Beyond Identity: Feminism, Identity and Identity Politics

Susan Hekman’s 2000 article “Beyond Identity: Feminism, Identity and Identity Politics” represents a bold intervention in one of feminism’s most contentious debates at the turn of the millennium. Published in the journal Feminist Theory, this provocative piece challenges both the theoretical foundations of identity as conceptualized by influential figures like Judith Butler and the practical politics of organizing movements around identity categories. Hekman’s dual critique and her proposal to move “beyond identity” sparked significant debate about the future direction of feminist theory and politics.

The Context: Identity Politics at a Crossroads

By 2000, identity politics had become both a cornerstone of feminist organizing and a source of increasing tension within the movement. The proliferation of identity categories—women of color, lesbians, working-class women, disabled women—had enriched feminist analysis by highlighting differences and challenging universalist assumptions. Yet this same proliferation raised difficult questions: How many identities could feminism accommodate? Did focusing on specific identities fragment political coalitions? Could any identity category avoid essentializing those it claimed to represent?

Simultaneously, postmodern and poststructuralist theories, particularly Butler’s influential work on performativity, had destabilized the very concept of identity. If gender was performatively constituted rather than essential, what did this mean for political movements organized around gender identity? These theoretical developments created what many saw as a crisis: How could feminism maintain political efficacy while acknowledging the constructed and unstable nature of the identities around which it organized?

Critiquing Butler’s Subject

Hekman begins with a careful critique of Judith Butler’s theory of the subject, which had become enormously influential in feminist theory. Butler’s work, particularly in “Gender Trouble” (1990) and “Bodies That Matter” (1993), had argued that the subject is discursively constituted through repetitive performative acts. There is no pre-discursive subject; rather, the subject emerges through the very acts that are said to express it.

The Problem of the Substanceless Subject

Hekman acknowledges the power of Butler’s critique of the modernist subject—the autonomous, rational, unified self that had dominated Western philosophy. This subject, Butler had shown, was not only fictitious but also exclusionary, privileging certain forms of subjectivity (male, white, heterosexual) while marginalizing others. However, Hekman argues that Butler goes too far in the opposite direction, proposing what amounts to a “fictional, substanceless subject.”

The problem with Butler’s completely discursively constituted subject, according to Hekman, is that it lacks any grounding for agency or resistance. If the subject is nothing but the effect of discourse, how can it act to change those very discourses? Butler attempts to locate agency in the gaps and fissures of performative repetition, in the possibility of subversive recitation. But Hekman finds this insufficient—it provides no robust account of how subjects can engage in sustained political action or form lasting coalitions.

The Modernist Subject’s Shadow

Hekman argues that despite Butler’s intentions, the modernist subject continues to haunt her theory. The very possibility of subversive performance seems to require some kind of agent who can recognize opportunities for subversion and act upon them. Yet Butler’s theory provides no resources for understanding this agent beyond discourse. This creates what Hekman sees as a fundamental incoherence in Butler’s project.

Moreover, Hekman suggests that Butler’s complete rejection of any substantive subject inadvertently reinforces a kind of nihilistic politics. If there is no subject beyond discourse, then political action becomes merely a matter of disrupting discourses rather than building alternative visions or creating lasting change. This may explain why Butler’s theory, despite its radical intentions, has had limited impact on practical feminist politics.

Object Relations Theory: A Middle Ground

Rather than choosing between the modernist subject (autonomous, essential, unified) and the postmodernist subject (fictional, discursive, fragmented), Hekman proposes a third option drawn from object relations theory. This psychoanalytic approach, developed by theorists like D.W. Winnicott and Jessica Benjamin, offers what Hekman calls an “ungrounded ground” for subjectivity.

The Core Self

Object relations theory posits that subjects develop through early relationships, particularly with primary caregivers. Through these relationships, individuals develop what Winnicott called a “core self”—not an essential, pre-social identity, but a relatively stable sense of continuity and agency that emerges through relational processes. This core self is neither the autonomous individual of liberal theory nor the purely discursive effect of poststructuralism.

