差距日益严重。美国人口普查局的数据显示，从1968年到2017年，美国最富裕1/5家庭的收入占美国家庭总收入的比重从42.6%增至51.5%，而其余四个五等分组的比重都在逐渐减少，且越贫穷的家庭减少得越快。“由于外包和国际竞争，在1990年代东欧剧变之后真正开始强化的全球化自由贸易体系导致很多工作从富裕国家流向了其他地方。这也导致原有工人阶级中很大一部分人的经济状况变差。”

French economist Thomas Piketty argues that within the process of globalization, an unconstrained free-market economy inevitably leads to the rate of return on private capital exceeding the rate of economic growth, resulting in an increasing concentration of wealth. The gap between rich and poor will widen not only between developed and underdeveloped countries but also within developed countries themselves, “which will potentially threaten all democratic societies and the values of social justice that underpin them.” The financial crisis that erupted in 2008 laid bare the negative effects of globalization. Many people became destitute overnight due to defaults on property debts, while the Wall Street giants reaped enormous fortunes. “The fragile understanding between the wealthy and the poor classes finally shattered. Those belonging to the 1% group seized society’s wealth, leaving only anxiety and unease for those belonging to the 99% group. In other words, the vast majority of Americans did not benefit from the country’s growth.” The globalization dominated by neoliberalism not only amplified the inherent structural defects of capitalism but also led to a decline in the social mobility that the United States once prided itself on. Through field research on the life experiences of two generations of Americans, Robert Putnam shows us that class origin has already determined the life path of America’s younger generation; young people from humble backgrounds at the bottom of society find it very difficult to cross the class divide.

法国经济学家皮凯蒂认为，在全球化进程中，不加约束的自由市场经济一定导致私人资本收益率大于经济增长率，财富日益集中，不仅发达国家与不发达国家之间，而且发达国家内部的贫富差距将越拉越大，“这将潜在地威胁各民主社会以及作为其基础的社会正义价值”。2008年暴发的金融危机使全球化的负面效应显露无遗，很多人因房产债务违约而一夜赤贫，华尔街巨头却攫取了巨额财富，“贫富阶层之间这份一直都很脆弱的默契终于破碎了。那些属于1%群体的人们攫取了社会财富，留给那些属于99%群体的人们只有焦虑和不安。换言之，绝大多数美国人根本没有从国家的增长中获益”。新自由主义主导的全球化不仅放大了资本主义内在的结构性缺陷，而且导致美国曾经引以为豪的社会流动性降低。罗伯特·帕特南通过实地调查两代美国人成长经历，让我们看到阶层出身已经决定了美国年轻一代的人生发展道路，出身寒门的底层青年很难跨越阶级的鸿沟。

(II) Political Driver: The Crisis of Capitalist Democratic Politics

（二）政治动因：资本主义民主政治危机

The capitalist system of democratic politics is built upon the foundation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production and inevitably possesses historical limitations. The emergence of identity politics is precisely because the capitalist system of democratic politics has entered a crisis.

资本主义民主政治制度是建立在资本主义生产资料私有制基础之上的，不可避免地具有历史局限性。身份政治之所以产生，正是因为资本主义民主政治制度出现了危机。

First, identity politics, as a form of grassroots politics, is closely linked to the decline of elite politics, which has traditionally dominated Western politics. Political polarization in the United States is first manifested as a tear in values. The Democratic Party and its supporters are increasingly “leaning left,” provoking strong backlash from the Republican Party and its supporters. Whether it is political issues like the appointment of Supreme Court justices and government officials, economic issues like budgets, taxes, and welfare, or social and cultural issues like immigration, gun control, abortion, and same-sex marriage, social fragmentation and divergence are growing, with neither side yielding. American democratic politics has been transformed into an uncompromising “vetocracy.” Under the leadership of the Democratic Party, Trump became the third president in U.S. history to face impeachment charges brought by Congress. [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. Currently, as the COVID-19 pandemic worsens in the United States, the two parties, prioritizing their own electoral interests over the plight of the public struggling for survival, mutually veto each other’s economic relief bills. This “vetocracy” is unable to reach consensus on major issues concerning the national economy and people’s livelihood, and in the power vacuum it creates, various mass movements inevitably emerge one after another.

第一，身份政治作为一种草根政治，与传统西方政治占主导的精英政治的衰败紧密相关。美国政治极化首先表现为价值观撕裂，民主党及其支持者日益“左倾”，引发共和党及其支持者的强烈反弹。无论是大法官和政府官员的任命等政治议题，还是预算、税收、福利等经济议题以及移民、控枪、堕胎、同性恋等社会文化议题，社会撕裂与分歧越来越大，互不相让，美国民主政治已变成不可妥协的“否决式民主”。在民主党主导下，特朗普成为历史上第三位被国会提交弹劾指控的总统。当前，在美国的新冠肺炎疫情加重之际，两党为了选举利益的一党之私，置正陷于生存困境的民众于不顾，相互否决对方的经济救助法案。这种“否决式民主”无法就关系国计民生的重大问题达成一致，在其造成的权力真空地带，各种群众运动必然层出不穷。

Second, the Western system of democratic politics has been hijacked by interest groups and is unable to represent public opinion, forcing the populace to resort to identity politics to wage their struggles. It is well known that civilian firearms are widespread in the United States, and shootings frequently occur. In recent years, due to intensifying social contradictions, white racists have perpetrated multiple shooting incidents, causing numerous casualties among innocent people, including many school students. According to public opinion polls by American media, the vast majority of Americans advocate for strict gun control. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is firmly opposed, and this interest group wields significant power, influencing the U.S. Congress and government through donations, lobbying, and other means, preventing comprehensive gun control legislation from passing through Congress. In other words, the Western democratic system, hijacked by various interest groups, prevents the political demands of the broad populace from being met through institutional channels. The populace can only identify with groups defined by skin color, race, religion, or region, and strive for their rights and interests through collective strength.

