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

[killer b]

Seymour often writes good stuff. We all fuck up sometimes.

 

[chilango]

I am also now in the unfortunate position of agreeing with what Richard Seymour has to say - unfortunate because I have not had much time for him for since his odious attack on Falklands War survivor Simon Weston. I don't really have much time for Novara, but their persecution for thoughtcrime is typical of what online mobs do to prominent people who they consider guilty of wrongthink.

What Simon Weston the guy who I personally witnessed being kicked out of a bar for sexist and misogynist behaviour? That Simon Weston? *shrugs*

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Seymour often writes good stuff. We all fuck up sometimes.

As fuck ups go, that was a bad one. And it's massively counterproductive as it immediately gains Weston sympathy and credibility.

 

[killer b]

As fuck ups go, that was a bad one. And it's massively counterproductive as it immediately gains Weston sympathy and credibility.

Was it fuck a bad one. He said something daft in a facebook thread. He didn't write a lengthy article on the topic. I've said worse in similar circumstances numerous times.

 

[Tom A]

What Simon Weston the guy who I personally witnessed being kicked out of a bar for sexist and misogynist behaviour? That Simon Weston? *shrugs*

Yes, okay, that Simon Weston. But this was still a very stupid thing for Seymour to say, as is later explained:

As fuck ups go, that was a bad one. And it's massively counterproductive as it immediately gains Weston sympathy and credibility.

 

[killer b]

it wasn't even on a public page. It's like someone screencapping a post from here and writing a story about it.

 

[Tom A]

it wasn't even on a public page. It's like someone screencapping a post from here and writing a story about it.

Fair's fair. We all have said some unpleasant things on social media at times, and there is way too many cases of such posts being used to discredit the person behind them. It also says a lot about the people who bring such posts to public attention.

 

[killer b]

Yeah, it's bullshit. I felt a bit uncomfortable about that young tory activist whatsapp chat that was leaked - replace 'chav' with 'tory' and you've got half the threads in P&P. Obv you don't have the same classist element, but the man on the street would probably see them as fairly equivalent.

 

[chilango]

Yes, okay, that Simon Weston. But this was still a very stupid thing for Seymour to say, as is later explained:

He said something nasty online about someone who I've seen say nastier things in person.

*shrugs again*

 

[Tom A]

This is the Safer Spaces end of the market. Something that started as a means of giving everyone a voice in meetings turned into something hideously authoritarian. Plan C wrote an interesting piece on it a few years back.

For your safety and security… | We are Plan C

I found that to be a very worthwhile read. This chimed with me:

It is often happening that people experiencing serious mental health problems are being thrown out of political and social spaces because their presence is claimed to be triggering to others. In some cases, people have suffered mental breakdowns as a direct result of campaigns against them in the name of safer spaces. There has been at least one suicide attempt, and this is hardly surprising, really, given that the punishment which ostracism is intended to inflict is social death. If a person makes every space they enter unsafe, where on Earth are they supposed to go? So to put it bluntly, no side can have a monopoly on trauma, or to use a less loaded term, on suffering.

Whilst I have never been "excluded" from any spaces, and thankfully never had serious mental health issues and not been driven to such despair that I was seriously considering suicide, I have avoided getting too involved with a prominent local disabled people's rights group because people who I walked away from are involved, and when I attended a meeting where one of those were present I later heard from a friend that they mentioned on Facebook (which I am not on, but this person had blocked me before I deactivated my account) that they were concerned about my presence, and were contemplating seeing if action could be taken under "safe spaces". It came to naught, but I decided it wasn't worth my bother trying to remain involved.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Disability liberation seems to be relatively abscent, and when its mentioned its a kind of mundane lipservice.

 

[Tom A]

"Liberation" - another buzzword that IDpolers love to throw about, since being granted the same rights as everyone else will obviously never free them from the oppressive yoke of the evil "out-group".

 

[Treacle Toes]

"Liberation" - another buzzword that IDpolers love to throw about, since being granted the same rights as everyone else will obviously never free them from the oppressive yoke of the evil "out-group".

