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

[friendofdorothy]

So... what should trans activists do in order to campaign for their rights without falling into an identitypolitics trap?

exactly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm making a point about terminology. Of course identitypolitics as defined by Danny is incompatible with class politics, but political action around identity issues is not. I don't think that most people will easily distinguish between 'identity politics' and any struggle against racism, homophobia, etc. I think that lack of clarity and understanding has helped drive plenty of arguments on these boards.

I agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding and that people end up talking past each other, as shown by the existence and course of this thread, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile pursuing this line of thought.

As a parallel example, I first encountered the critique of mulitculturalism as a neoliberal state ideology on these boards, and my very first reaction was one that bristled at the idea that something as positive as multiculturalism should be being criticised. It took reading up on links to the likes of Kenan Malik to understand the point, but it was worth the effort.

 

[friendofdorothy]

I'm going to ignore must of the stuff on the last 2-3 pages but wanted to address this.

Well whether a (marxian) class analysis helps people "see things more clearly" is going to ultimately depend on your politics, what your aims are, how you understand that world etc.

However, I do not see how anyone can claim that identitypolitics and class politics are not fundamentally opposed (note not "totally opposite", I don't think anyone has claimed that). They are two incompatible political frameworks, indentitypolitics reduces class to an identity, class politics makes it the fundamental basis for the changes that occur in society.

Of course identitypolitics as defined by Danny is incompatible with class politics, but political action around identity issues is not. I don't think that most people will easily distinguish between 'identity politics' and any struggle against racism, homophobia, etc. I think that lack of clarity and understanding has helped drive plenty of arguments on these boards.

its this fundamental opposition and how that fits in with actions around 'identity' issues thats doesn't seem clear to me.

Rather than 'identity' issues I would say 'personal freedoms and rights'

 

[redsquirrel]

Analysis seems to be the stuff of academics, though movements and actions do grow out of it - what has always mattered to me was action : how could we change things, how could we challenge the status quo. I've always been interested in the politics but it was the actions we took that mattered. We fought for rights and freedoms that are taken for granted now.

But this debate isn't about some esoteric theoretical point, it's about what is happening here and now. Look at the Labour Party leadership elections, the Democratic party, the expansion of faith schools, the growth of the hard right, the cracking of liberalism, etc. To argue that this is just about analysis ignores the many examples given by poster of how identitypolitcs is harmful.

Class politics hasn't been at the centre of the fight for womens and lgbt rights - because the issues of oppression applied to all classes.

Well plenty of socialist feminists - Sylvia Pankhurst, Emma Goldman - would disagree with you they saw the fight for equality as part and parcel of the fight against capitalism.

 

[lazythursday]

But surely by defining things as identity issues you are accepting the central ideas of identitypolitics.

I don't agree that this is a terminology issue, it's a political one. It's like when people try and insist that liberalism and socialism are not in conflict, it's nonsense. We have a conflict between different political ideologies.

Again I think we're talking past each other, possibly? Is fighting against the hypothetical abolition of gay marriage an identity issue or not? Of course it can be put into a class context but it still relates to an identity, a particular group which is not primarily class-based. The fact that neoliberal politicians have co-opted some of these struggles for their own ends doesn't make the struggle itself invalid.

The problem is that your argument can easily be interpreted as "hey black guys, gays and lesbians, trans people, feminists - stop what you're doing - it's really not that important - come and join the class struggle!". I KNOW that's not what you mean but insisting that issues of identity are always reactionary can come across that way.

 

[redsquirrel]

Again I think we're talking past each other, possibly? Is fighting against the hypothetical abolition of gay marriage an identity issue or not?

It can be seen in that way, the question is whether that is a useful way of viewing it or now.

Of course it can be put into a class context but it still relates to an identity,

Does it, why? Why can't it be viewed through the aspect of class solidarity rather than identity?

The equating of the fight for equal rights for women, ethnic minorities, etc with identity issues is a recent thing (last 30-40 years). These fights didn't used to be seen in that way, so why do they have to been seen in that way now?

