Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

[Brainaddict]

Pascal Robert of This Is Revolution podcast on ID politics &

Critiquing Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's Theory of Elite Capture​

I agree that there is perhaps a longer history of elites putting up their favoured black/brown people for leadership positions than Taiwo talks about. I think it's a big leap from that to saying that pretty much any leader who has drawn a salary from foundation funds is somehow corrupted. If the key figures in BLM were so compromised, who should have been the true leaders? You can end up in this position of saying the only true leaders are those who have never been paid, never been to university, never absorbed any academic theory. But in my experience those 'pure' leaders are often hard to find. The potential leaders are mostly busy surviving, and then if they have the drive/character to rise up from just doing their minimum wage job to lead struggles, they quickly get exposed to the 'impurities' of academic ideas and so on. Is that sometimes a process of co-optation? Sure, but it's a bit of a paranoid style of thinking to think that it always is. And it seems to lead to the conclusion that the leader is only a good one if they stay down in the gutter with no money and no knowledge except what they've directly acquired.

 

[Shechemite]

Or that we don’t need leaders

 

[hitmouse]

I'm probably going to have to actually watch this video up and make my own mind up, aren't I? But on the bit about "the leader is only a good one if they stay down in the gutter with no money and no knowledge except what they've directly acquired" - surely a good leader, if there is such a thing, is one that rises with their class rather than separately from it?
Also, I think there's a pretty big difference between "never absorbed any academic theory" and "has a full-time paid job as a professional movement representative".
...And I'm now thinking again of Idris Robinson's How It Might Should Be Done, especially point 5:

How It Might Should Be Done • Ill Will

A militant nationwide uprising did in fact occur.

illwill.com

 

[Brainaddict]

Or that we don’t need leaders

I'm using leader in the wider sense of the term used in political organising - those ready to initiate things, kick things off, try new ideas, invite others to join them. No group is totally flat and without those people. I agree there's no need to give them a title and pay them more than other people, but they are needed/inevitable. I can sit in any meeting of anarchists and identify the leaders within 20 minutes. If you can't, that's more of a problem than a good thing, because you can't guard against them abusing their social power.

But we're getting off topic.

 

[brixtonscot]

That does sound interesting - is there any chance of a summary of the argument, or do I just need to watch the thing myself?

It’s only 7 mins

 

[brixtonscot]

I agree that there is perhaps a longer history of elites putting up their favoured black/brown people for leadership positions than Taiwo talks about. I think it's a big leap from that to saying that pretty much any leader who has drawn a salary from foundation funds is somehow corrupted. If the key figures in BLM were so compromised, who should have been the true leaders? You can end up in this position of saying the only true leaders are those who have never been paid, never been to university, never absorbed any academic theory. But in my experience those 'pure' leaders are often hard to find. The potential leaders are mostly busy surviving, and then if they have the drive/character to rise up from just doing their minimum wage job to lead struggles, they quickly get exposed to the 'impurities' of academic ideas and so on. Is that sometimes a process of co-optation? Sure, but it's a bit of a paranoid style of thinking to think that it always is. And it seems to lead to the conclusion that the leader is only a good one if they stay down in the gutter with no money and no knowledge except what they've directly acquired.

i don’t generally disagree , although it’s not the conclusion I took from it - that the only good leaders are those “who stay in the gutter.”
To paraphrase the Walter Rodney quote…….any political leaders , academics etc and/or anybody funded from establishment foundations could potentially co-opt or assimilate any movement - until proven otherwise.
And that could include those who start out with honourable intentions….

 

[Brainaddict]

There's been a showdown on twitter today about whether it's okay for people mourning a white trans teenager to use the hashtag #sayhername when it has been more widely used for black women and black trans women. It has more or less broken down into liberals vs socialists, the former saying it is 'appropriation' (and anti-blackness) and the latter saying that solidarity spreads through copying of ideas and language, and linking of fights is always positive. But there is a confused middle of white people who don't want to form an opinion of their own because they want to defer to 'black women', many of whom have come out against the hashtag being repurposed. But then all it takes to muddy the waters is to find the black socialist women who think it's fine to broaden what the hashtag can mean. Anyway, you can look at Ash Sarkar's twitter if you want to see people duking it out. It all feels a bit unedifying though, and a distraction from Brianna Ghey's death, which was probably due to transphobia.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I thought intellectual property rights on hair styles was bad enough, but hashtags?

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, some depressing ghoulish shit that some people see a teenager being murdered and decide the appropriate response is to squabble about who owns which hashtags. (And yet, here I am, getting annoyed about people getting annoyed about hashtags.) Particularly silly that some people have also objected to the use of the phrase "rest in power", a phrase that actually predates the BLM movement by a considerable amount and which has never been solely used by/about black people. It does seem like a pretty thoroughly anti-solidarity way of viewing the world.

 

[Flavour]

Inclusive Language Guide - Oxfam Policy & Practice

Language has the power to reinforce or deconstruct systems of power that maintain poverty, inequality and suffering. As we are making commitments to decolonization in practice, it is important that we do not forget the role of language and communications in the context of inequality. The...

policy-practice.oxfam.org

What do we think of the Oxfam guide to inclusive language then?

Most of it is all quite common sense and not a big deal but some of them their suggestions come off as trying too hard. "Non-disabled" rather than "healthy" for example. Cos wouldn't want to imply that disabled people are not healthy, or something.

 

[8ball]

Inclusive Language Guide - Oxfam Policy & Practice

Language has the power to reinforce or deconstruct systems of power that maintain poverty, inequality and suffering. As we are making commitments to decolonization in practice, it is important that we do not forget the role of language and communications in the context of inequality. The...

policy-practice.oxfam.org

What do we think of the Oxfam guide to inclusive language then?