第二，西方民主政治制度被利益集团绑架，无法代表民意，民众只能通过身份政治展开抗争。众所周知，美国民间枪支泛滥，经常发生枪击案。近年来由于社会矛盾加剧，白人种族主义者制造了多起枪击事件，造成很多无辜群众伤亡，甚至很多学校学生也不能幸免。根据美国媒体的民意调查，绝大多数美国人主张严控枪支。但美国步枪协会坚决反对，而且这个利益集团势力很大，通过捐款、游说等方式影响美国国会和政府，彻底控枪的法案就是无法通过国会这一关。也就是说，被各种利益集团绑架的西方民主制导致广大民众的政治诉求无法通过制度途径得到满足，民众只能归属于以肤色、种族、宗教、地域界分的群体，通过群体力量争取各项权益。

Third, the main form of identity politics is mass political participation that operates outside the capitalist system of democratic politics. This is, in the final analysis, because the party and electoral systems, which form the foundation of Western democratic politics, have fallen into a double dilemma: on the one hand, public trust in traditional Western political parties has declined, leading to structural political apathy. On the other hand, the Western democratic system artificially creates social fragmentation and political confrontation between identity groups holding different positions.

第三，身份政治的主要形式是游离于资本主义民主政治制度之外的群众政治参与，归根结底是因为作为西方民主政治基础的政党与选举制度陷入了双重困局：一方面，民众对西方传统政党的信任度下降，产生结构性的政治冷漠。另一方面，西方民主制度人为制造了不同立场身份群体的社会割裂和政治对抗。

(III) Cultural Driver: The Internal Contradictions of Multiculturalism

（三）文化动因：多元文化主义的内在矛盾

If we trace the cultural drivers of contemporary Western identity politics, it can be said that without multiculturalism, there would be no identity politics. The multiculturalism prevalent in Western societies today is also a product of the new social movements of the 1960s, first emerging in the United States and Canada. Its core concept is to respect the differences between different groups, acknowledge the value of different cultural groups, and protect the rights of disadvantaged groups. Acknowledging equality among different cultural ethnicities is the value appeal of multiculturalism, and its theoretical foundation is equality based on difference. It can be said that since the 1960s, multiculturalism has not only promoted pluralistic democracy and ethnic equality within Western developed countries but has also provided a theoretical weapon for the Third World in its pursuit of equal political rights. By advocating theoretical slogans such as “globalism,” “cultural pluralism,” “identity politics,” and “politics of difference,” multiculturalism has worked to promote cultural diversity that “includes the Other,” enabling the values of equality and respect to be realized among a broader population, opening up infinite political space for minority groups and marginalized groups in their pursuit of identity equality. However, when multiculturalism itself becomes the unshakable “political correctness” of identity politics, identity politics, which was originally a means for disadvantaged groups to pursue equal rights, reveals its negative side towards social and cultural order. This is specifically manifested in the following three aspects.

如果追溯当代西方身份政治的文化动因，可以说，没有多元文化主义，就不会有身份政治。当今西方社会流行的多元文化主义也是20世纪60年代新社会运动的产物，率先兴起于美国和加拿大。其核心理念就是尊重不同群体的差异，承认不同文化群体的价值，保护弱势群体的权利。承认不同文化族群之间的平等是多元文化主义的价值诉求，其理论基色是差异性之上的平等。可以说，1960年代以来，多元文化主义不仅促进了西方发达国家内部的多元民主和族群平等，也为第三世界追求平等政治权利提供了理论武器。通过倡导“全球主义”“文化多元主义”“身份政治”“差异政治”等理论口号，多元文化主义致力于推动“包容他者”的文化多样性，使平等与尊重的价值得以在更广泛的人群中实现，为少数族群和边缘群体追求身份的平等打开了无限的政治空间。但是，当多元文化主义本身成为身份政治不可动摇的“政治正确”时，本来是弱势群体追求平等权利的身份政治就显示出其对社会和文化秩序的消极一面，具体体现为以下三方面。

First, multiculturalism detaches itself from the specific context of social and historical traditions, advocating for the complete cultural equality of different identity groups. This highlights the inherent friend-enemy distinction and confrontational nature of identity politics, seriously damaging the overall identity of the nation. Looking at the identity group conflicts that have occurred in Western developed countries in recent years, multiculturalism cannot escape its share of responsibility. The 2017 incident involving the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA, is a typical example of a political conflict triggered by cultural conflict. [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. By occupying the high ground of ideology and public opinion, multiculturalism seeks to eliminate symbols of the historical oppression of marginalized groups, leading to the emergence of historical nihilism, from which many political conflicts arise.

第一，多元文化主义脱离了具体社会历史传统语境，主张不同身份群体文化完全平等，将身份政治内在的敌我性与对抗性凸显出来，严重损害国家整体的身份认同。从西方发达国家近年来发生的身份群体冲突来看，多元文化主义难辞其咎。2017年美国弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔的罗伯特·李将军塑像拆除事件，是一起典型的由文化冲突引发政治冲突的事件。多元文化主义占据意识形态和舆论的制高点，力图消解历史上边缘化群体受压迫的象征物，导致历史虚无主义的产生，很多政治冲突由此而生。

Second, based on the equality of cultural values of different identity groups, multiculturalism seeks “compensatory justice” for disadvantaged groups, that is, advocating “affirmative action” in language, education, and employment. This not only violates the basic norms of freedom of speech and equal opportunity in democratic societies but also in fact creates “reverse discrimination” against whites and other minority groups. “A study of university admissions shows that under the implementation of ‘corrective action,’ black students are five times more likely to be admitted to university than white students, and even more likely than Asian students.” On the surface, multiculturalism emphasizes the equality of identity among identity groups, but in its actual policy orientation, it reinforces differences among different identity groups, creating a cultural basis for identity confrontation. “Such excessive protection of multicultural rights infringes upon the universalistic equal rights of individual citizens, breaching the bottom line of equal citizenship. Within the nation-state, the supremacy of multicultural groups weakens social capital, undermines social integration, and dissolves public reason.” [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation. When the just cause of pursuing identity equality forms a new cultural hegemony, the cohesion and democratic values upon which Western societies depend will face a major crisis.

