Ballerinas complaining about Kendall Jenner have jumped the identity politics shark

There's been much talk of identity politics of late. Specifically, a lot of who's allowed to wear this, do that, consume this, speak or write about what. But what seems to be missing in these discussions is an understanding of why – which has led to the likes of Lionel Shriver dismissing the movement out of hand in her controversial Brisbane Writers Festival keynote earlier this month.

And also, apparently, it's led to a lot of folks in the ballet world thinking they can co-opt the language of identity politics to express offence that a model would dress up in ballet gear and prance around a studio.

In a shoot for Vogue Espana this week, model (and Kim Kardashian's half-sister) Kendall Jenner donned some ballet-inspired activewear, leg warmers, slippers, tulle and sheer skirts. She struck some poses in a studio, modelling clothing that falls squarely under the recurring ballet trend. At no point did she pretend to be an actual dancer, but that didn't stop people in the ballet world getting huffy about it.

Because apparently only professional ballerinas can wear ballet-inspired clothes and jump around the barre. Otherwise, as Margaret Fuhrer blogged for DanceSpirit, it's "disrespectful" to their craft.

They decided to dress Jenner up in tutus and legwarmers and have her "do ballet," though she's clearly not ballet trained. In the voiceover, she talks about "loving being a kid" and missing childhood; the video is, apparently, a sort of little-girl fantasy on ballerina-ness. Which, OK. But to our eyes, the whole thing reads as pretty disrespectful to the artists who devote their lives to this demanding craft," she wrote.

Others took to Twitter to express their anger and even demand apologies.

If this argument sounds vaguely familiar, it's because it has been co-opted from Identity Politics 101.

According to the philosophy of identity politics, it's understood that certain groups who identify a certain way – in terms of gender, ethnicity, culture, religion, sexuality – are best equipped to speak about their experience and represent their own interests.

That, at least, seems to be fairly commonsense (even though there's plenty of pushback). It's why we want to see 50 per cent women in parliament. It's why we complain when panels and boards and magazines and movies are full of white people.

It's also why cultural appropriation has become a big issue. We're beginning to recognise how the appropriation of marginalised cultures by western (cultural) imperialist forces has contributed to white, western supremacy and the continued marginalisation of non-western cultures.

It's why we get upset when Hollywood constantly casts white actors to play non-white characters, cis actors to play transgender characters, and able-bodied actors to play characters with disabilities.

Most of us now understand that white people playing dressups with Native American war bonnets is offensive, because it reduces an already-marginalised culture to a caricature.

We now understand that there are political ramifications when the fashion world appropriates black hairstyles on overwhelmingly-white models. Why? Because it sends the message that black culture is "edgy" and "cool"... but only when privileged white women try it on.

Ballet-inspired fashion is a staple trend, but for some reason ballerinas are suddently getting upset about models playing dress-ups with their outfits. Could this be because they've heard about marginalised artists and cultures demanding that their style and traditions not be co-opted by the white, western fashion world for profit and cultural supremacy? Maybe.

The key difference being that the groups claiming ownership of their art and culture in accordance with identity politics are on the margins. The ballet world is not.

It seems the ballet world just heard the part that goes: "You can't wear this because you don't belong to the group that owns it." And they missed out on, or conveniently forgot about, the "why".

In fact, you could argue that in co-opting certain aspects of identity politics for elitist purposes (rather than for the purpose of raising marginalised voices and destroying western cultural imperialism), the ballet world is actually engaging in the kind of cultural appropriation identity politics seeks to overturn. M-e-t-a.

When marginalised groups say "my culture is not yours to perform, explain or exploit" they are pushing back against white, western imperialist forces that seek to maintain an iron grip on cultural and political dominance.

When elites appropriate the part of identity politics that says "my culture is not yours to perform" we're entering dangerous territory. Critics of identity politics, like Lionel Shriver, have (wrongly) focussed on this aspect because there are obvious potential problems with declaring that a certain group "owns" an element of culture. When that group is the dominant group, yes: you're approaching fascism.

But the tactic needs to be understood in context rather than viewed as absolute: when your culture is marginalised, trodden on, exploited for gain by the dominant group? It's about self-defence, and bringing about positive change. Cultural elites need to heed the message, not twist it into something it's not.

If you're going to play identity politics, you need to understand why it exists. And it's not to protect the privileged world of ballet.