Analysis Of When Identity Politics Is Rational By Stanley Fish

When ‘Identity Politics’ is Rational: Analysis The term identity politics frequently surfaces in realms of political discourse around election time. Some pundits blame identity politics for their candidate's loss while others bask in victories won by exploiting that very concept which their rivals despise. In his article, “When ‘Identity Politics’ is Rational,” Stanley Fish addresses the ethics of using identity politics and argues that voting for someone simply due to their identity, for example because of race, gender, or religion, is perfectly acceptable. However, Fish’s argument is based of of faulty logic made evident when he contradicts himself. Moreover, because this contradiction undermines the examples he provides, and because he …show more content…
First, due to the aforementioned fault in Fish’s reasoning, every example that he introduces in an attempt to prove his point, fails to support his argument. Being able to make a logical argument is key to gaining a reader’s trust. For example, if an author uses blatantly incorrect facts or statistics when attempting to prove a point, his or her reader would rightfully disregard the rest of the author's paper simply because they are untrustworthy. The same phenomenon hold true in the example of the article at hand, and so, Fish automatically loses credibility in the eyes of his audience regardless of whether or not his opinion is useful. Moreover, because Fish uses informal language throughout his article, the seriousness of his opinion is put into question. For example, at the very beginning of the piece, Fish states, “let me start with a definition. (It may not be yours, but it will at least allow the discussion to be framed)” (Fish). To analyze this except, Fish starts with the phrase, “let me,” which sounds more like it belongs in a conversation between two friends discussing politics in an informal setting than it does in a supposedly scholarly article featured in the New York Times. Whenever personal pronouns such as “me” are employed, the author casts off his or her educated and varicose tone and replaces it with a casual and informal one. An casual tone automatically turns some readers off to the educational value of a piece of literature and is therefore unhelpful to Fish’s cause. One may argue that this was a conscious decision made by Fish in order to better connect to his audience. But this assertion only would hold true if the topic of the article was not of such a serious matter and the purpose of it was not to persuade an audience with relevant