Derr 1
Kari Derr
Professor Miranda Egger
ENGL 2030 (01/02)
25 October 2013
Rising to Aristotle’s Standards
In his article “When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational,” Stanley Fish argues that in some
cases identity politics can be a useful and strategic methodology in voting. Fish offers a
definition of identity politics as the practice of voting for or against an individual based upon
attributes unattached to a candidate’s actual policies. Fish identifies the rawest form of identity
politics, “tribal” identity politics, as a useless endeavor, which has met warranted resentment and
resistance. Fish then differentiates an ideological sub-category of identity politics – “interest”
identity politics – which “is based on the assumption… that because of his or her race or
ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter
is committed to” (113). This subcategory, Fish argues, is not only a reasonable means of
candidate selection, but a necessity in today’s political spectrum. Fish’s article, when analyzed
from an Aristotelian perspective, grounded in formal logic, presents an effective argument worth
consideration.
Fish asks the reader to accept the conclusion that “identity interests, as long as they are
ideological and not merely tribal, constitute a perfectly respectable reason for awarding your
vote” (114). Fish draws this conclusion from two main premises. Firstly, identity markers remain
apparent consciously within society and they are often connected to specific concerns. Secondly,
there are no universal interests or policies and the pushing forward of an identity related agenda
may reflect a voter’s largest concern.
Derr 2
Fish uses inductive reasoning to arrive at the statement of his first premise that identity
markers remain present in society and are often connected to specific concerns. He points out
that female voters may reason that a female candidate would place more funds into research
benefitting female health concerns, that Jewish voters may reason that a Jewish candidate would
place more emphasis on support for Israel, and that African American voters may reason that an
African American candidate may place more emphasis on recognition and removal of racial
barriers in American society (112-113). Fish does acknowledge that these concerns may or may
not actually be addressed by a certain candidate, but he illuminates several different examples of
specific concerns which are attached to various groups of people in general, suggesting that
voting upon identity is not simply a choice due to likeness.
Fish inductively reasons that there are no universally accepted concerns or interests in
politics, due to the extreme difference of opinions seen throughout society. He then inductively
reasons that the support of a candidate does not necessarily mean that a voter supports every
portion of a candidate’s platform or ideology. Their support means that they believe a candidate
will forward specific issues of importance to said voter, including issues inherently attached to
certain identities. Although the support of government’s involvement pushed by identity agendas
in social matters is not an absolute truth, the reality that different candidates will support
different agendas is an absolute truth.
The resulting syllogism, put simply, is that: specific concerns are often connected to
certain identity markers, and these specific concerns may be an important enough reason (to a
voter) to invest a vote in a certain candidate; therefore, investing a vote due to ideological
identity politics is acceptable. Fish’s syllogistic argument proves valid upon assessment. Firstly,
the premises presented have been arrived upon due to sound inductive reasoning and can be
Derr 3
accepted as possible. Granted, there is an assumption within Fish’s argument that government
should have a role in social politics. However, based upon the government systems currently in
place, social politics is a portion of sections that government controls. Secondly, his argument
follows the necessary format of a logical syllogistic argument in which the truth of the
conclusion is inherent in the premises. Thirdly, Fish is sure to use unambiguous language
throughout his argument by providing acceptable definitions for the terms used.
When evaluated from an Aristotelian perspective of formal logic Fish creates a logical
argument about the topic of necessary identity politics. He avoids fallacious statements and
arguments causing sound inductive and deductive reasoning which grants that his conclusion is
in fact correct and true given the validity of his premises.