But who has done that? It's one thing to say that someone doesn't have the right to hold an opinion it's another thing entirely to criticise that opinion.
There are two things here, though. One is one's experience in the world and the other is analysis of why things are as they are such that you have those experiences and not others.
Sure. But in terms of id politics, the discussion is surely to do with people's experiences of various kinds of prejudice or oppression. I've seen it on here on occasion and certainly in the wider world that you get a well-meaning but misguided kind of 'surely not' reaction to the relating of various experiences.
Easier to say where it's not necessarily valid, which was my point, which is when you extrapolate from it to build a wider interpretation. Because as well as useful and broadly correct contributions based on experience there's ones that are plain wrong, like my religious example. To me that leaves us still needing to judge on other things than experiences alone.
I don't think that is where the problem lies, though, so although I think you're right, I'm not sure it's very relevant to the id politics debate. I mostly see the opposite - people finding the straightforward relation of their lived experience met with resistance or the attempt to explain it away as something else. As a concrete example, I'm thinking here of the everyday experience of small racist acts - there are many people in the world who don't experience such things who would like to think that the world is a bit less racist than it actually is and will try to come up with alternative explanations for whatever it is that is being related.
Yes, that's true and you're right about experiences being ignored and it being more of a problem. Also agree it's not even the main issue with ID politics if I'm understanding them right. I have a thing about the limits of self-understanding so I tend to go off on one about it given half a chance. Erm, as you were, thread.
On what basis do we decide that their interpretation of their lived experience is dodgy?
Well we can't have absolutes here, and it's best avoiding absolutes generally imo. So first and foremost, you pay attention to the experience, and if it is one you yourself cannot have, you take it seriously. Doesn't mean you have to accept it clearly.
It seems to be code for "it's the Jews and their Wiley ways". You and i would call that dodgy. However, that's the point: what eoin is asking is how do we distinguish between someone who believes this to be their lived experience (that they have been disadvantaged by cultural Marxism), and accounts we might not call dodgy. How do we tell the dodgy from the non dodgy unless we're able to examine the account?
Is it? Why do you say that? I don't think the above is true at all, or at least not necessarily true.
look under any definition of identity politics in a political dictionary or similiar and self-determination comes up immediately
But that makes "self-determination" part of the definition of identitypolitics not necessarily an example of it.
I know.
IME "structural" tends to mean those habits (of the ruling and bureaucratic classes) that have accumulated into institutions, and have become - although often not recognised as such - practices, as well as those practices imposed by capitalism that have the functional effect of dividing people into binary categories, with those practices having "real world" effects across and within populations.
While I'm convinced that structural effects can exert influence on interpersonal relationships - "no man is an island..." and all that - I'm not convinced that structure captures the world of interpersonal relationships. The very fact that interpersonal relationships are individual does put some distance between what are individual choices (albeit influenced by structure) to relate to and interact with others, and the nature of structure itself - accretions of practices shaped by the exercise of power.
I hope that makes sense.