第二，基于不同身份群体文化价值的平等，多元文化主义寻求对于弱势群体的“补偿性正义”，也就是在语言、教育、就业中主张“平权行动”，这不仅违背民主社会言论自由和机会均等的基本准则，事实上也造成了白人和其他少数群体遭受“逆向歧视”。“一项大学招生的研究表明，在实行‘纠偏行动’的情况下，黑人学生被大学录取的可能性高于白人学生五倍，高于亚裔学生被录取的可能性更大。”多元文化主义表面上强调身份群体的身份平等，但在实际政策取向上强化了不同身份群体的差异，制造了身份对抗的文化基础。“对多元权利的这种过度保护侵害了公民个人的普遍主义平等权利，击穿了公民身份平等这一底线。在民族国家内部，多元群体至上论削弱了社会资本，破坏了社会融合，瓦解了公共理性。”当追求身份平等的正义事业形成一种新的文化霸权，西方社会赖以为生的凝聚力和民主价值也就会出现重大危机。

Third, as the core concept of identity politics, multiculturalism is essentially a form of cultural relativism. From the perspective of historical materialism, the cultures of different groups indeed have their history and value, but this by no means implies that the values of different groups are absolutely equal, with no distinction between advanced and backward. Multiculturalism pursues absolute equality without any bottom-line consensus, and society will only gradually become “fragmented.” Of course, representative currents of multiculturalism, such as the communitarianism represented by Charles Taylor, also advocate the priority of the “community” over the individual, but the “community” they tout is limited to culturally defined special marginalized groups, excluding the mainstream population of Western societies, and is not a political community in the holistic sense.

第三，作为身份政治的核心理念，多元文化主义本质上是一种文化相对主义。从唯物史观角度来说，不同群体的文化确实有其历史和价值，但是这绝不意味着不同群体的价值绝对平等，没有先进和落后之分。多元文化主义追求绝对平等，没有任何底线共识，社会只会逐渐“碎片化”。当然，多元文化主义的代表思潮如以查尔斯·泰勒为代表的社群主义也主张“共同体”对于个人的价值优先性，但其所标榜的“共同体”仅限于文化意义的特殊边缘群体，不包括西方社会的主流人群，不是整全意义上的政治共同体。

When multiculturalism becomes the cultural foundation of identity politics, the inherent rationality and legitimacy of identity politics are dissolved by the hegemony of multiculturalism, gradually degenerating into a performative protest in the aesthetic sense. From the perspective of historical materialism, placing hope in culture to solve the problems of identity politics will not only fail to achieve genuine equality and diversity among different identity groups but will inevitably lead to confrontation and conflict between them.

当多元文化主义成为身份政治的文化基础，身份政治内在的合理性与正当性也就被多元文化主义的霸权消解，逐渐沦为审美意义上的抗争表演。从唯物史观角度看，将身份政治问题的解决寄望于文化，不仅无法实现不同身份群体的真正平等与多元，而且必将导致不同身份群体的对抗与冲突。

III. The Inherent Limitations of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

三、当代西方身份政治的内在局限

Any socio-political movement of an identity group represents only the demands of that particular group. When these demands exceed a certain limit, they encounter rejection and resistance from heterogeneous groups or the overarching identity of the nation-state. Identity politics transforms a democratic politics that should shape a holistic identity into a tribal politics seeking belonging within narrow ethnic groups; it shifts from pursuing the legitimate rights of disadvantaged groups to a politics of difference and confrontation. This uncompromising politics has been particularly prominent in developed Western countries since the 21st century. Taking the United States as an example, within the context of identity politics, one side is centered on WASP (White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant) as the core group, comprising whites from the Midwest and rural areas, manifesting as political and cultural conservatism; the other side is a collection of minority ethnic groups and white elites-cosmopolitans living in large cities on the East and West coasts, with little common language between them. Identity politics and its dilemmas highlight a core issue of modern politics: how to define the identity of individuals and their groups in such a rapidly changing society? In a diverse and fluid society, is there a unified norm for the coexistence of multiple identities? How can a society torn apart by identity politics be re-mended? Resolving these issues concerns not only the future development of Western societies but also the direction of globalization. Analyzing from the perspective of historical materialism, the historical limitations of contemporary Western identity politics are particularly evident in the following three aspects.

任何身份群体的社会政治运动都只代表某一群体的诉求，当这一诉求超出一定的界限，就会遭遇异质性群体或国家整体性身份认同的排斥与反抗。身份政治使一个本应塑造整全认同的民主政治变为在各自狭隘族群中寻求归属的部落政治；从追求弱势群体的正当权益转变为差异与对抗的政治。这种无法妥协的政治在21世纪以来的西方发达国家表现得非常突出。以美国为例，在身份政治的语境中，其中一方以WASP（白人—盎格鲁—撒克逊—新教徒）为核心群体的中西部和乡村的白人，体现为一种政治和文化上的保守主义；另一方是少数族裔群体和生活在东西海岸大城市白人精英—世界主义者的集合，双方难有共同语言。身份政治及其困境凸显了现代政治的核心议题：如何在变迁如此迅速的社会中界定个体及其所属群体的身份？在一个多元且流动的社会中，是否存在各种身份多元共存的统一规范？如何重新弥合被身份政治撕裂的社会？这些问题的解决不仅关系到西方社会未来的发展走向，而且关系到全球化的何去何从。从唯物史观的角度分析，当代西方身份政治的历史局限性尤其体现在以下三方面。

(I) The Obscuring and Dissolution of Class Politics

（一）对阶级政治的遮蔽与消解

“Identity politics under multiculturalism, labeled as ‘politics of difference,’ ‘politics of dignity,’ and ‘politics of life,’ appears very radical on the surface, seemingly extending cultural critique and the pursuit of equality into every pore of life. Yet in reality, this infinitely diverse, increasingly fragmented demand for cultural equality does not touch the substance of interests, nor does it seek to change the actual political and economic equality.” [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. Identity politics, primarily in the form of cultural struggle, cannot change the capitalist private ownership of the means of production, nor can it change the capitalist system of exploitation; therefore, it is not a genuine social revolution.

“以‘差异政治’‘尊严政治’‘生活政治’冠名的多元文化主义的身份政治表面上非常激进，似乎将文化批判和平等追求渗入生活的每一个细小毛孔，而实际上这种无限多元的、日益细化的文化平等身份诉求并不触及利益实质，不追求试图改变现实的政治经济平等。”以文化抗争为主要形式的身份政治不可能改变资本主义生产资料私有制，不可能改变资本主义剥削制度，因而不是一场真正的社会革命。

First, the identity politics discourse constructed by the Left has abandoned the Marxist method of class analysis, making significant ideological concessions to capitalism. Issues such as racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and indigenous rights, which are central to identity politics, obscure the fundamental contradictions of capitalism that give rise to these problems. Marx clearly stated: “A Negro is a Negro. He becomes a slave only in certain relations. A cotton-spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Torn from these relations, it is no more capital than gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.” [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. Skin color is a physiological hereditary factor; Black people cannot change their racial identity. However, being a slave is determined by the specific social relations of a particular society and changes with changes in those social relations. Under specific social conditions, Black people can cease to be slaves and become citizens instead. Therefore, the identity politics movements in Western capitalist countries actually obscure the inequality of real political and economic relations. Identity politics, which aims to protect the rights of specific groups, diverts attention from the real social focus and contradictions. The bourgeoisie also consciously uses identity politics issues to defuse class struggle, encouraging and funding research on identity issues, gender issues, and cultural issues. Identity politics, which does not engage in substantive critique of capitalism, obscures the fundamental contradictions of capitalism.

