So, are identity politics mainly a middle class ideology because surely it began as a means of helping more marginalised groups of people. Has it been co-opted in a patronising (or patriarchal) fashion by the middle class liberal/left? It probably has given the stance of The Guardian and politicians.
No identity politics exists on both the left and right. Identity politics on the right centres more on religious conservatism and nationalism, whereas as on the left it has become about race and sexuality.
You also have middle class and working class identity thrown into the mix.
Middle class identity has included a group which has always been about improving conditions for the poor. It was a significant force in Victorian politics and did drive the Suffragettes too. However it didn't really include working class voices in a more meaningful way until post WWI initially when there was a demand for more power in return for fighting the war, and this was even more important post WW2 when there was essentially a labour shortage.
I don't think you can say its therefore been co-opted. More that it's lost sight of its purpose. Its middle class guilt and self interest which has become centred over the interests of the truly vulnerable. What it's done has become a throw back to earlier manifestations of Victorian notions of improving society rather than looking after those who are more vulnerable. It reflects a decline in work class power and influence.
I don't believe it a coincidence that its occurred as we have had a decline in manufacturing and an increase in computerisation. We have whole communities who some might describe as 'surplus to requirements' or because they are not connected via transport or have family ties which make it difficult to move to areas where there is manual labour, they are viewed as a 'burden'. The whole 'undeserving poor' narrative is positively victorian in nature. And it is not restricted to the right anymore. Labour have retained policies which perpetuate the narrative by choice, in order to retain middle class voters.
This middle class motivation to improve society, in some cases, is almost religious in its ferver to 'convert' uneducated working class types and make them behave in a more moralistic way. The accusation of 'bigot' isn't dissimilar to the idea of 'sinners'.
It very much looks down on the working class. There isn't a sense of seeing certain groups as equal humans. Just groups that must be 'improved' or 'corrected'. And that's about imposing power on others and maintaining status.
There is no sense of balancing competing views or interests. Instead there is a hierarchy of importance of what is deemed the most important values to society. This has thrown society off balance and in the process it has lost sight of how institutions have worked for all, because its created an effect of silencing voices which say things which point out difficult issues in practice (cos life is complex) because it happens to challenge this rather simplistic ideology.
It leads to a cover up of failures of the original intent, because of this belief that all criticism is an attack the ideology and trying to destroy it rather than viewing it as a more honest attempt to show weaknesses with a view actually solving societial problems by acknowledging the real life experience of other groups.
This centring is demonstrated in various ways. You can see it, in how you get sections of the middle class having to 'prove' their marginalised status or have to 'prove' they understand the marginalised most through competitive wokeness. Its like religious purity and piety in nature. The most religious should have more power and influence and disbelievers should be shunned.
This all is at the expense of listening and giving proper voice to those who are marginalised.
It's all driven by economic change and polarisation. Which has driven more economic inequality and even further political polarisation.
No one is getting a grip of it, because both sides view it as a competition in which power can be 'won' . The reality is more complex and is grounded in the fact that unless you actively seek to destroy huge parts of society by nefarious means, a functioning progressive society needs to work together rather than working against itself. There isn't a competition to be 'won' at all. Progressive societies exist at times where there is political stability rather than political polarisation for a reason. If you are focusing your energy on proving the other side wrong, you aren't using that energy to cooperate and move forward together.
Ask yourself why those who are currently being most villianised are those moderates who are arguing its a balancing act, rather than the polar opposite political opinion. The moderates pose a greater threat to religious insanity, because reason and practicality is real the enemy of fanaticism.
And if you are wondering why the far right are currently doing so well in this country, you'd do well to understand the dynamics of the above...