1. What understanding of identity underpins ‘identity politics’ and why are they used for
social change?
Identity is a non-linear subject encompassing the intersection of other people’s perceptions and one’s
understanding of self. It is a product of the preexisting discourse, which Bourdieu accounts as the
‘history turned into nature’ (Bourdieu, 1977), and Butler describes as the ‘discourse that exists before
the ‘I’ (Butler, 1993). However, the understanding of identity is often prone to the trap of essentialism,
whereby people take the formation of their identity for granted and regard it as naturalistic. This
problematizes the discourse of inequality, as identity is not a subject existing on its own. Rather, it
co-exists with the social hardships people experience as the embodiment of which. In other words,
identity serves as a foundation for how people navigate life, and the difficulties they encounter in the
course of doing so. As a result, deeming any aspect of identity as naturalistic is denying its
possibilities for change, including the changes that are necessary to emancipate oneself from social
hardships. It is acknowledging the validity of these hardships on the agencies embodying this aspect
of identity (such as particular races, genders and classes etc.). Therefore, this essay will aim to
demonstrate that it is the understanding of identity as a product of external relations and the
power-knowledge structure that underpins identity politics, and why the understanding of such
power-knowledge relation (Foucault) can and should be mobilised to create positive social change.
To begin, identity does not entail meanings in itself but is rather given meaning by the external
discourse that preexists it. This is supported by the proposals of many scholars of identity. The theory
of the looking-glass self-proposed by Charles Cooley introduces us to the concept that our
understanding of self can be underpinned by others’ perceptions of us (Cooley, 1902). Mead’s
structuralist approach to identity also suggests that relations generate meaning. One would not be a
daughter or son if it weren’t for the existence of their parents. Based on this understanding, we can
re-examine the formation of our identity as a subject in relation to our surrounding environment.
Moreover, identity is reinforced by the actions derived from one’s understanding of oneself (and such
understanding is informed by the external). As Goffman puts it, how we present ourselves to others is
like acting out a role in a play according to given scripts (Woodward, 2004). These so-called ‘scripts’
are the social expectations that pre-exist us, and which Butler understands as ‘[the] discursive system
takes place prior to the ‘I’’ (Butler, 1993). Hence, we can observe from these accounts that identity is
not naturalistic, but rather captured in a self-reinforcing loop where the driving force is the external
discourse. An alternative understanding we can derive from this is that identity is not a subject for its
existence, but rather, tied to other variables in the macro-structure ‘identity’ finds itself. It therefore
should be regarded as unfixed and ever-changing in relation to the changes in these other variables of
the ‘structured-structure’ (Bourdieu, 1977).
On the other hand, the discourse itself is unfixed and capable of change through its interaction with its
agencies. In other words, besides the discourse being an objectively structured structure, it is
simultaneously being structured by the actions of the present (Bourdieu, 1984). The understanding of
the reflexive relationship between the discourse and social agencies and their identities is what
underpins identity politics, and why it is being used to promote social change. It is also important to
note that the idea of social change by identity politics does not necessarily entail alterations for the
better, but rather, politics that mobilise identity to achieve a different social state than the ones before.
For instance, before the socialist movements in China, womanhood entailed subordination to men.
This appendant quality was emphasised in aspects that underpin identity. For instance, the surnames
of daughters followed that of the father (and it still is the majority of the cases now), and after
marriage, the surname is transferred under the husband. Moreover, the ‘tradition’ of foot binding was