第一，左翼构筑的身份政治话语抛弃了马克思主义的阶级分析方法，在意识形态方面向资本主义做了重大让步。种族歧视、性别歧视、原住民权益等身份政治议题掩盖了导致上述问题产生的资本主义基本矛盾。马克思曾明确指出：“黑人就是黑人。只有在一定关系下，它才成为奴隶。纺纱机是纺棉花的机器。只有在一定的关系下，它才能成为资本。脱离了这种关系，它也就不是资本了，就像黄金本身并不是货币，砂糖并不是砂糖的价格一样。”肤色是生理遗传因素，黑人无法更改自己的种族身份；但是，作为奴隶的黑人则是由特定社会的现实关系决定的，随着社会关系的变化而变化。在特定社会条件下，黑人也可以不再作为奴隶，而是成为公民。所以，西方资本主义国家的身份政治运动实际上是对现实政治经济关系不平等的遮蔽。以维护特定群体权利为目标的身份政治，转移了真正的社会焦点和社会矛盾。资产阶级也有意识地利用身份政治议题来化解阶级斗争，鼓励与资助身份问题、性别问题和文化问题的研究。不对资本主义展开实质性批判的身份政治，遮蔽了资本主义基本矛盾。

Second, identity politics has moved from new social movements into the ivory tower of the cultural sphere, its revolutionary elements continuously being dissolved, degenerating from emancipatory politics into performative politics. In the 1960s, identity politics combined with new social movements like the civil rights movement, promoting equality and progress in American society. However, in practice, this social movement rooted in identity politics became increasingly narrow. As American society entered the Reagan era, the subjects of identity politics shifted from the diverse groups of the 1960s—workers, Black people, and students—to university faculty, students, and news media journalists within the ivory tower. These intellectuals no longer took the self-improvement of the group and the common good of society as their ultimate goal, abandoning the political-economic critique of inequality in Western societies since globalization. “The revolutionary subject of contemporary capitalist society cannot be a single cultural difference group; it must return to class, and only through the totalizing intervention of Marxism can a universalized struggle be formed. Identity politics appears on the surface to possess immense rebellious power, but in reality, it is an ideological framework matching the latest stage of capitalism. The liberating force within identity differences is insufficient to shake the capitalist system; attempting to find genuine revolutionary power from these marginalized groups excluded by mainstream symbols is impossible.” [4]4 The source of this quote is not identified in the original text.

第二，身份政治从新社会运动走向了文化领域的象牙塔，其革命因素不断被消解，从解放政治沦为了表演政治。1960年代，身份政治与民权运动等新社会运动相结合，推动了美国社会的平等与进步。但是在实践中，这种扎根于身份政治的社会运动日益狭隘。随着美国社会进入里根时代，身份政治的主体从20世纪60年代的工人、黑人和学生等多元化的群体日益转向象牙塔里的高校师生和新闻媒体记者。这些知识分子不再以群体的自我提升与社会共同的善为终极目标，放弃了对于全球化以来西方社会不平等的政治经济学批判。“当代资本主义社会的革命主体不可能是单个的文化差异群体，必须重返阶级，通过马克思主义的总体干预才可能形成普遍化的斗争。身份政治学表面上看似极具反抗力量，实际是与资本主义最新阶段相匹配的意识形态框架。身份差异中的解放力量并不足以动摇资本主义制度体系，企图从这些被主流符号排斥的边缘群体中寻找真正的革命力量是无法实现的。”

Third, identity politics unconsciously becomes an ally of neoliberal ideology. The greatest predicament currently facing Western left-wing identity politics is that it does not touch upon the most core critique of capital, but instead becomes a complicit partner of neoliberalism in practice. The main reason is that identity politics lacks a common goal and value pursuit capable of unifying forces resisting capitalism; these makeshift alliances will split when they no longer need each other and cannot truly and intrinsically resist the power of capital. "The cultural focus of left-wing politics has fragmented the left into identitarian factions; we have lost a set of common ideals and goals, a common view of history, common values, a common language, and even objective and universal modes of reason; the cultural focus of left-wing politics has taken over a self-centered and trivial form of politics, one more concerned with transient events, means, and objects, rather than providing a more robust, serious, and comprehensive systematic insight into socioeconomic conditions." [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation. For example, the left, which should support workers, did not help the white blue-collar workers who lost job opportunities due to globalization, leading these "silent majorities" to choose Trump in 2016; this is essentially a bitter fruit of the left's own making from identity politics. Lacking the core dimension of capital critique, any anti-capitalist alliance cannot form common interests and goals.

第三，身份政治不自觉地成为新自由主义意识形态的同盟军。当前西方左翼身份政治存在的最大困境，就是并未触及最为核心的资本批判，而是在实践中成为新自由主义的共谋。主要原因在于，身份政治没有将反抗资本主义的力量统一起来的共同目标和价值追求，这些临时拼凑的同盟在彼此不需要的时候就会分裂，不可能真正内在地反抗资本权力。“左翼政治的文化聚焦把左翼分裂成身份主义的派别，我们失去了一套共同的理想和目标，共同的历史观、共同的价值观、共同的语言，甚至是客观和普遍的理性模式；左翼政治的文化聚焦接替了自我中心和琐细的政治形式，这种政治形式更关注瞬时的事件、手段和对象，而不是提供一个更稳健、严肃和全面的关于社会经济状况的系统关联的洞察。”比如，本应支持工人的左翼并未帮助那些在全球化中失去工作机会的白人蓝领，导致这些“沉默的大多数”在2016年选择了特朗普，这实际上是左翼身份政治的自酿苦果。缺乏资本批判的核心维度，任何反资本主义联盟都无法形成共同的利益与目标。

When identity politics obscures class politics, and when cultural critique replaces capital critique, no matter how boisterous and clamorous movements of the identity politics type may be, they will ultimately become political movements incapable of achieving any genuine political results. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement was like this, and the French "Yellow Vests" movement cannot escape this fate either.

