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

[Treacle Toes]

I'm don't need to be an authority to believe that's a fucked up worldview.

The point wasn't whether or not the world view was fucked up or not. You characterising me as being dimissive of the excesses of ID politicking was what I was talking about. As if any opinion I have that differs from yours would only be received as dismissive. That felt like a set up to me. With you deciding that your way of seeing things is the only way.

Yes I would describe that as an example of the 'excesses'. Again, putting that in quotes implies you don't really agree, without quite saying it

Nope I was very clear. did you actually read what I wrote? You have made another analysis of how i posted, implying I am being dishonest or there is a subtext and missed the very thing i wrote which invalidates the need for your analysis. What I wrote was...

Would you describe that as an example of the 'excesses' of IDPing? I wouldn't.

I was clear. You didn't need to attempt to decode my post.

For me, the excesses of Id politicking are more extreme...the difference between pro Black or a Black Nationalist or the difference between being a feminist and a misandrist for example.

I'd say she has worked out her perspective in a way that is very meaningful to her. Given that she can immerse herself in communities where those views are mainstream I'd expect she'll become more embedded in that position rather then less. It's the worldview that makes sense from her class position.

I didn't challenge her. I have learned that any challenge to this position is met with scathing sarcasm and aggression. Term such as 'brosocialist' or the sarcastic use of 'not all men' would be thrown around with abandon. Since she has hundreds of fb friends from all over the world (who she clearly met online on tumblr or whatever) I'd expect to get mobbed pretty quickly with abuse about the entitlement of cishet males. Nobody would learn anything and she'd leave the encounter more validated in her view that beforehand.

I don't know if there's a way of challenging it. Maybe a lighthearted quip asking if it's ok when the position of power is occupied by a woman? Probably would get the same response.

Fair enough, your call obviously on that one. I am not adverse to kicking a hornets nest though sometimes so a straight forward quip about how she must be finding it a real struggle making ends meet on her trust fund, a cheery fuck you and then right click delete from your friend's list. She doesn't sound like a friend of yours at all, anyway.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Right, I get ya. So with the examples you used in the post I quoted...



..are you including mixed people and those on the peripheries of whiteness are targets for that kind of 'self-blame'?

yes.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Those who practice identity politics don't use the term themselves. Pretty sure they see at as a right-wing slur. Always makes me awkward about calling it out because I know they'll categorise me as a conservative. I just remind myself that Naomi Klein was critiquing identity politics 20 years ago from an anti-capitalist standpoint and it's not my fault these plebs read tumblr instead of books.

The reason people worry about it being a right wing slur is that it so often is, obviously. Look at all the current alt-right attacks on the left as an example.

Go back awhile and the whole 'pc gone mad' trope springs to mind, quite literally a conservative whinge because they don't like having to have some respect for a change, or it was no longer acceptable for them to be racist/sexist/ableist or whatever.

So whilst there is a danger of counter arguments/positions seeming similar and being dismissed for such reasons, isn't it more important to be clear and articulate the whys and wherefores...you know like not using descriptions such as 'plebs' .

 

[Athos]

For me, the excesses of Id politicking are more extreme...the difference between pro Black or a Black Nationalist or the difference between being a feminist and a misandrist for example.

No, whether or not something amounts to identity politics isn't a matter of degree; it's about the nature of the content.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

am going to quote Fanon and then I'm out of here, for real.

There is no white world; there is no white ethic—any more than there is a white intelligence.

Above all, let there be no misunderstanding. We are convinced that it would be of enormous interest to discover a black literature or architecture from the third century before Christ. We would be overjoyed to learn of the existence of a correspondence between some black philosopher and Plato. But we can absolutely not see how this fact would change the lives of eight-year-old kids working in the cane fields of Martinique or Guadeloupe. There should be no attempt to fixate man, since it is his destiny to be unleashed. The density of History determines none of my acts. I am my own foundation. And it is by going beyond the historical and instrumental given that I initiate my cycle of freedom. The misfortune of the man of color is having been enslaved. The misfortune and inhumanity of the white man are having killed man somewhere. And still today they are organizing this dehumanization rationally. But I, a man of color, insofar as I have the possibility of existing absolutely, have not the right to confine myself in a world of retroactive reparations. I, a man of color, want but one thing: May man never be instrumentalized. May the subjugation of man by man—that is to say, of me by another—cease. May I be allowed to discover and desire man wherever he may be. The black man is not. No more than the white man. Both have to move away from the inhuman voices of their respective ancestors so that a genuine communication can be born. Before embarking on a positive voice, freedom needs to make an effort at disalienation. At the start of his life, a man is always congested, drowned in contingency. The misfortune of man is that he was once a child. It is through self-consciousness and renunciation, through a permanent tension of his freedom, that man can create the ideal conditions of existence for a human world. Superiority? Inferiority? Why not simply try to touch the other, feel the other, discover each other?