Having the same 'rights' doesn't mean people have access to the same opportunities. There is a massive difference between the semblance of 'equality' and actual 'equity'.

Your post is pretty shitty and dismissive actually if it's a response to what dial posted above it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"Liberation" - another buzzword that IDpolers love to throw about, since being granted the same rights as everyone else will obviously never free them from the oppressive yoke of the evil "out-group".

Winning legal rights is the end of one struggle but merely the jumping-off point of others. The distribution of wealth and power that developed as a direct result of the years when you didn't have those rights doesn't magically rearrange itself due to law changes.

 

[Athos]

For example, the fact that black kids and white kids aren't seperated by law in US schools anymore doesn't mean they now go to college at the same rates.

 

[Idris2002]

For example, the fact that black kids and white kids aren't seperated by law in US schools anymore doesn't mean they now go to college at the same rates.

It doesn't even mean that they aren't separated by means other than law.

 

[Athos]

It doesn't even mean that they aren't separated by means other than law.

True.

 

[Idris2002]

"And Intersectionality said 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?'":

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/10/your-criticisms-sound-ridiculous/

 

[Athos]

"And Intersectionality said 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?'":

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/10/your-criticisms-sound-ridiculous/

Interesting article, but, with regard to identity politics doesn't engage with any ofthe serious critiques (almost to the extent that the choice of those it does tackle might look a bit like strawman-ism).

 

[Idris2002]

Interesting article, but, with regard to identity politics doesn't engage with any ofthe serious critiques (almost to the extent that the choice of those it does tackle might look a bit like strawman-ism).

Interesting? Try painful. It takes a deeply political concept - one that was concerned with both class and race equally - and guts it of any real political meaning.

 

[Athos]

Interesting? Try painful. It takes a deeply political concept - one that was concerned with both class and race equally - and guts it of any real political meaning.

Interesting insofar as it gives us an insight on how some people think, rather than that there was much merit in the content.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

"Liberation" - another buzzword that IDpolers love to throw about, since being granted the same rights as everyone else will obviously never free them from the oppressive yoke of the evil "out-group".

What? I was criticising the idpol conception of disability, as an identity externalised by others requiring better representation, or policy decisions, or parliamentary representation or whatnot, rather than a constitutive social and economic relationship. Like it's ok to say that ableism is structurally implicated in our society but to then say oh, all we need to do is dismantle those structures - as if those structures are maintained by a group with a certain oppressive consciousness and all we need do is raise awareness and change the management of the firm - is skirting dangerously close to peak conspiraloon territory and i resent that, to be honest.

It is absurd to conflate legal right with the ability to make use of those rights. And what do you mean by right to begin with? Property right? Rights at work? Anti-discrimination rights? Medical/mental health rights? All you've done is taken a nebulous conception of representation. come on now this is basic socialism 101.

And surely liberation from the law of value is essential to any sort of anti-capitalist politics?

Yes, as xenon says, its absurd to chalk everything down to capitalism, but then there's the other extreme of seeing capitalism as an identity, which the most vociferous idpolitikers share with the right, and some sections of the left. Of course the section of the left I'm talking about don't realise that... and are still hung up on the mantra of evil bosses.

 

[hipipol]

I no nothing about these area of modern contention, other than it seems to be utterly confused
At the end of 20 pages, I am almost less informed then when I started
Is this normal?

 

[hipipol]

All of the above seems to assume some kind of integrated singularity which is then described as an individual, this completely ignores what we know about human psychology and development . I have always had problems with the notion of complete integration of all elements within anyone's personality and life experience - its may be a useful shorthand but can easily slip into the glib bundling of many disparate and essentially divergent opinions/intentions/beliefs.
I like to thank DLR for starting the thread in a truly open and thoughtful way.
I would like to give it the thought he obviously applied when he took great care and more then likely considerable time to produce an opening statement so balanced and though occasionally nuanced towards his own structuralist cats cradle he also exhibited a superb awareness of that subjectivity and made it clear to all.
I doubt that I can up to that mark, but will vanish for a bit and see if I can even come close

 

[Tom A]

Having the same 'rights' doesn't mean people have access to the same opportunities. There is a massive difference between the semblance of 'equality' and actual 'equity'.