当身份政治遮蔽阶级政治，当文化批判代替资本批判，无论身份政治性质的运动如何热闹喧嚣，最终只会成为不可能取得任何真正政治成果的政治运动，“占领华尔街”运动如此，法国“黄背心”运动也逃脱不了这样的命运。

(2) Making populism the norm in Western social politics

（二）使民粹主义成为西方社会政治常态

After the 21st century, with major changes in Western societies, populism has become the norm in European and American politics. Although there is currently a great deal of research on populism, its concept is full of ambiguities and can accommodate various social ideologies and movements. Apart from the opposition between "pure and good people" and "corrupt political elites," it is difficult to find common ground among these ideologies. According to academic research, there have been four major populist movements in modern history. The first three were the American "People's Party" movement and the Russian "Narodnik" movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the Latin American labor movements in the mid-20th century, and the grassroots struggles for distributive justice in the Asia-Pacific region at the end of the 20th century. The world is currently experiencing the fourth wave of populism, mainly related to the uneven political and economic development brought about by globalization, manifesting in different forms and degrees in both developed and developing countries. The first three waves of populism were all related to left-led labor movements and had a clear character of class struggle. Because current populism in developed countries carries obvious elements of identity politics, different identity groups with populist characteristics all claim to represent "the people," and both left-wing and right-wing populism show a tendency towards extremism. Taking the United States as an example, the left-wing populism represented by the recently risen Bernie Sanders and the right-wing populism supporting Donald Trump are both significant political forces in American society. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement and the "Tea Party" movement that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis both had distinct characteristics of identity politics, attracting the "forgotten majority" dissatisfied with the two-party establishment. Populism has been reduced to a political symbol of identity politics, moving from identity politics pursuing equality of power to populist politics.

21世纪后，随着西方社会的重大变迁，民粹主义成为欧美政治的常态。虽然目前关于民粹主义的研究非常多，但其概念充满歧义，可以容纳各种各样的社会思潮与运动。除了“纯洁善良的人民”与“腐败的政治精英”的对立之外，很难在这些思潮中找到共同点。根据学界的研究，近代历史上产生过四次主要的民粹主义运动，前三次分别是19世纪末20世纪初的美国“人民党”运动和俄国“民粹派”运动、20世纪中叶的拉美劳工运动和20世纪末亚太地区追求分配正义的底层民众抗争运动。当前世界所正在经历的是民粹主义的第四波浪潮，主要与全球化带来的各国政治经济发展不平衡相关，在发达国家和发展中国家都有不同形式不同程度的表现。前三次民粹主义都与左翼领导的劳工运动相关，具有明显的阶级斗争色彩。由于当前发达国家的民粹主义带有明显的身份政治因素，带有民粹主义性质的不同身份群体都宣称代表“人民”，左翼和右翼的民粹主义都有向极端化发展的趋势。以美国为例，近年来崛起的桑德斯所代表的左翼民粹主义和支持特朗普的右翼民粹主义均为美国社会中影响很大的政治力量。2008年金融危机之后出现的“占领华尔街”运动和“茶党”运动都有鲜明的身份政治特征，吸引了对两党建制派不满的“被遗忘的大多数”，民粹主义沦为身份政治的政治符号，从追求权力平等的身份政治走向了民粹主义的政治。

First, right-wing identity politics in developed countries usually opposes social diversity and tends towards exclusionary nationalism, which gives right-wing populism in Western developed countries a strong tendency towards racism. Whether it is the Brexit camp in the UK or Trump's supporters, they all declare, "We want to take back our country." Many lower-class white people did not become beneficiaries of globalization and suddenly became "strangers in their own land." The emergence of right-wing populism is not only because many white workers are losers from globalization but also related to the extreme development of left-wing identity politics. Eric Hobsbawm pointed out that identity politics seeks preferential treatment, differential treatment, or special consideration within a given political community, and is therefore a politics of catharsis and pretense. [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. Marxism supported by various "post-" theories, together with multiculturalism, provided intellectual resources for left-wing identity politics. However, "the backlash against affirmative action policies designed to support specific minority groups and excessive multiculturalism remains very strong, and the problems persist." [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. For example, Mark Lilla criticized Hillary Clinton, the 2016 US presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, arguing that her policies explicitly targeted African American, Latino, LGBT, and female voters, but neglected other groups in American society, such as the white working class. "Data shows that white working-class people and those with devout religious beliefs are precisely such groups. A full two-thirds of white voters without a college degree and eighty percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump." [4]4 The source of this quote is not identified in the original text. Similarly, it was precisely a group of "forgotten people" in the wave of European integration who voted the UK out of the European Union.

第一，发达国家右翼身份政治，通常反对社会多元化，更倾向于排外的民族主义，这使西方发达国家的右翼民粹主义具有强烈的种族主义倾向。无论是英国的脱欧派，还是特朗普的支持者，都宣称“我们要夺回我们的国家”。很多底层白人并没有成为全球化的受益者，突然成了“自己领土上的陌生人”。右翼民粹主义之所以产生，除了因为很多白人工人是全球化的受挫者，还与左翼身份政治的极端化发展相关。霍布斯鲍姆指出，身份政治追求的是在一个给定的政治共同体内部谋求优惠、差别待遇或者寻求特殊对待，因此是一种宣泄、佯装的政治。以各种“后学”支撑的马克思主义与多元文化主义共同为左翼身份政治提供了思想资源。然而，“为扶持特定的少数族群而采取的正向差别对待政策以及过度的文化多元主义所造成的反弹，至今非常强大，而问题依然存在”。比如马克·里拉就批评2016年美国总统民主党候选人希拉里·克林顿，认为其政策明确指向非洲裔、拉美裔、LGBT和女性选民，却遗忘了美国社会的其他群体，如白人工薪阶层。“数据显示，白人工薪阶层和有着虔诚宗教信念的人正是这样的群体。整整三分之二没有大学学历的白人选民和百分之八十的白人福音派把票投给了特朗普。”同样，正是一群在欧洲一体化浪潮中“被遗忘的群体”将英国公投出了欧盟。

Second, populists are more enthusiastic about direct democracy, and mass movements are the main form of populist identity politics. Populist leaders are generally unwilling to rely on highly complex party organizations to serve as the intermediary between themselves and "the people." "When the existing political system can no longer meet people's demands, people gradually lose confidence in traditional politics and political parties... More and more disillusioned voters either become indifferent to regular elections or are open to and accepting of new radical proposals. At this point, populism emerges as an alternative. It adopts a powerful 'common person' communication style, offering direct and 'consensus-based' solutions to complex social problems." [5]5 “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was the primary campaign slogan of Donald Trump during his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, based on internet technology, play an increasingly significant role in current populist movements. Populist leaders use these social media platforms to narrow the distance with their supporting identity groups, win their recognition, and simultaneously struggle against opposing identity groups or news media. In summary, identity-politicized populism deepens the crisis of representation in Western democratic societies.

