Identity politics vs the wisdom of the crowd

Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds provides a compelling take-down of the woke left.

Jon Holbrook


In The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, Douglas Murray, a renowned slayer of all things politically correct, asks two questions: What is wrong with identity politics? And who is responsible?

To the first question, he answers that identity politics conflicts with human nature. Humankind, he says, has a two-way relationship with its biological nature. So, while society shapes human nature, human nature can also inform society. With the biological quality of being male or female, this means recognising that men and women are biologically different and play different gendered roles in society. But with the biological quality of race, this means recognising that racial differences can be overcome in society. Today’s identitarians invert these two realities. They seek to downplay or even erase gendered roles based on sex while highlighting and celebrating racial differences. Identity politics is premised on seeking to overcome meaningful male and female roles while seeking to create meaningless racial differences.

The logic of identity politics culminates in the idea of trans identity. The person who is born male but later declares he is female (and vice versa) is challenging the binary and fundamental nature of sex. He is saying: ‘Whatever biology may say, I have the right and the power to change my sex.’ And by requiring society to facilitate this change and to then recognise it, the identitarian is saying, ‘Gendered roles are social fictions, which must yield to individual preference’. Trans identity denies the biological reality of sex and the social desirability of gender.

The key problem with identity politics, argues Murray, is that it ruptures the link between scientific reality and social need. He notes that ‘our societies have doubled down on the delusion that biological difference can be pushed away, denied or ignored’. As a result, Western cultures now engage in ‘societal self-delusion over biological reality’. Murray concludes that ‘we have begun trying to reorder our societies not in line with facts we know from science but based on political falsehoods pushed by activists in the social sciences’.

Murray organises his argument around the four key identities of trans, gay, women and race. He criticises each for the way it jars with human nature and social reality. When it comes to the three sex-based identities of trans, gay and women, Murray is most scathing about the trans movement, which he suggests is so ‘morally stupefying’ that future generations may come to view it in the same way that we now look down on the slave trade.

On gay identity, Murray challenges those who claim that people are born gay. This is important because it makes it easier for society to debate the issue of how far gay rights should go. Murray, a gay man, implies that with issues like gay parenting, society may have gone too far. Indeed, he suggests that in the future, society may view this issue ‘with the kind of shame’ with which we now view the criminalisation of homosexuality, not least because, when it comes to gay men as parents, women are written ‘out of perhaps the most important story any person could ever be involved in’.

And on women’s identity, which is peddled by high-powered career women, Murray explains how the desire to reprogramme natural instincts – such as motherhood – jars with reality. He cites an academic study that troubled feminists when the results were summarised in Newsweek in 2017, under the headline: ‘Men with muscles and money are more attractive to straight women and gay men – showing gender roles aren’t progressing.’ This feminist notion of ‘progress’ is, concludes Murray, ‘unachievable’. Some aspects of physical attraction are biological in nature. Murray claims that ‘our societies have arrived at a stage of seemingly industrial-strength denial’ about gendered roles that were ‘valid the day before yesterday’.

On race, Murray traces the transformation of liberal societies from being racist to being race-unbothered, and now to being race-obsessed. His chapter begins with Martin Luther King’s speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in 1963, when he longed for the day that people ‘will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. And his chapter ends with a speech in 2019 from a white professor, Robin DiAngelo, who specialises in ‘whiteness studies’. In the speech she asks for forgiveness for her skin colour: ‘I’d like to be a little less white, which means a little less oppressive, oblivious, defensive, ignorant and arrogant.’ And she says white people who see others as individuals rather than in terms of their skin colour are in fact ‘dangerous’. Murray concludes by pointing out that race-obsessed identitarians, like DiAngelo, judge people by the colour of their skin, rather than by the content of their character. ‘It took only half a century for Martin Luther King’s vision to be exactly inverted’, he notes.