 

[AllEternalsHeck]

you know like not using descriptions such as 'plebs' .

Ok I deserve that jibe. I think I picked that up from reddit where it's used by hobbyists to decry who they deem casuals. So in the field of social theory, getting intersectionality poshsplained to me by someone whose clearly never picked up a book my instinct was that term. That's actually quite elitist of me and I deserve to be called out because it isn't about their education/understanding it's about how they interpret the social theory to fit their own experience. Consider me suitable humbled, was just lashing out a bit because I got so roundly abused by these guys recently.

On the other issues I take your point that right wingers do attack identity politics. However, there are legit left wing critiques of identity politics too and it's not hard to tell by the details of the arguments being made, as you say. There is a tendency amongst in idpol to write off any critiques as conservatism no matter how clearly explained. Or 'brocialism' perhaps.

P.s. I keep all my old classmates on fb just to see how everyone is getting on. They are more acquaintances than friends but it's interesting to see what they're up to. I'm not going to delete someone because they're annoying, you can't escape these viewpoints nowadays anyway.

 

[AllEternalsHeck]

I thought this review of Angela Nagle's K.A.N. was worth reading in light of the current trans/terf wars (could of done with a bit of proof reading).

As she points out, not conforming to the gender binary is hardly a new thing. What is new is how we talk about gender variations, how we argue about them, and what sort of recognition they require. While sites like Tumblr (founded only ten years ago) are not the only place people have discussed new ideas about gender, there is an extra capitalist mechanism at play which mediates those discussions.

That mechanism? Attention, distributed through the accumulation and appropriation of virtue.

I quite fancy reading this book, looks fairly interesting.

 

[danny la rouge]

Those who use identity politics... wish to be seen as victims. Ok; forgive me, am still confused by this whole issue. I'd never heard of IDP until it started cropping up here and also from (very) right wing posters elsewhere online.

I don't think I'll ever get the hang of it. And yes, people have tried to explain it to me but it's over my head.

Kiteo, his eyes closed. Chenza at court, the court of silence.

 

[redsquirrel]

In my last few posts I've been trying to find out how much of the behaviours that are being decried and labelled as ID pol, take place in real life and how much is just on line, because the way power/politics works on-line is genuinely a mystery to me. I work in a care home and no one talks about class - I imagine most of my co-workers have never even heard of ID politics

Things don't have to be named as identitypoltics or class politics for that the political framework which those politics are part of.

The promotion of faith schools, for example, falls partly into the political framework of identity politics though it's rarely promoted on those terms.

I ask for clarification here because its needed - posters aren't being clear about who or what they they are talking about. Isn't that the point of debate?

Well, no offence, but can you say what's not clear? Personally I think posters have been very clear, so there's obviously something I'm missing but I'm not sure what it is and so don't know how to make what I'm saying clearer.

 

[Athos]

Things don't have to be named as identitypoltics or class politics for that the political framework which those politics are part of.

To the extent that some of those who practice identity politics disavow it, because they don't understand the term.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Ok I deserve that jibe.

It wasn't a jibe it wa an example of how easy it is to use language that leaves people wondering exactly where you are coming from and whether or not you share the same political interests. I've never heard a person referred to as a pleb in a positive way...it's a smug, elitist, sneer. It's shorthand for stupid, uneducated etc. Those too stupid to know what's good for them...is the attitude.

On the other issues I take your point that right wingers do attack identity politics. However, there are legit left wing critiques of identity politics too and it's not hard to tell by the details of the arguments being made, as you say. There is a tendency amongst in idpol to write off any critiques as conservatism no matter how clearly explained. Or 'brocialism' perhaps

Yeah I know, that's why I posted what I did, highlighting your use of the term pleb and suggested what I did.