第二，民粹主义者更热衷于通过直接民主的方式，群众运动是民粹主义身份政治的主要形式。民粹主义领导人一般不愿意依赖于高度复杂的政党组织来承担自己与“人民”之间的媒介。“当现有的政治体制不再能满足人们的要求，人们会逐渐对传统政治和政党失去信心……越来越多失望的选民要么对常规的选举漠不关心，要么对新的激进方案持开放的、接受的态度。这个时候，民粹主义作为一种替代方案粉墨登场。它采取强有力的‘普通人’的沟通方式，提供对复杂社会问题的直接而具有‘共识性’的方案。”基于互联网技术之上的“推特”“脸谱”等社交媒体在当前的民粹主义运动中的作用越来越大，民粹主义领袖通过这些社交媒体拉近与支持自己的身份群体的距离、争取他们的认同，同时与反对自己的身份群体或新闻媒体展开斗争。总而言之，身份政治化的民粹主义深化了西方民主社会的代表性危机。

Third, from the perspective of identity politics, populists have a strong tendency to be anti-elite and anti-establishment. "For populists, the following equation always holds: anyone outside their group can be denounced as immoral and thus not strictly a member of 'the people.' In other words, populism is always some form of identity politics." [6]6 “Withdrawals from groups” refers to the Trump administration’s policy of withdrawing the United States from several international agreements and organizations, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. However, regarding the current situation in the United States, neither the left-wing populism represented by Sanders nor the right-wing populism supporting Trump can truly represent the American people. Because identity politics does not target all groups, some forgotten groups cannot find representatives within the existing system; the vacuum of rights is filled by populist leaders. The West is experiencing such a historical moment. Francis Fukuyama pointed out: "When populists declare 'I support the people,' they usually do not mean all the people. The people they refer to are a specific category of people, usually defined by race or ethnicity, and often divided according to traditional cultural values or a sense of traditional national identity." [7]7 Samuel P. Huntington was an American political scientist. His “clash of civilizations” thesis, published in 1993, argued that future conflicts would be cultural rather than ideological or economic.

第三，从身份政治的角度看，民粹主义者具有强烈的反精英、反建制的倾向。“对民粹主义者来说，以下等式永远成立：任何他们以外的人都可以斥为不道德的，从而不是严格意义上人民的一员。换言之，民粹主义总是某种形式的身份政治。”但就美国现状而言，无论是桑德斯代表的左翼民粹主义，还是支持特朗普的右翼民粹主义，都不能真正代表美国人民。由于身份政治并非指向所有群体，一些被遗忘的群体无法在现存体制中找到代表者，权利的真空被民粹主义领袖所填补，西方正在经历这样的历史时刻。弗朗西斯·福山指出：“当民粹主义者宣称‘我支持人民’时，他们所指的通常不是全体人民。他们所说的人民是某一特定类别的人民，通常以种族或民族来定义，并且常常依照传统文化价值观或者传统的民族身份认同感来划分。”

From a philosophical perspective, the identity groups that populism claims to represent are closer to Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities,” which provides populism with unlimited space for discourse and practice. Right-wing populism uses new media to cater to people’s worries and anxieties, emphasizing the opposition between the people and the elite, and the identity distinction between “us” and “them,” thereby forming an overwhelming political force. White nationalist and former chief strategist for the Trump administration, Steve Bannon, bluntly stated before the 2016 election: “The longer Democrats talk about identity politics, the easier it is for me to beat them. I hope they talk about racism every day. If the left focuses on race and identity, and we focus on economic nationalism, we can beat the Democrats.” [1]1 changes unseen in a century: A phrase frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe the current era of global upheaval and transformation. Judging from the 2020 U.S. election, identity politics remains one of the focal issues that both U.S. parties must confront. When populist parties and leaders cater to people’s anxieties and fears about identity, intensifying opposition between different groups, a serious crisis for Western democracy will be unavoidable.

从哲学层面而言，民粹主义所宣称代表的身份群体，更接近于本尼迪克特·安德森提出的“想象的共同体”，这为民粹主义提供了话语与实践的无限空间。右翼民粹主义利用新媒体手段迎合民众的担忧和焦虑，强调人民与精英的对立、“我们”与“他们”的身份区别，从而在政治上形成了势如破竹的力量。白人民族主义者、特朗普政府首席战略规划师史蒂夫·班农在2016年大选前直言不讳地指出：“民主党人谈论身份政治的时间越长，我就越容易打败他们。我希望他们每天都谈论种族主义。如果左翼关注的是种族和身份，而我们关注的是经济民族主义，那我们就能击败民主党。”从2020年美国大选来看，身份政治依然是美国两党不得不面对的焦点问题之一。当具有民粹主义思想的政党和领导人迎合民众对身份认同的焦虑和恐惧，激化不同群体间的对立，西方民主的严重危机将不可避免。

(3) Identity Politics Threatens World Peace and Development

（三）身份政治威胁世界和平与发展

In response to the series of social and cultural conflicts brought about by identity politics since the 1960s, Columbia University professor Mark Lilla pointed out: “Identity politics has brought more problems to the United States than superficial harmony, preventing young people from stepping out of their own small circles based on race, gender, and class, from viewing issues from the broader perspective of American citizens and American values, and making them indifferent to the world outside their own small circles of identity and identification.” [2]2 Mark Lilla is a political scientist and historian of ideas at Columbia University. The quote is from his critique of identity politics in the American context. The conflicts brought by identity politics not only cause a “clash of civilizations” within developed capitalist countries, but also, judging from the political reality since the 2008 financial crisis, this “clash of civilizations” has been transmitted to the field of international politics, seriously threatening world peace and development.