I know that. However there are those who, whilst still have issues with gaining equality with the rest of society, have it much, much better than they had it 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, and will probably have it even better still 10 years from now. However there is a strand of IDpol which basically says that everyone not in the in-group is participating, consciously or otherwise, in a conspiracy to keep them down, and this will only end when they achieve some abstract notion of 'liberation'. That is what my comment was aimed at.

Winning legal rights is the end of one struggle but merely the jumping-off point of others. The distribution of wealth and power that developed as a direct result of the years when you didn't have those rights doesn't magically rearrange itself due to law changes.

I do not deny that. But isn't that more of a wider class issue than something pertaining strictly to one particular group, or groups? This is where IDPol is in serious danger of playing into the divide-and-conquer tactics of the ruling class.

For example, the fact that black kids and white kids aren't seperated by law in US schools anymore doesn't mean they now go to college at the same rates.

Again, I do not deny that. Again this is part of a wider class issue, and of course class in the US is highly racialised.

What? I was criticising the idpol conception of disability, as an identity externalised by others requiring better representation, or policy decisions, or parliamentary representation or whatnot, rather than a constitutive social and economic relationship. Like it's ok to say that ableism is structurally implicated in our society but to then say oh, all we need to do is dismantle those structures - as if those structures are maintained by a group with a certain oppressive consciousness and all we need do is raise awareness and change the management of the firm - is skirting dangerously close to peak conspiraloon territory and i resent that, to be honest.

That wasn't really what I was intending to say, and I am just as critical of the above as you. The ruling class are the ruling class, no matter how many events they qualify for in the Oppression Olympics.

It is absurd to conflate legal right with the ability to make use of those rights. And what do you mean by right to begin with? Property right? Rights at work? Anti-discrimination rights? Medical/mental health rights? All you've done is taken a nebulous conception of representation. come on now this is basic socialism 101.

If people are not able to make use of those rights (and I consider the latter three to be of great importance), then they essentially they do not have them, regardless of whatever words appear in the statue books. Therefore the fight for said rights needs to continue.

And surely liberation from the law of value is essential to any sort of anti-capitalist politics?

I personally think that capitalism is going to be around in one form or another for some time to come, and the best I feel I can do is try and force capitalism to take a slightly less nasty form than it is presently. I certainly have long stopped believing that we can have a "revolution" as one single event to wipe the slate clean and then it's socialism from there on in.

Yes, as xenon says, its absurd to chalk everything down to capitalism, but then there's the other extreme of seeing capitalism as an identity, which the most vociferous idpolitikers share with the right, and some sections of the left. Of course the section of the left I'm talking about don't realise that... and are still hung up on the mantra of evil bosses.

I do not disagree with that. Capitalism permeates all of capitalist societies, and anyone who thinks they can break away from it is kidding themselves.

 

[friendofdorothy]

"Liberation" - another buzzword that IDpolers love to throw about, since being granted the same rights as everyone else will obviously never free them from the oppressive yoke of the evil "out-group".

Liberation is a word very common in '70s eg Gay Liberation, Womens Lib etc. Well before the concept of ID politics which I've only ever heard of recently and only ever here on Urban.

I gather there is some consensus on these boards that there is nothing in marxist scructural viewpoint against people fighting for their liberation (not the impression I've ever got at the time).

Some of us can't wait for the complete overthow of the capitalist system before being granted the 'liberation' of not being sacked/arrested/ beaten up/ discriminated against. Please don't trivalise our struggles as merely some new 'buzzword'.

 

[seventh bullet]

Who has said people should 'wait until the complete overthrow of the capitalist system'?

 

[friendofdorothy]

Who has said people should 'wait until the complete overthrow of the capitalist system'?

its has been implied by various posters on this and other related threads.

 

[seventh bullet]

It's often used to caricature the positions of those who use a class analysis (but not only), sure.

 

[andysays]

its has been implied by various posters on this and other related threads.

Perhaps you could start by quoting one or more posts from this thread which support your claim