P.s. I keep all my old classmates on fb just to see how everyone is getting on. They are more acquaintances than friends but it's interesting to see what they're up to. I'm not going to delete someone because they're annoying, you can't escape these viewpoints nowadays anyway.

That's understandable, to a degree. I don't think there's any point being a martyr about these things though. There are circumstances where it is truly awkward/hard to delete someone if they are a relative or an in-law say, but you can mute their feed so it doesn't pollute yours. Also, not being able to escape these viewpoints anyway is even more reason to not to feel bad about it. It's not like you are burying your head in the sand at all, you are just choosing where and when not to engage with the nonsense. If it's all around, you will have ample opportunity to deal with this stuff in a meaningful way. The where and how is up to us all individually I suppose...

The fact you didn't feel you could challenge her through discussion was what struck me about what you wrote...as if to do so meant the death of something. The picture you painted made it sound important, critical to your politics, not merely the 'annoying' you are waving your dismissive hand over now. Regardless...Here's a thread for future use.

 

[Athos]

Deleting one person from your friends list on social media isn't a solution to the problem of a proliferation of a politics that is undermining solidarity across the left in 'real life'. Politics isn't a series of superficial, on-line, personal interactions.

 

[andysays]

Deleting one person from your friends list on social media isn't a solution to the problem of a proliferation of a politics that is undermining solidarity across the left in 'real life'. Politics isn't a series of superficial, on-line, personal interactions.

You realise that with this statement you are actively discriminating against a significant number of IDpolitickers by your oppressive attempts to define what politics is or isn't?

If they choose to define themselves as politically active, radical, progressive and/or significant on the basis of a series of superficial, on-line, personal interactions, oblivious to whether their actions are undermining solidarity across the left in 'real life', then who are you to challenge their self-identification, you white-cis-het-male bastard...

 

[friendofdorothy]

Well, no offence, but can you say what's not clear? Personally I think posters have been very clear, so there's obviously something I'm missing but I'm not sure what it is and so don't know how to make what I'm saying clearer.

Perhaps you haven't read the last few pages. The clarification I was I requested was about seventh bullet 's posts

 

[AllEternalsHeck]

Deleting one person from your friends list on social media isn't a solution to the problem of a proliferation of a politics that is undermining solidarity across the left in 'real life'. Politics isn't a series of superficial, on-line, personal interactions.

The fact people can form curated online networks of only people they agree with helped get us into this mess.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The fact people can form curated online networks of only people they agree with helped get us into this mess.

Nope. You are missing my point entirely. I don't have friends on FB that I would be too scared to disagree with. You do.

You are too scared to speak up, tell her/them what you think for fear that you will be jumped on by her hoardes of agreeing friends. So why keep her as a friend? It's not like FB is the hot bed of your political expression is it? You've said yourself that these ideas are everywhere. If FB was so important you'd be in there preaching the politics of solidarity and highlighting how she is excluding you wouldn't you? Instead you keep her as a pet, someone you can read the posts of and sigh to yourself, blame for all that is wrong, bitch about here on urban?

At the same time you are posting as if my having boundaries and not keeping people as fb friends when I clearly dislike them is somehow wrong. Like that is automatically insulating myself, creating an echo chamber etc. You are wrong. Social media isn't where the action is for me at all. Arrogant much?

The tone of this thread is so fucking condescending I do wonder whether some here do more than spend all day winking at themselves in the mirror.

Point, point, point...oh look at them, doing it wrong, point, point, point. How wonderful I am because I am not like them.

Preaching the politics of solidarity through criticising others, yet doing nothing meaningful that they care to share themselves. Not necessarily aimed at you AllEternalsHeck but please do tell me...if you aren't prepared to challenge that one person on your fb friends list how are you in a position to preach to me or anyone? Perhaps you feel as I do that politics are better practiced in the everyday, so do that through work, unionism, community interests/projects, support of global/local campaigns? Interests fundamentally borne of the belief in social justice and equality/equity. Do you?

There are some on this thread that don't exist as people/personalities here unless they are othering someone else, misrepresenting them, trying oh so hard to carve out a superficial online personality that they can be proud of.

Oh and don't get me started on the fucking irony of past accusations of virtue signalling.