针对1960年代以来身份政治带来的一系列社会与文化冲突，哥伦比亚大学教授马克·里拉（Mark Lilla）指出：“身份政治给美国带来的问题多过表面的和谐，使年轻人无法走出自己基于种族、性别和阶层划分的小圈子，以美国公民和美国价值的大局观看待问题，也使他们对自己身份和认同的小圈子以外的世界漠不关心。”身份政治带来的冲突不仅给发达资本主义国家内部带来“文明的冲突”，而且从2008年金融危机以来的政治现实看，这种“文明的冲突”已经传导至国际政治领域，严重威胁世界的和平与发展。

First, identity politics and national separatist movements in the Western world. In the past few decades, as globalization advanced triumphantly, commodities, technology, and information flowed unimpeded globally, and consumerist culture seemed to erase the inherent differences between nations. Francis Fukuyama even predicted at the end of the Cold War that after the “end of history,” there would be a “universal homogeneous state,” where “the space of the earth will be completely homogenized; history, tradition, culture, and customs associated with a particular piece of land can be quickly cut off and quickly rearranged and recombined.” [3]3 Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist. His “end of history” thesis, advanced after the Cold War, argued that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. In fact, this homogenization is only one aspect of globalization. At the same time, whether in developed or underdeveloped regions, national separatist movements aimed at preserving the uniqueness and pride of their own group’s race, culture, religion, and historical traditions have emerged and exerted significant influence. Examples include the demands for national autonomy in Quebec’s French-speaking region and Scotland, as well as the revival of subcultures in many areas. That is to say, when the defense of group identity uniqueness transcends the pluralistic demand for equality, identity politics will cause major divisions within the West itself.

第一，身份政治与西方世界的民族分离运动。过去几十年全球化高歌猛进，商品、技术、信息在全球范围内畅通无阻，消费主义文化似乎抹平了各民族的内在差异，弗朗西斯·福山甚至在冷战结束时预言“历史终结”之后将会出现“普遍均质国家”，“地球的空间将被完全地均质化、跟某片土地相结合的历史、传统、文化和风俗等等，都可以被迅速切割，迅速被重新排列组合”。其实，这种均质化只是全球化的一种面向。与此同时，无论是发达地区还是不发达地区，维护自己群体的种族、文化、宗教与历史传统的独特性与自豪感的民族分离主义运动开始出现并发挥重大影响。比如魁北克法语区和苏格兰的民族自治要求以及很多地区亚文化的复兴。也就是说，当对群体身份独特性的维护超越了多元化的平等要求，身份政治将会对西方自身造成重大的分裂。

Second, identity politics and the wave of “de-globalization” in the Western world. “The new capitalist order, characterized by marketization and globalization, directly impacts existing social norms, values, and beliefs, plunging individuals into a state of loneliness and deprived insecurity, losing reliable sources for maintaining identity.” [4]4 The source of this quote is not identified in the original text. For developing countries, how to rebuild social norms and cultural identity under the impact of Western-dominated globalization has become a formidable issue of the times. For Western developed countries, the profit-seeking nature of capital leads it to relocate to places with dense labor and low production costs, and globalization provides convenient conditions and an environment for this transnational relocation, causing the hollowing out of industries in developed countries and mass unemployment among industrial workers. The existing capitalist political and economic order has failed to effectively respond to people’s identity anxiety, leading to popular division and political polarization. The 2008 financial crisis dealt a fatal blow to the optimistic belief in globalization. The grassroots people who opposed globalization began to use political movements and their votes to express dissatisfaction with the elite and globalization. After taking office, Trump adopted a series of domestic and foreign policies. The core of “Make America Great Again” is essentially an isolationism of “de-globalization.” [5]5 “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was the primary campaign slogan of Donald Trump during his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. These political actions did indeed make the white working class, frustrated by globalization, more united, with clearer identity consciousness and political action. However, waving the “tariff stick” at China, building a border wall to crack down on illegal immigrants, proposing to bring manufacturing back to the United States, and various “withdrawals from groups” [6]6 “Withdrawals from groups” refers to the Trump administration’s policy of withdrawing the United States from several international agreements and organizations, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. and other isolationist policies cannot fundamentally resolve the social contradictions of Western capitalism, especially the growing wealth gap and class contradictions. The “de-globalization” spurred by identity politics will not only bring greater uncertainty to the United States and the world but also does nothing to address the common challenges facing humanity.

第二，身份政治与西方世界的“逆全球化”浪潮。“以市场化和全球化为基本特征的资本主义新秩序直接冲击原有的社会规范、价值和信仰，使得个体陷入一种孤独与被剥夺的不安全状态之中，失去了维系身份认同的可靠来源。”对于发展中国家来说，在以西方为主导的全球化的冲击下如何重建社会规范与文化认同成为艰巨的时代问题。对于西方发达国家来说，资本的逐利本性导致其向劳动力密集、生产成本低的地方转移，而全球化为其实现跨国大转移提供了便利条件和环境，这造成了发达国家产业的空心化，大批产业工人失业。现存的资本主义政治经济秩序未能有效回应民众的身份焦虑，从而导致民众的分裂与政治的极化。2008年金融危机对于全球化的乐观信念可谓釜底抽薪，反对全球化的底层民众开始用政治运动和手中的选票来表达对精英阶层和全球化的不满。特朗普上台后采取了一系列的内政外交政策，“让美国再次伟大”的核心实质上是一种“逆全球化”的孤立主义。上述政治行动确实让这些在全球化中受挫的白人劳工阶层更加团结，更加具备明确的身份意识与政治行动。但是，对中国挥舞“关税大棒”，修建边境墙以打击非法移民，提出让制造业回归美国，各种“退群”等孤立主义政策无法从实质上解决西方资本主义的社会矛盾，特别是解决日益拉大的贫富差距问题和阶级矛盾。身份政治催生的“逆全球化”不仅将给美国和世界带来更大的不确定性，而且无助于应对人类面临的共同挑战。