While Murray’s critique of what is wrong with identity politics is powerful and forthright, his explanation as to who is responsible is less compelling. The problem, writ large in the title – ‘the madness of crowds’ – is that the crowd is not responsible for the ‘madness’ of identity politics. Most members of the crowd think that trans identity is bonkers, gay rights have gone too far, and that the feminist challenge to traditional gender roles is alien to their lives. They also get on fine, regardless of race, and despair at the identitarians’ constant desire to racialise society. Identity politics comes from a minority that is seeking to impose its elite ideas on a people who view society in a practical, pragmatic and harmonious way.

Murray also goes astray by blaming Marxism, as developed by left-wing academics, for identity politics. Superficially, the argument is attractive because the left has responded to the waning of class as a social force by replacing it with identity. Murray notes that whereas Marxists used to criticise society for the oppression of workers by capitalists, their tenured successors now criticise society for the oppression of minorities by majorities. Gays, non-whites, women and trans people are, so the leftist discourse goes, oppressed by tyrannical male overlords. They are, according to today’s pseudo-Marxists, kept down, oppressed and sidelined by a ‘white, patriarchal, heterosexual, “cis” system’. And, claims Murray, just ‘as Marxism was meant to free the labourer, so in this new version of an old claim, the power of the patriarchal white males must be taken away and shared around more fairly with the relevant minority groups’.

But the left’s movement from a politics based on class to one based on identity, which Murray uncritically accepts as Marxism, is problematic for two reasons. First, Marx saw human nature and society as a constantly evolving relationship. He never denied human nature. He simply saw it as something that is mediated by society. Today’s left has turned Marx’s ideas upside down, and bastardised what Marx actually said.

Secondly, Marx saw the working class as playing a progressive role in society because it was able to champion the interests of humanity as a whole. When the left replaced this working class and its universalising role with a force that expresses woke minority interests, it both deprived Marxism of its progressive role and turned it against the majority – or, in other words, the crowd.

Traditionally, it was the right that feared the crowd, often by referring to it as ‘the mob’. And it was the left that championed it, as ‘the people’, and so on. But no more. It is now the left that, having cynically thrown its lot in with minorities, has turned against the majority.

The Madness of Crowds tells us much about the identitarian left’s exploitation of minorities. As Murray puts it, the advocates of this ‘new religion’ of identity politics have succeeded in using ‘gays and women and those of a different skin colour and trans individuals as a set of battering rams to turn people against the society they have been brought up in’. Indeed, it is when he is skewering the identitarian left for its inability to connect with ordinary people that Murray is at his best.

But The Madness of Crowds also speaks to the limits of a conservatism that fails to appreciate the extent to which the left has abandoned so much of its own radical tradition. Its supposed Marxism is little more than a cover for what is now a thoroughly reactionary project.

The crowd is not mad. It is merely waiting for the leadership that can inspire it to turn against the madness of identity politics. The Madness of Crowds inches in this direction, but it is too reluctant to embrace the crowd to get there.

Jon Holbrook is a barrister. Follow him on Twitter: @JonHolb. His essay on ‘The Rise and Fall of the Rule of Law’ is published in the book From Self to Selfie: A Critique of Contemporary Forms of Alienation.

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, by Douglas Murray, is published by Bloomsbury Continuum. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)

Picture by: Getty Images

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Mark Pawelek

25th March 2020 at 2:27 pm

I already know who’s responsible and what’s wrong. I don’t actually understand “why?”. Identity politics comes across as divisive, and pointless “student politics”. Presumably those behind it consider it a good thing. Why are they entirely incompetent or unable to explain the supposed benefits to us?

Dean D

29th March 2020 at 6:03 pm

They are practicing an aged old, almost instinctive practice to gain control over whatever demographic, or the public at large.
Best example I can offer is the constantly churning memberships of many individual pentecostal churches: One or more individuals join a church, seed discontent and division, and like clockwork, peel off a good portion of followers to start their own parish.
I’ve seen communists do it within individual labor union locals, in order to form an internal dynamic that allowed them to prevail in internal policy votes. Often times the issues being polled on are purely of their creation.
Every time we saw new hard leftists come into our ranks, we knew widespread discontent was inevitable.
And in these examples from both ends of the political spectrum, I would never expect the perpetrators to acknowledge, much less justify their actions or intent.