 

[lazythursday]

It can be seen in that way, the question is whether that is a useful way of viewing it or now.

Does it, why? Why can't it be viewed through the aspect of class solidarity rather than identity?

I am probably being completely dense but I just don't get what you mean.

 

[redsquirrel]

I am probably being completely dense but I just don't get what you mean.

Sorry, you might not have caught my edit, does that make it clearer?

 

[lazythursday]

To be honest I haven't thought a lot about the word 'identity' and when that arose - I guess I'm using it as a proxy for oppressed group / minority / etc. I do see that the word 'identity' is tied pretty closely to the individual rather than group and therefore fits neatly with a neoliberal outlook.

 

[bimble]

The equating of the fight for equal rights for women, ethnic minorities, etc with identity issues is a recent thing (last 30-40 years). These fights didn't used to be seen in that way, so why do they have to been seen in that way now?

This I'd like to understand more about - what do you think happened 30-40 years ago to make this change?
I just read a book about partition (end of empire in India). The historian referred in passing to the Muslim League's movement to create Pakistan as identity politics. Was she wrong to use the term ?

 

[friendofdorothy]

The equating of the fight for equal rights for women, ethnic minorities, etc with identity issues is a recent thing (last 30-40 years). These fights didn't used to be seen in that way, so why do they have to been seen in that way now?

How do you think the issues seen prior to 30-40yrs ago that didn't equate identity with the fight for equality?

I don't understand what is wrong with organising with other people who suffer similar oppressions, that has been my experience of the nature of practical activism.

 

[LDC]

I don't understand what is wrong with organising with other people who suffer similar oppressions, that has been my experience of the nature of practical activism.

Nobody is saying that's 'bad' nor is it necessarily identity politics. It feels like you're still completely misunderstanding what identity politics is.

 

[lazythursday]

Nobody is saying that's 'bad' nor is it necessarily identity politics. It feels like you're still completely misunderstanding what identity politics is.

I think that's easy to do because the term is thrown around in any discussion that touches on sexism / racism / transphobia etc. Its often used as a smear without sufficient explanation.

 

[LDC]

Yes, but there's been a 37 page thread with many good contributions clearly explaining what identity politics is, so I'm surprised that someone still might think it was just organizing with people that suffer similar oppressions.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think that's easy to do because the term is thrown around in any discussion that touches on sexism / racism / transphobia etc. Its often used as a smear without sufficient explanation.

In much the same way that people bemoan IDpolitickers doing it. It's about power.

 

[ska invita]

This I'd like to understand more about - what do you think happened 30-40 years ago to make this change?
I just read a book about partition (end of empire in India). The historian referred in passing to the Muslim League's movement to create Pakistan as identity politics. Was she wrong to use the term ?

It absolutely is Identity Politics - national self-determination is a text book example of a Political Dictionary definition of Identity Politics

Nobody is saying that's 'bad' nor is it necessarily identity politics.

It IS Identity Politics. Heres the Oxford dictionary definition:

identity politics


PLURAL NOUN

• treated as singular or plural A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

 

[mojo pixy]

It's about power.

It's about cognitive dissonance.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's about cognitive dissonance.

Maybe for some. Why not give an example? I was making a point about the power dynamic. The dismissal tactic is about power IMO. Who gets to decide what it is, where are the boundaries drawn? Again, power.

 

[LDC]

It IS Identity Politics. Heres the Oxford dictionary definition:

I said it wasn't necessarily identity politics. For example, organizing with people suffering similar oppressions pretty much covers class struggle, but it could also cover single issue non-identity politics based campaigning around a housing issue for example.

For me identity politics is often not just indicated by one aspect, it's more a term that usually requires some from a cluster of indicators for it to be clearly coming from an identity politics perspective. Nor is it necessarily reformist.

 

[mojo pixy]

I was making a point about the power dynamic.

Will you expand on it? Who is exercising power over whom?

