When Labels Divide Us: The Damage Done By Identity Politics

Episode 16 of The Building Bridges Series
A 4-minute read

“Do you know what the problem is with labels?”, asks Steve Shepard on his podcast The Natural Curiosity Project. “The problem is they get stuck on top of the thing that they’re attached to and, in the process, cover it up so we can’t see it. And that’s really unfortunate.”

In a previous post, we explored how identity labels shape our own individual worldviews. But labels don’t just affect how we see ourselves—they profoundly impact how we organize our society, conduct our politics, and treat one another. And when identity politics becomes the dominant framework for understanding social issues, we risk fragmenting into ever-smaller groups, each competing for recognition while losing sight of common ground.

The Friend-or-Foe Shortcut

Our brains love shortcuts. For millions of years, the most important shortcut was simple: “Friend or foe?” If we could quickly categorize someone, we saved time and increased our chances of survival.

This ancient pattern still drives our labeling behavior. We use labels to quickly sort people: Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, “us” or “them.” These shortcuts feel efficient, but they come at a cost—we lose the dignity and nuance of seeing people as complex individuals.

Every political scandal follows a similar script: outrage towards the other side, excuses for ours. As Alex Buscemi writes on BuildersMovement.org, “Many Democrats condemned Republican figures like Brett Kavanaugh or Matt Gaetz over allegations of sexual misconduct, but defended or downplayed accusations against Bill Clinton or Andrew Cuomo until public pressure mounted. Republicans denounced Hillary Clinton’s email server as a major security breach, but minimized Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago as overblown or politically motivated.”

The Dehumanization of “They” and “Them”

Listen carefully to how people talk about those they disagree with. You’ll often hear vague, dehumanizing pronouns: “they,” “them,” “those people.” Similarly problematic are phrases like “the left,” “the right,” “the politicians,” “the media,” or “the elites.”

These labels create distance. They allow us to avoid dealing with what specific individuals are actually saying or doing. Instead of engaging with a particular person’s argument, we dismiss entire categories of people based on a label.

When we say “they want to destroy America” or “they don’t care about people like us,” we’re not describing real individuals with complex motivations—we’re constructing caricatures that make it easier to dismiss, demonize, or ignore actual human beings.

Four Dangers of Identity Politics

While identity-based movements have achieved important progress in recognizing marginalized groups, critics point to several risks when identity politics becomes our primary framework:

1. Reduction to Stereotypes

Identity politics can reduce individuals to a single aspect of their group affiliation, ignoring the complexity of their experiences. A common example is the emphasis on declaring preferred pronouns—certainly one important aspect of identity, but only one of dozens of characteristics that make up who we are (recall the identity wheel from our worldview post).

2. Increased Division and Polarization

By emphasizing differences rather than commonalities, identity politics can divide society into competing groups. This creates an “us vs. them” mentality where different groups prioritize their own interests over the broader collective good.

Remember our discussion about tribal identity? Identity politics can intensify tribal thinking, making it harder to find common ground and easier to view those outside our identity group with suspicion or hostility.

3. Hindered Compromise and Progress

When politics becomes a battle between a righteous “us” and a villainous “them,” compromise feels like betrayal. This connects to our discussion about moral foundations—when identities align with moral convictions, any attempts at negotiation can feel like abandoning core values.

This dynamic creates political gridlock and makes it difficult to address broader issues that affect everyone, such as economic opportunity or environmental sustainability.

4. Culture of Victimhood

Some critics argue that focusing heavily on grievances rather than empowerment can undermine the agency and resilience of marginalized groups. While acknowledging real injustices is essential, an exclusive focus on victimhood can discourage building power and working toward practical solutions.

This connects to our earlier discussion about Mattering—people need to feel valued and capable of making positive change, not just recognized as victims of injustice.

Moving Beyond Divisive Labels

How can we acknowledge real differences and historical injustices while still building bridges?

Speak specifically. Instead of “they think…” name actual individuals and their specific arguments. Replace “the media says” with “this particular journalist reported.”

Speak only for yourself. Be careful not to claim you know what certain groups of people think or believe. Say “I believe” or “my experience has been” rather than “women think” or “conservatives want.”

Recognize complexity. No one is just their label. Every person contains multitudes of experiences, beliefs, and identities.

Focus on shared goals. Before diving into identity-based differences, establish common objectives that transcend group boundaries.

Question tribalistic impulses. When you feel the urge to dismiss someone based on their group membership, pause and ask: What am I avoiding by using this label?

The goal isn’t to pretend differences don’t exist or to silence discussions about systemic inequities. Instead, it’s to ensure that our focus on identity doesn’t blind us to our shared humanity and common interests.

Next time you find yourself saying “they” or “them” when discussing people you disagree with, stop and ask: Who specifically am I talking about? What are they actually saying? Am I using this label to avoid engaging with their real arguments?

Have you noticed yourself or others using broad labels to dismiss people? How might our conversations change if we spoke more specifically about individuals rather than groups? I’d love to hear your thoughts below.

If this article struck a chord for you, I bet you’ll appreciate this spot-on perspective on The Dangers of Identity Politics at BuildersMovement.org.

Up Next:
“American Nations: The United States Has Never Really Been United“