Hugh Bryant

24th March 2020 at 10:41 pm

Identity politics is what you get when lefties get rich and no longer want to talk about the redistribution of (their) wealth.

Christopher Tyson

24th March 2020 at 5:36 pm

Pinning down where identity politics comes from is like pinning the tail on the donkey, except in the case of the donkey there is a specific place, so not similar in that respect. In the 1980s and 90s there was the emergence of ‘post’ everything: post-Fordism, post-modernism, post-industrialism, post-structuralism, post-Marxism, post-ideology, post-materialism and so on. After the end of the cold war we had ‘Beyond left and Right’ by Anthony Giddens and others along these lines.
Identity politics can be found in this mix. People who want to focus on the Marxist connection usually have a political axe to grind, to discredit Marxism and identity politics. Alternatively for some ‘Marxism’ is just a generic term for leftism, socialism, communism, and does not have any specific meaning.
But why stop there? Identity politics can also be seen in the liberal tradition, as a descendant of pluralism or interest group politics. In this liberal theory, groups and interests compete with each other and the state is the impartial umpire. Pluralism was indeed contrasted with Marxist or elitist theories of the state, whereby the state had a vested interest. Identity politics does not have a theory of the state, the groups are separate even competing with each other. Identity politics even resembles corporatism, whereby the state incorporates groups and leaders into its institutions. Identity politics today seems to inhabit the academy, and academics in their rarefied environs imagine that their semantic tinkering is of real material significance, again at odds with Marxist materialism. Identity politics also has none academic roots, as an elementary form of rebellion or politics, minorities or oppressed groups organising or even lashing out spontaneously at their presumed oppressor. Women vs men, black vs white, gay vs straight. Again this is counter to Marxist universalism.
Identity politics has a tendency to splinter and fragment, today it is supported by political establishments, of different stripes, in the same way the bosses once encouraged and patronised unions, or colonialists had favoured locals, it’s someone to do business with. If political authorities were to cut the cord with identity politics, these groups would be severely
weakened. Identity politics creates fodder for the Far Right, to rail against and recruit around, anyone they disapprove of leftist, Marxist, socialists, communists, ethnic minorities is thrown into the identity politics pot.
Where identity politics came from is of not great import, it is now supported by political authorities for possibly pragmatic reasons, possibly sincere reasons. We can try to win over its adherents to a more liberal universalist politics, we can try to convince governments and well meaning liberals that this form of politics is anti-democratic and leads to division and irrationality. Specifying identity politics as Marxist is lazy, or a matter of semantics, or has a deliberate, usually Right wing, intention.

Thomas Smith

24th March 2020 at 5:26 pm

I very much appreciate this great review, including the Leftist critique of Douglas’s fine yet conservative book.

Rosie Maxima

24th March 2020 at 4:42 pm

Sounds like very heavy reading to me. I get what he’s saying but I can do without reading a whole thesis on it. Also, we all develop views and biases according to our ethnicity, class, sexuality…despite his pro-women stance and ability to recognise issues in identity politics as a gay man (making him uniquely qualified to comment), he is still a gay, white man who cannot have the same perspective or experience as a straight man or woman, or non-white person. If he was gay and mixed race he may be writing from a slightly different angle, or certain of his views would be modified according to that personal experience. Within the gay community alone there is apparently much misogyny and racism, so how does that all come into play? I suppose that’s where the ‘intersectionality’ debate comes in. The whole thing is all downright confusing.

Daniel Goldstein

24th March 2020 at 4:32 pm

Have gay rights really gone “too far”? In terms of legislation, I think they’ve just come up to speed with heterosexual rights. Gay marriage was controversial amongst a vocal minority, but I don’t think it threatens anyone, and is quite a conservative policy really. Gay adoption is a variation from societal norms of the nuclear family, but so are single parents. In any case, I don’t think “the crowd” think gay rights have gone too far.
“They also get on fine, regardless of race“ – this is a rather myopic generalisation I feel.