Hekman argues that this conception of the subject offers several advantages for feminist theory:

1. Embodied but not Essential: The subject is fundamentally embodied and shaped by early bodily experiences, but this embodiment doesn’t determine a fixed essence.

2. Relational but not Dissolved: The subject emerges through relationships but maintains enough coherence to engage in sustained action and form meaningful connections with others.

3. Constructed but not Fictional: While the subject is socially constructed through relational processes, it has enough substantiality to serve as a locus of agency and responsibility.

Implications for Agency

This object relations approach provides what Hekman sees as a more robust foundation for political agency than Butler’s theory. The subject has enough stability and continuity to engage in long-term political projects, form lasting coalitions, and work toward concrete goals. At the same time, because this subject is relationally constituted and always in process, it remains open to change and capable of recognizing its connections with others who are differently situated.

The Critique of Identity Politics

Having addressed the theoretical question of the subject, Hekman turns to the practical politics of identity. Her critique here is even more radical: she argues that feminism should abandon identity politics entirely.

Defining Identity Politics

Hekman defines identity politics as “the organization of political movements around specific identities—women, racial/ethnic groups, gays, lesbians, and so on—instead of around political ideology or particular political issues.” This form of politics emerged from the recognition that supposedly universal political movements had often excluded or marginalized certain groups. Identity politics sought to ensure that these groups could articulate their specific experiences and interests.

The Problems with Identity Politics

While acknowledging the historical importance of identity politics, Hekman identifies several fundamental problems:

Essentialism: Even when identities are understood as socially constructed, organizing politically around them tends to reify them. Political movements need some degree of stability in the identities they represent, which pushes toward essentialist definitions of what it means to be a woman, black, lesbian, etc.

Exclusion: Every identity category, no matter how carefully defined, excludes some who might claim membership and includes others who may not identify with the group’s political aims. The category “women” has been criticized for centering white, middle-class experience; but even more specific categories like “women of color” or “working-class women” face similar problems.

Fragmentation: The proliferation of identity categories leads to political fragmentation. As groups subdivide into ever more specific identities, building coalitions becomes increasingly difficult. The result is a politics of competing claims rather than collective action.

Depoliticization: Paradoxically, focusing on identity can actually depoliticize movements. Debates about who truly belongs to a category or whose experience is most authentic can overshadow discussions of political strategy and goals.

Beyond Identity: A Controversial Proposal

Hekman’s most controversial claim is that feminism should remove identity from politics entirely. This doesn’t mean abandoning the insights that attention to difference has brought, but rather reorganizing political action around different principles.

Issue-Based Politics

Instead of organizing as “women” or “feminists,” Hekman suggests organizing around specific political issues and goals. People would come together not because they share an identity but because they share political commitments—to reproductive justice, economic equality, anti-violence work, etc. This would allow for more flexible coalitions that could include anyone committed to these goals, regardless of their identity.

Advantages of Post-Identity Politics

Hekman argues that moving beyond identity politics would have several advantages:

1. Broader Coalitions: Without identity requirements, movements could include anyone committed to their goals, potentially building larger and more diverse coalitions.

2. Focus on Politics: Energy currently spent on defining and policing identity boundaries could be redirected toward political strategy and action.

3. Reduced Essentialism: Without the need to define group membership, movements could avoid the essentializing tendencies of identity politics.

4. Greater Flexibility: Coalitions could form and reform based on changing political needs rather than fixed identity categories.

The Question of Experience

Critics immediately asked: Without identity categories, how would movements ensure that the experiences of marginalized groups aren’t erased? Hekman responds that experiences would still matter, but they would be relevant to politics not because they belong to certain identities but because they reveal structures of oppression that need to be addressed. A person’s experience of workplace discrimination would be politically relevant not because they are a “woman” but because it exposes unjust practices that harm many people.

Responses and Criticisms

Hekman’s article generated significant debate within feminist theory. Critics raised several important objections:

The Persistence of Identity

Many argued that Hekman underestimated how deeply identity shapes both oppression and resistance. People aren’t discriminated against because of abstract structures but because of perceived identities. Similarly, resistance often emerges from shared identity-based experiences. To abandon identity politics might be to abandon one of the most powerful sources of political mobilization.