 

[Treacle Toes]

See my additions please.

 

[mojo pixy]

They haven't helped.

 

[Treacle Toes]

They haven't helped.

You don't understand my point in response to lazythursday's post about it being used as a dismissal tactic and how that feeds into who holds power in a situation or discussion? Not sure I can write that any more clearly.

Perhaps you can offer an example of why you think it's about cognitive dissonance?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For me identity politics is often not just indicated by one aspect, it's more a umbrella term that usually requires a cluster of indicators for it to be clearly coming from an identity politics perspective.

I think this idea of a cluster of indicators is a good one. Maybe we need some examples. One that comes to mind immediately is the obnoxious Women's Equality Party. Set up in the middle of the vicious austerity measures, it has nothing to say about that, it explicitly welcomes people from all political parties, and is run by a bunch of rich businesspeople, the very people who are enforcing austerity, which disproportionately hits poorer women. It's offensively wrong and lights up quite a few red lights.

 

[danny la rouge]

- national self-determination

I'm sorry I'm too busy to do any justice to this debate tonight but I'm dipping in and I want to pick up on this one phrase. My problem here is the term "self". What does it mean for a nation to have a "self"? This conflating of the individual and the group is at the heart of my problem with both identitypolitics and identity politics. Identity is being used to mean different things there at once.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm sorry I'm too busy to do any justice to this debate tonight but I'm dipping in and I want to pick up on this one phrase. My problem here is the term "self". What does it mean for a nation to have a "self"? This conflating of the individual and the group is at the heart of my problem with both identitypolitics and identity politics. Identity is being used to mean different things there at once.

it's the basis of modern far right thought. This 'self. And it's exactly where the left have capitulated.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I don't understand what is wrong with organising with other people who suffer similar oppressions, that has been my experience of the nature of practical activism.

Do you find it impossible to imagine organising with people whose oppressions you don’t directly share though?

What do you think of white people who do anti-racist work, for example?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry I'm too busy to do any justice to this debate tonight but I'm dipping in and I want to pick up on this one phrase. My problem here is the term "self". What does it mean for a nation to have a "self"? This conflating of the individual and the group is at the heart of my problem with both identitypolitics and identity politics.

This is something I've thought on quite a bit wrt the liberation struggles against colonialism. Some kind of nationalism was needed, no? That many newly independent countries quickly went to shit was mostly to do with continuing colonial meddling - the likes of Lumumba never had much of a chance. But someone like Lumumba combined calls for national self-determination with calls for wider solidarity. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[ska invita]

For me identity politics is often not just indicated by one aspect, it's more a term that usually requires some from a cluster of indicators for it to be clearly coming from an identity politics perspective. Nor is it necessarily reformist.

....do you see that there is a problem of terminology here? the fact that some people see identitypolitics and IDPol or even just straight "identity politics" as something different to the Identify Politics as you'll find it in a dictionary or politics textbook has created a number of cross-purpose conversations. If you've got your own personal understanding to add to the mix that just going to add to the confusion of language!

I'm sorry I'm too busy to do any justice to this debate tonight but I'm dipping in and I want to pick up on this one phrase. My problem here is the term "self". What does it mean for a nation to have a "self"? This conflating of the individual and the group is at the heart of my problem with both identitypolitics and identity politics. Identity is being used to mean different things there at once.

Its another standard term in political textbooks though, dating back to the 1860s according to wiki Self-determination - Wikipedia
By my understanding the self bit refers to the wider group of selves who identify with the nation. Maybe it should be Selves-determination. But it isnt.
I dont think it means a nation to have a self. I think it means Selves to have a nation.

too hard for a monday night!

 

[mojo pixy]

who holds power in a situation or discussion?

Who is exercising power over whom?

I can expand on my own comment but I'm not sure it's my job to explain, given as how there are 38 pages on this thread and some posters appear still not to understand. I'll do a swapsie, one explanation for another, hows about that?

Who are you talking about, when you talk about holding power? What kind of situation do you have in mind?