Rosie Maxima

24th March 2020 at 5:00 pm

Wasn’t the gay marriage controversial mainly for staunch Christians? And certain clergy losing their job for refusing to carry out gay marriage. I am not an evangelist (and neither were they I believe), but as a Christian myself, I can also see how gay marriage could be seen as ‘man’ somehow rewriting the church’s institution of marriage in order to suit personal needs. Man is very good at meddling and appropriating and reinventing in order to suit our own personal, selfish needs. It has happened already, many times in history. Either way, I don’t think someone should lose their job or be taken to court (as has happened often in the US) for not wishing to use their resources support gay marriage. Perhaps the vocal dissent has been relatively small because people are actually scared to confront anything that could offend the gay community – we’ve seen the repercussions. If I were gay I think I would be happy to settle for civil partnership as I would not want to get married in an institution or religious order that is fundamentally hostile to my sexuality.

Daniel Goldstein

24th March 2020 at 6:30 pm

As a gay man, I thought civil partnerships were enough, though apparently not equal to marriage. I think it was largely staunch Christians who opposed it. They don’t have to take part though. The definition of marriage has varied depending on culture and religion in history.

James Knight

24th March 2020 at 6:37 pm

Same sex marriage is not gay rights going “too far”. It is gay rights going socially conservative.

Gordon der Gopher

24th March 2020 at 12:49 pm

It’s the madness of crowds in that people want to be seen as doing and saying the ‘right’ thing. So if the loud mouth media folk they look up to (say in the toxicGuardian or the BBC) are saying one thing the madness of the crowd have to agree. It’s the new religion. In days of old the most unchristian of people had to be seen to be showing their face at church for fear of what people would think of them if they didn’t. Now the identity PC crowd have that same fear. Look at the Rotherham, Rochdale (etc) grooming gangs; to think that vulnerable young girls were willingly having sex with middleaged Muslim guys is utter madness but the fear of pointing the finger at those old Muslim guys overrode any sensible reaction. The PC people at the top of social services and the police were the ones with the political axe to grind, but it’s the madness of the workers below them to challenge the dogma was where the damage was done.

pamela james

24th March 2020 at 12:31 pm

I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a
year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone, ­w­w­w.ic­a­s­h­6­8.c­o­m­

Lyn Keay

24th March 2020 at 12:19 pm

The idea that the biological determinism embraced by both Douglas Murray and Jon Holbrook is an argument against identity politics is misguided. To say that humans have a two way relationship with nature is true. To argue that men and women are biologically different is true. To argue that women still have the main role in child rearing in our society is true. But, to argue that somehow this biological difference between the sexes make this difference in role somehow in accordance with human nature (or ‘natural’ as most people would say) is viewing human nature as a fixed immutable thing.
With one breath they rightly argues that there is no evidence to support the claim that people are born gay, yet with the other than the current fashion for men with money and muscles is an aspect of physical attraction that is biological in both women & gay men! This is a total contradiction. It also ignores the changing historical fashions in sexual attraction throughout the centuries. Was the attraction to Rubenesque women in previous centuries or the attraction of women to skinny Jaggerish looking men in the 60s somehow unnatural and today’s fashion for muscles and money natural? It seems to me more likely that they instead show that sexual attraction is mediated by the society that we live in. Marx’s collaborator Engels wrote of several anthropological studies that showed how different human societies had organised with far different social and sexual organisation and mores that we have today. So, it seems unlikely that he thought human nature was as restricted as this article makes out.
Does anyone else think there is a rather essentialist view of motherhood expressed in this article? What is wrong with two men bringing up children? Is that somehow fundamentally different from a widower or a divorcee bringing up his children?
Marx may not have denied human nature. But, neither did he see it as a fixed thing. Human beings have the power to change their nature. Women are biologically built to be baby feeding machines, but through the introduction of baby formula many women have freed themselves from this role. Women are biologically built to be baby growing machines but modern experiments with baby in a bag technology show that one day we will free ourselves from that role also. Man is biologically evolved to live at the bottom of a gravity well, but today we are taking the baby steps to overcome this restriction.
One day, many years from now we may have developed the technology for men and women to take a pill and really change sex. But that won’t make the identarian arguments of today’s Transexual activists correct. There is no argument from biology or human nature against identity politics. Stick to the political argument.