The Privilege of Post-Identity

Some critics suggested that only those whose identities are already centered and validated can afford to move “beyond identity.” For marginalized groups still fighting for recognition and rights, identity politics remains essential. The proposal to abandon identity politics might itself be a form of privilege.

Strategic Essentialism

Others invoked Gayatri Spivak’s concept of “strategic essentialism”—the idea that sometimes groups need to temporarily accept essentialist categories for political purposes. While recognizing the theoretical problems with identity categories, they may still be politically necessary.

The Reality of Coalition Politics

Critics also questioned whether issue-based politics could really avoid identity dynamics. Even when organized around issues rather than identities, movements still have to grapple with different perspectives and experiences shaped by identity positions. Simply declaring politics “post-identity” doesn’t make identity effects disappear.

Theoretical Implications

Beyond its immediate political arguments, Hekman’s article raised important theoretical questions that continue to resonate:

The Subject of Feminism

If feminism isn’t organized around “women” as an identity category, what is its subject? Hekman suggests that feminism’s subject should be anyone committed to ending gender-based oppression, regardless of their own gender identity. This radically open conception challenges fundamental assumptions about what feminism is and who can be feminist.

The Relationship Between Theory and Politics

Hekman’s article also raises questions about how feminist theory relates to feminist politics. While Butler’s theoretical insights about the constructed nature of identity are compelling, Hekman asks whether they can ground effective political action. This tension between theoretical sophistication and political efficacy remains a central challenge for feminist thought.

The Future of Difference

How can feminism acknowledge and address differences without organizing around identity categories? Hekman’s proposal requires new ways of thinking about difference that don’t rely on fixed categories but still recognize structural inequalities and diverse experiences.

Contemporary Relevance

More than two decades later, Hekman’s arguments have gained new relevance in several contexts:

Intersectionality and Its Limits

While intersectionality has become a dominant framework for understanding multiple, overlapping identities, some scholars have begun questioning whether the proliferation of intersectional categories leads to exactly the fragmentation Hekman predicted. Does recognizing ever more complex identity intersections help or hinder political organizing?

Trans and Non-Binary Politics

The emergence of trans and non-binary politics has further complicated identity categories. These movements simultaneously rely on identity claims (the right to self-identification) while destabilizing traditional identity categories. Hekman’s framework offers one way to think about politics that doesn’t require stable identity categories.

Issue-Based Movements

Recent movements like #MeToo, climate activism, and economic justice campaigns often organize around issues rather than identities, even as they acknowledge how different identities shape experiences of these issues. These movements might be seen as experimenting with the kind of post-identity politics Hekman envisioned.

Digital Activism

Online organizing has created new possibilities for fluid, issue-based coalitions that form and reform around specific campaigns. Digital platforms allow people to engage in political action without necessarily claiming or performing particular identities, potentially enabling the kind of flexible politics Hekman advocated.

The Ongoing Debate

Hekman’s proposal to move beyond identity remains controversial. Critics continue to argue that identity categories, whatever their limitations, remain necessary for understanding and combating oppression. Structures of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination operate through identity categories; political resistance, they argue, must therefore also organize around these categories.

Yet supporters suggest that Hekman identified real problems with identity politics that have only become more apparent over time. The fragmentation of progressive movements, the energy spent on boundary policing and authenticity debates, and the difficulty of building broad coalitions all suggest that identity politics has limitations that need to be addressed.

Conclusion: An Unfinished Conversation

“Beyond Identity” doesn’t resolve the tensions between theory and politics, difference and coalition, recognition and transformation. Instead, it sharpens these tensions and challenges feminists to think more carefully about the relationship between identity and politics. Hekman’s article remains valuable not because it provides definitive answers but because it asks difficult questions that feminism continues to grapple with.

The debate Hekman sparked—about whether feminism can or should move beyond identity—remains unfinished. As new forms of identity emerge and political landscapes shift, her challenge to think “beyond identity” while taking difference seriously continues to provoke necessary reflection about the foundations and future of feminist politics. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, Hekman’s willingness to question fundamental assumptions about identity and politics represents the kind of critical thinking that keeps feminist theory vital and responsive to changing conditions.