Is Representation Political?

For many, typically conservative-leaning groups, more of a bogeyman than ever before has been the apparent growth of “DEI narratives” in creative mediums such as literature. As seen by the dispute over and subsequent passing of Supreme Court case Mahmoud V. Taylor, covered in one of our last posts, such a conflict has been ongoing for a long time, whether in the name of supposed parents’ rights, as declared by groups such as Moms For Liberty, or targeting the ever-nebulous banner of “woke ideology,” now a more frequently applied designation. 

All variants of reaction share a common unifying purpose - attacking representation. Whether decrying portrayal of LGBTQ+ individuals, cultural minorities, or even so much as women in prominent narrative positions, the concept of simply covering the experiences of marginalized groups has to some become abruptly radical. 

Specific criticisms abound, but most are generally similar. Particularly frequent is the statement that representation is suddenly an intensely political matter. Anti-”woke” argumentators have claimed that showing diversity is inherently repressive of their own political stance, being used to signal virtue or grandstand to others. The message is clear underneath its surface. Representation, they claim, cannot be separated from politics, whatever its form. 

There is a significant problem lying at the root of such a notion. The evolution of a term like wokeness has come to mean an utterly sprawling degree of principles considered political, beyond just representation of marginalized voices alone but academic coverage of history, biographical experiences, and contemporary events. In Florida, literary bans have lumped in books encouraging children to be respectful of others’ basic identities with the diary of Anne Frank. Anti-wokeness has not only deigned issues perhaps currently considered political as part of it, but has assigned the label of politics to historical knowledge utterly essential now. 

And even ignoring all of the above, the idea that basic personal identity is suddenly political is absurd and furthermore dangerous. Supposedly political writing provides attention to groups long-mistreated historically, or criticizes their poor treatment now. Such things are not part of any agenda but merely truth-telling where it has formerly lacked. Principles such as respect, freedom of expression, and humanization should be considered basic value standards, not virtue signaling. For writers to be targeted for supposedly spreading ideology in writing about human experience is nothing if not excessively cynical. 

Ironically, it may be arguments that decry literary, among other forms of representation, as political that truly politicize it. Representation is merely a way of describing the real, as much as any other narrative aspect, and the very fact that it is controversial is a warning for the future of writing itself. 

Basic dignity should not be political. The reality of experience should not be politicized.