Daniel Goldstein

24th March 2020 at 4:21 pm

“Does anyone else think there is a rather essentialist view of motherhood expressed in this article? What is wrong with two men bringing up children? Is that somehow fundamentally different from a widower or a divorcee bringing up his children?”
Yes, I do have a problem with this (disclosure: I’m a gay man, no children). Contact with both sexes is useful for children, but the nuclear family option is not always possible. I’m not sure it always leads to better outcomes either. Children can thrive in all kinds of backgrounds.

Rosie Maxima

24th March 2020 at 4:27 pm

Interesting points you make – yes our society does appear to dictate or characterise what we find attractive. Skinny seems to have long been fashionable in Europe, whereas in Caribbean and Latin America, curves on women are still desirable. I’ve always believed that men are born gay unless they are subjected to particular social circumstances which cause confusion or deviation (child abuse or prison).

In Negative

24th March 2020 at 11:59 am

Everyone is telling thee truth all of the time.
Well, it’s just that times change.

In Negative

24th March 2020 at 11:49 am

This is all very nice, but it’s quite irrelevant. I’m sure we’ll continue to have this conversation for many years to come and lots of people will be on board. There will be all the same jumping up and down and shouting “biological reality!” “cultural marxism gone mad!” “What about human nature?!” and so on, but it’s irrelevant. The technologies will continue to be developed, the discourses deployed and the tribes established.

We live now in a creative society, more mental than physical. “Reality” derived from physicality has been weakened by the emphasis on mind and the structures of mind. We communicate and interact far more through information than we do through biological relations and this human-techno-informational matrix is the new ‘human nature’. It’s our new environment and it changes/defines our cognitive emphases in just the same way our bodies do.

It is not the point that the trans-sexual becomes a new norm, or even a legitimate new reality for that matter. The point is that we have the freedom to make it so. The image of the transexual liberates us from sex and sexuality and allows us to become other things; it opens up a kind of Nietzschean creativity where you get to pursue the inclinations of your own reason and passion in the name of individual greatness.

Nietzsche’s supermen were not conformists and didn’t really give a fig about the crowd. The crowd might be used to limit the potential of the superman, but the superman would carry on with his vital work regardless – irrespective of what that work was. The transexual is the symbollic horizon of this potentiality – that man can become his own passion, remake reality in his own image. He perhaps has more in common with Zarathustra’s magician than he does his scientist, but so what? The scientist and the magician have always been in a relationship of tension. Newton couldn’t write like Blake, yet both speak for profound aspects of human reality.

And I would contend the transexual horizon marks the world of the prosumer – the producer-consumer, applying the free-market and the freedom to create at the individual and social level. The transexual is the liberated market because it says all markets are possible. It is the universalist horizon of man’s domination of nature: that man can be his own object of production.

Genghis Kant

24th March 2020 at 11:43 am

Society is a biological construct.

Stephan White

24th March 2020 at 11:04 am

Traditionally, it was the right that feared the crowd, often by referring to it as ‘the mob’. And it was the left that championed it, as ‘the people’, and so on. But no more. It is now the left that, having cynically thrown its lot in with minorities, has turned against the majority.
The above is a fair point, especially when you consider the response from Owen Jones, who has moved from protecting chavs to labelling them gammons. However, the article states, perhaps too easily, that the crowd – the people can be united so easily around a right leadership. Isn’t this realisation that it was such a difficult job, perhaps impossible job cause LM to become Spiked Online?