Third, identity politics and the “clash of civilizations.” At the beginning of the end of the Cold War, the entire Western world was immersed in the cheers of the “end of history.” The famous conservative scholar Huntington keenly perceived that history would not end, and world politics would see conflicts between different civilizations. [7]7 Samuel P. Huntington was an American political scientist. His “clash of civilizations” thesis, published in 1993, argued that future conflicts would be cultural rather than ideological or economic. During the Cold War, some countries could choose non-alignment, but in the post-Cold War era, people are forced to ask fundamental questions about identity such as “who are we,” “where do we belong,” and “who is our enemy.” Whether for nation-states that have already disintegrated or are facing disintegration, or for countries with religious diversity, these are unavoidable major questions. The religious, civilizational, and racial conflicts concealed under the bipolar ideological opposition of the Cold War will surface. “For people seeking identity and recreating ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enemies appear on the fault lines between the world’s major civilizations.” [8]8 Quote from Huntington’s *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*. Huntington concluded that modernization will bring about changes in the power of the world’s major civilizations, the expansion of Islam and the economic revival of East Asia, and the relative decline of Western civilization, inevitably leading to a “clash of civilizations.” In fact, this is the manifestation of the conflictual nature of identity politics at the international political level, and as Western power relatively declines, this new Cold War thinking will become increasingly prominent. In May 2019, Kiron Skinner, then Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department, explicitly stated that the competition between China and the United States is essentially a clash of civilizations and ideologies. [9]9 Kiron Skinner was Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department under the Trump administration. Her remarks were widely reported as framing US-China competition in civilizational and racial terms. Even more shocking to the world, she compared the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union to “a struggle within the Western family,” and called China the first non-white competitor in U.S. history. This is undoubtedly a manifestation of the deep-seated racial prejudice of some American politicians in international politics. If this new Cold War thinking continues to develop, the “Thucydides Trap” becomes inevitable. [10]10 The “Thucydides Trap” is a term popularized by political scientist Graham Allison, referring to the danger of conflict when a rising power challenges an established one, drawing on the ancient Greek historian Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. Dividing identity groups based on different cultures and religions of the world and believing that conflict between groups is inevitable is essentially a kind of “Western-centrism.” As Amartya Sen pointed out, “To see a person exclusively in terms of his or her civilizational identity is a grossly crude and aggressive way of understanding human beings. It not only overlooks the many other ways in which people see themselves, but also, by encouraging a confrontational view of the world, it contributes to the very clash it warns against.” [11]11 Amartya Sen is an Indian economist and philosopher, Nobel laureate. The quote is from his book *Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny*.

第三，身份政治与“文明的冲突”。冷战结束伊始，整个西方世界沉浸在“历史终结”的欢呼声中，著名保守主义学者亨廷顿敏锐地察觉到，历史不会终结，世界政治将会出现不同文明体之间的冲突。在冷战时期，一些国家可以选择不结盟，但在后冷战时代，人们不得不追问“我们是谁”“我们属于哪儿”“谁是我们的敌人”这些关乎身份认同的基本问题。无论是那些已经解体或面临解体的民族国家，还是宗教多元性的国家，这些问题都是不得不追问的重大问题。在冷战的意识形态两极对立下掩盖的宗教、文明、种族冲突将会浮出水面。“对于那些正在寻求认同和重新创造种族性的人们来说，敌人是必不可少的，而潜在的最危险的敌人就出现世界各主要文明的断层线上。”亨廷顿得出的结论是，现代化将会带来世界主要文明实力的变化，伊斯兰教的扩张和东亚经济的复兴，西方文明实力的相对下降，世界必将出现“文明的冲突”。实际上，这是身份政治的冲突性在国际政治层面的表现，并且随着西方实力的相对下降，这种新冷战思维将会日益凸显。2019年5月，时任美国国务院政策规划负责人的基伦·斯金纳明确指出，中美之间的竞争本质上是一种文明和意识形态的冲突。更让世人震惊的是，她将美国与苏联之间的冷战比作“西方大家庭内部的一场斗争”，而中国是美国历史上第一个非白人的竞争对手。这无疑是美国一些政客根深蒂固的种族偏见在国际政治中的表现。按照这种新冷战思维发展下去，“修昔底德陷阱”不可避免。基于世界不同文化与宗教而划分身份群体，认为群体之间冲突不可避免，本质上是一种“西方中心论”。正如阿马蒂亚·森指出的，“在社会分析中，以文明划线是一种极富攻击性的做法，它窒息了其他的——更加丰富多彩的——理解人类的方式。甚至在吹响文明冲突的号角之前，它便为误解世界上的每一个人埋下了伏笔”。

Once the modern concept of identity enters politics, it is rapidly absorbed by Western society, and developed countries become important arenas for the practice of identity politics. When identity becomes a political theme, any political issue involving identity easily gains firm support from specific groups, causing ethnic antagonism and social division. A country’s foreign policy can also be easily “hijacked” by tendencies of extreme nationalism, seriously threatening world peace and development. In summary, contemporary Western identity politics is a historical product of the development of capitalism to a certain stage. Just like capitalism, identity politics has not always existed, nor can it be eternal. Contemporary Western identity politics is a politics of difference; its essence is the expression at the level of social culture of economic and political inequality and conflict within the framework of capitalism. The one-dimensional development of identity politics will bring disastrous impacts on the interior of the West and on the international community. The people of the world should join hands to face the challenges brought by identity politics. How should we dissolve the negative effects of identity politics? Where, after all, is humanity headed? These are important “questions of the era” for the 21st century. Facing the changes unseen in a century, we believe that only by sublating capitalism and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind can the problem of identity politics be fundamentally resolved.

现代身份概念一旦进入政治，就迅速被西方社会所吸纳，发达国家成为身份政治实践的重要场域。当身份成为政治主题，任何涉及身份的政治议题就容易获取特定群体的坚定支持，造成族群对抗和社会分裂，国家的对外政策也容易被极端民族主义倾向“绑架”，严重威胁世界的和平与发展。总而言之，当代西方身份政治是资本主义发展到一定阶段的历史产物，正如资本主义一样，身份政治并非从来就有，也不可能是永恒存在。当代西方身份政治是一种差异政治，其本质是资本主义框架内经济、政治不平等和冲突在社会文化层面的表达。身份政治的单向度发展会给西方内部和国际社会带来灾难性影响，世界人民应当携手共同面对身份政治带来的挑战。我们应当怎样消解身份政治的负面作用？人类究竟向何处去？这是21世纪重要的“时代之问”。面对百年未有之变局，我们认为，唯有扬弃资本主义，推动构建人类命运共同体，身份政治问题才可能得到根本性解决。

(Authors: Associate Professor, School of Marxism, Anhui Normal University; Master’s student in the Theory of Marxism, Class of 2019, Anhui Normal University)

（作者：安徽师范大学马克思主义学院副教授；安徽师范大学2019级马克思主义理论专业硕士研究生）

Online Editor: Rainbow

网络编辑：彩虹