Most of it is all quite common sense and not a big deal but some of them their suggestions come off as trying too hard. "Non-disabled" rather than "healthy" for example. Cos wouldn't want to imply that disabled people are not healthy, or something.

I guess it will be down to wheelchair users to say how they feel about “mobility impaired”.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Inclusive Language Guide - Oxfam Policy & Practice

Language has the power to reinforce or deconstruct systems of power that maintain poverty, inequality and suffering. As we are making commitments to decolonization in practice, it is important that we do not forget the role of language and communications in the context of inequality. The...

policy-practice.oxfam.org

What do we think of the Oxfam guide to inclusive language then?

Most of it is all quite common sense and not a big deal but some of them their suggestions come off as trying too hard. "Non-disabled" rather than "healthy" for example. Cos wouldn't want to imply that disabled people are not healthy, or something.

I think it's not identity politics apart from anything else.

 

[Flavour]

I think it's not identity politics apart from anything else.

it's a manifestation of the shift

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

it's a manifestation of the shift

Well the OP here has been very careful in his definition of IP and it's not this is it. To me this is a good example of the difficulties in trying to maintain such a neat definition. You can reject the idea that proponents of class politics as against identity politics are trying to sideline any issues around race, gender etc but that becomes harder to maintain once something like inclusive language is grouped under IP.

 

[xenon]

I CBA reading it but healthy is quite obviously not an antonym for disabled. Non disabled, able bodied with a preference for the former, are fine IMO.

 

[Flavour]

I dislike the double negative of non-dis

 

[mojo pixy]

"Abled"? I'm not sure.

 

[Brainaddict]

I think if things like that have a flaw it is in attributing too much power to language. If people have no respect for disabled people I don't believe getting them to use a different term will make any difference (this is visible in the sneer certain people will turn on for 'people of colour' or other new terms). Much more intensive work is necessary to develop new understandings of, say, disability. Could language change be a part of that? I suppose so, but also if you eliminate the contempt for disabled people maybe you don't need to change the language? Sometimes it feels that the language intervention can just be the cheap and easy thing to do, rather than doing the actual work of challenging ideas about disabled people. Just thinking out loud.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, along those lines one language thing that I've seen recently and always bothers me is the push to replace "homeless" with "houseless" or "unhoused" (just checked and Oxfam don't do that, they just say that "homeless people" is better than "the homeless", which is fair enough). Which I'm sure is well-intentioned, but the most important thing that will improve homeless people's lives is not changing the terminology that's used to refer to them.
Agreed that, while it may not be identity politics per se, I think the problem at the root of (sensible) complaints about identity politics is something like "an overfocus on individual behaviour and interactions rather than impersonal structures, collective power and material change" (or something like that), and so language guides can be a part of that. Although I dunno how good or bad this one is, I am a bit bored but I'm not at "about to read a 92-page PDF" level of bored.

 

[Flavour]

i got sent it at work so felt i could read on the clock

 

[mojo pixy]

'Disabled person' is a bit passé anyway. 'Person with a disability' is more usual now. The point is the disability is separate from the person. Which is a good thing to recognise IMO.

 

[Flavour]

I totally agree mojo pixy

 

[Dystopiary]

'Disabled person' is a bit passé anyway. 'Person with a disability' is more usual now. The point is the disability is separate from the person. Which is a good thing to recognise IMO.

It excludes people with more than one disability though, which is a lot of disabled people.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’m not well versed in the art of wording around these things and the politics connected but my aunt lived with the effects of childhood polio her entire life and her daughter always called her differently abled.

 

[mojo pixy]

It excludes people with more than one disability though, which is a lot of disabled people.

I'm not sure it necessarily does, but what words would you use? Because '...with disabilities' (plural) wouldn't be appropriate for everyone either, and everyone should be able to have their preferred terms of reference for themselves.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I'm not sure it necessarily does, but what words would you use? Because '...with disabilities' (plural) wouldn't be appropriate for everyone either, and everyone should be able to have their preferred terms of reference for themselves.

Like I said, I don’t know. I was just relaying something from family.

 

[kabbes]

'Disabled person' is a bit passé anyway. 'Person with a disability' is more usual now. The point is the disability is separate from the person. Which is a good thing to recognise IMO.

I disagree. The disability is based within the social model, not inherent to the person. They have literally been dis-abled by the social construction that they are surrounded by. They are a disabled person. To say they are a “person with a disability” decontextualises that disability and essentialises it within the individual instead.

Along similar lines, rather than “healthy” as an antonym, I prefer “not-yet-disabled”.

 

[mojo pixy]

Apologies Magnus McGinty my post was a reply to Dystopiary but the Quote fucked up.

 

[mojo pixy]

I disagree. The disability is based within the social model, not inherent to the person. They have literally been dis-abled by the social construction that they are surrounded by. They are a disabled person. To say they are a “person with a disability” decontextualises that disability and essentialises it within the individual instead.

Along similar lines, rather than “healthy” as an antonym, I prefer “not-yet-disabled”.

Yes that's all true but from my work and training in the health and social care sector I know 'person with a disability' is currently the standard term. The point is to separate the disability from the person.

 

[xenon]

I disagree. The disability is based within the social model, not inherent to the person. They have literally been dis-abled by the social construction that they are surrounded by. They are a disabled person. To say they are a “person with a disability” decontextualises that disability and essentialises it within the individual instead.

Along similar lines, rather than “healthy” as an antonym, I prefer “not-yet-disabled”.

Interesting butwill come back to this ltr.