24th March 2020 at 9:59 am

As I understand it the current argument is ‘Woman’ is a social construct created by Capitalism to oppress women , an idea put forward by writers such as Antonio Gramsci of the Frankfurt School and this is why that generation were so keen on socialism/communism which would ‘free’ them. Bits & pieces of various philosophies plus reversing the idea of PC (instead of being nice to each other , it is used to shut down discussion) have resulted in something that confuses or frightens a lot of people , who do not wish to be unkind to individuals, but feel they are being coralled into agreeing with things that sound stupid or take the risk of losing their job or even being arrested. I think it is more the apathy of crowds rather than the madness.

Gareth Edward KING

24th March 2020 at 9:03 am

David Wolcott’s comments on Murray that by dint of being one of the ‘oppressed’ he ‘gets away’ with his slating of all the associated identitarian nonsense writ large. I’ve yet to read any of his three books but his in-depth interviews are many and he uses his wittiness, charm and incisiveness, in addition to the fact that he’s gay, to slam his points home. I’d love to see the tour with Andrew Doyle-another incisive, witty shirt-lifter! But neither speak as ‘gay’ men, that’s just the point, it’s almost bye-the-bye, if anything, it proves the universialism and vanguardist nature of their ideas.

Daniel Goldstein

24th March 2020 at 2:58 pm

I had no idea Doyle was gay, but it’s comforting (as a fellow gay man) to find others who don’t conform to the stereotypes.

filocin filocin

24th March 2020 at 6:03 am

★I a­m m­a­k­ing 16­­k­­ mo­­nt­­hl­y f­or w­ork­­i­ng fr­­om ho­me. I n­ev­­er th­o­ug­ht th­­at i­­t wa­s­ le­­g­­it bu­t m­­­y ­be­st f­r­ie­nd­ is ea­rni­­ng 1­­0 th­­ou­­­­sa­nd do­­ll­­ar­­s a ­mo­­­n­­th b­y wo­­­rk­­in­g o­­n­­li­ne a­­nd sh­­­e r­ec­­omm­­­en­­de­­d m­­e t­­o t­r­­y i­­t. ★
COPY HERE☛☛☛w­­w­­w­­.­­W­­i­­k­­i­­L­­i­­f­­e­­S­­t­­y­­l­­e­­s­­.­­c­­o­­m²²
Don’t include this → ⁰ ← in web link THANKS

David Webb

24th March 2020 at 5:00 am

“The crowd is not mad. It is merely waiting for the leadership that can inspire it to turn against the madness of identity politics. ” No, this cannot happen. Black people, Muslims etc will never abandon identity politics, as this is their ticket to be in England. If 10 Somalis lived in a city of 10m they would have to integrate. If 100,000 Somalis lived in a city of 10m, they would form a rival identity group and parallel society. It can’t be otherwise. This flows not from “lack of leadership”, but from raw numbers.

Linda Payne

24th March 2020 at 7:58 am

‘Playing the race card’ has pretty much permeated all areas of society, particularly work

David Wolcott

24th March 2020 at 1:20 am

Douglas Murray makes many good points (I have not read the book yet, but I’ve seen a number of interviews) and I admired his defence of Roger Scruton. I do sometimes get the uneasy feeling, though, that he is only “allowed” to say some of the things that he does because he is gay, and that this might undermine his some of his criticisms of identity politics. An interesting recent article “What’s wrong with human rights?” ( looks at similar issues but points to the perversion of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights into the idea that minority groups (especially identity groups) have special rights. I think the flaws in the rights issue need to be addressed, otherwise it just shuts down any debate.

Jonathan Smith

24th March 2020 at 12:53 pm

” I do sometimes get the uneasy feeling, though, that he is only “allowed” to say some of the things that he does because he is gay,” ~ Indeed he’s said this on numerous occasions.

Daniel Goldstein

24th March 2020 at 3:02 pm

Funnily enough, this page has adverts for a silly “intersectionality test”. Perhaps it is up to those scoring more points to make arguments like Murray’s. Naturally, it would help if he was a black transsexual woman.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film