 

[AllEternalsHeck]

Tbf I only mentioned that fb friend as an example to highlight a wider trend. Didn't think we'd have a whole conversation about my defriending policy. I'm not scared to disagree but I barely post on fb at all and certainly not to spark a heated and futile argument with an acquaintance. It was just a fairly egregious example that sprang to mind to highlight that point I was making.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Tbf I only mentioned that fb friend as an example to highlight a wider trend. Didn't think we'd have a whole conversation about my defriending policy. I'm not scared to disagree but I barely post on fb at all and certainly not to spark a heated and futile argument with an acquaintance. It was just a fairly egregious example that sprang to mind to highlight that point I was making.

Yet you were quick to use my policy of not keeping pet fb non- friends to sneer at or bitch about as evidence of a behaviour that got 'us into this mess'... How is that fair exactly? It isn't.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's not like FB is the hot bed of your political expression is it?

Social media is now a major part of how the vast majority of people construct their worldview though, saying the curating of inputs into that space to eliminate disagreement — to the point that you have 100% unanimity on your feed no less — has no impact on the tone of political debate is nonsensical.

 

[J Ed]

Yet you were quick to use my policy of not keeping pet fb non- friends to sneer at or bitch about as evidence of a behaviour that got 'us into this mess'... How is that fair exactly? It isn't.

You suggested it as a solution, he did not suggest that his non-engagement was a solution.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Social media is now a major part of how the vast majority of people construct their worldview though, saying the curating of inputs into that space to eliminate disagreement — to the point that you have 100% unanimity on your feed no less — has no impact on the tone of political debate is nonsensical.

Where have I said that or offered it as any kind of solution to disagreement? I don't think you've actually read my posts that well at all.

 

[J Ed]

Where have I said that or offered it as any kind of solution to disagreement? I don't think you've actually read my posts that well at all.

You suggested it by saying "You are too scared to speak up, tell her/them what you think for fear that you will be jumped on by her hoardes of agreeing friends. So why keep her as a friend?".

Hope this helps.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You suggested it as a solution, he did not suggest that his non-engagement was a solution.

They as much said there was/is no point. That prompted my suggestion.

I didn't challenge her. I have learned that any challenge to this position is met with scathing sarcasm and aggression. Term such as 'brosocialist' or the sarcastic use of 'not all men' would be thrown around with abandon. Since she has hundreds of fb friends from all over the world (who she clearly met online on tumblr or whatever) I'd expect to get mobbed pretty quickly with abuse about the entitlement of cishet males. Nobody would learn anything and she'd leave the encounter more validated in her view that beforehand.

I don't know if there's a way of challenging it. Maybe a lighthearted quip asking if it's ok when the position of power is occupied by a woman? Probably would get the same response.

 

[Rob Ray]

Where have I said that or offered it as any kind of solution to disagreement? I don't think you've actually read my posts that well at all.

So you think FB is important in terms of its impact on modern political discourse then?

 

[Treacle Toes]

So you think FB is important in terms of its impact on modern political discourse then?

It is for some people yes. Obviously.

 

[Rob Ray]

Don't cop out with snide remarks about "some people", do you or do you not think that the construction of political norms in Britain is affected by how people interact with social media.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You suggested it by saying "You are too scared to speak up, tell her/them what you think for fear that you will be jumped on by her hoardes of agreeing friends. So why keep her as a friend?".

Hope this helps.

Nope. My initial question was whether or not they challenged her and if not why not. They made it clear they were fearful and implied there was no point, then played the relationship down as merely an acquaintance. They also said these ideas are everywhere anyway...if they are, there's no need to hang onto that one person on FB you don't like just because is there?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Don't cop out with snide remarks, do you or do you not think that the construction of political norms in Britain is affected by how people interact with social media.

Fuck off telling me what to do number one.
Fuck off with your own snidey tone number two.

I haven't copped out of anything, I answered your question. If you wade in with that tone don't expect much in return. HTH.

 

[Rob Ray]

Nope. My initial question was whether or not they challenged her and if not why not. They made it clear they were fearful and inferred there was no point, then played the relationship down as merely an acquaintance. They also said these ideas are everywhere anyway...if they are, there's no need to hang onto that one person on FB you don't like just because is there?

But it's not just that "one person" is it. It's millions of people all getting rid of that "one person" whenever they come up, and all eventually ending up with social media feeds where everyone agrees.

 

[AllEternalsHeck]

Depends if you think the only reason to have someone on your friends list is agreeing with their politics. I can be regularly dismayed at people's political opinions while still considering them part of my wider social network.