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

[19force8]

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. My activism generally didn't put class first, it put women and queer people first - but supporting each other and solidarity was always vital. I don't feel much solidarity either from some posters who think they have the one and only 'correct' analsys and the rest of us were/are doing it all wrong. I don't really know what to make of some of the online 'excesses' described on this thread either.

The oppression of women and LGBT+ people might apply to all classes, but it's far from equally applied.

Take the case of abortion. The limited laws in the UK have been defended by the trade union and socialist movement because it's an important right for the working class - and not just working class women, but the entire class. The rich always had access to compliant doctors or clinics abroad, it was working class women who were dying from botched abortions.

Just as today it's not rich kids who are sleeping rough because of homophobia

Whilst your activism may well have put women and LGBT+ people first, there were many men and non-LGBT+ people who fought the same fight not out of charity towards the oppressed, but for their class interest. At the same time there were women and LGBT+ people who were quite happily on the other side.

 

[newbie]

It has been explicitly discussed, though, early and often. For example, the discussion that began here. One of the critiques of the nature of the politics of identity is that that has been mentioned on a number of occasions is that the identity politics of the right is nationalism.

I get that, and the quote you give moves on to discuss fascism, white nationalism and so on. Which is not the same as nationality. There's nothing fascist about posters being British by passport but identifying as English, as Scottish or as European, and yet the biggest divisions within society over the last couple of years have been along those fault lines. It's obviously arguable that further division within society based on someone not having a British passport can be racism, but that's not necessarily the case- control over 'our' borders may be nationality based but is not necessarily either racist or nationalist in the far right sense of the word.

 

[chilango]

Another element that I think is worth keeping in the back of the mind is that the discussion's purpose shouldn't be about who is "right" and who is "wrong" on some sort of moral (for the want of a better word) basis, but about how are we going to get what we want.

but I suppose what exactly is it that we want, keeps getting brought up. For example - More women bosses? I don't want to remove the glass ceiling I want to knock the whole building down.

 

[kabbes]

I get that, and the quote you give moves on to discuss fascism, white nationalism and so on. Which is not the same as nationality. There's nothing fascist about posters being British by passport but identifying as English, as Scottish or as European, and yet the biggest divisions within society over the last couple of years have been along those fault lines. It's obviously arguable that further division within society based on someone not having a British passport can be racism, but that's not necessarily the case- control over 'our' borders may be nationality based but is not necessarily either racist or nationalist in the far right sense of the word.

I agree, but I'm still not seeing where this goes. Can you explain why you bring this up?

 

[TruXta]

You brought up other interpretations of identity — I’m just interested in your thoughts as to the implications of these other interpretations with respect to the subject at hand.

For starters it means that you shouldn't base an analysis of identity politics on particular psychological theories of identity, as they can lead you in opposite directions. If identity is almost and foremost a social process then identity politics isn't about defending the individual, is it.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Of course we have communities and group action and all those good things. And those things are not identity politics unless they are explicitly about the defence of a specific identity. For example, identity involves many facets, including the construction of in-groups and out-groups. If your community project doesn’t define an out-group that is a good sign that it is not the politics of identity, but the politics of class.

I'm not sure that is a response to what I asked you. Yes it's on the subject of but it deosn't answer my question... You stated that:

Identity is not a proxy for group membership, though. Identity is about what makes you an individual. It’s the story you tell yourself about who you are, as well as being how others perceive you via the story they tell themselves about who you are. It’s very much about the self, not the group. This is not my definition, by the way, this is the concept of identity as it is understood in the social sciences.

I then said and asked:

This doesn't make sense to me in some ways because unless we have others to mirror/compare to/reflect off/align or associate with or not there is no reference for the constructed 'self'.

My understanding is that it is very much about both ...of course depending on the where and who you are, to varying degrees, quite naturally and healthily. We still do have more 'community' focused cultures than the crudely described 'individualistic' West don't we? Even in the so called West there are more community based movements, ideas etc. Can you link me to something that argues that it's only ever about the 'individual perception of self' and not about the social group and intergroup associations please?

I think that's a fair enough question.

I think one reason you are keen to defend identity politics is that you are assigning anything related to minority groups to this bucket. But this is a fundamental misattribution of the politics of identity. You have to keep coming back to what identity means.

Now you are making accusations ...how on earth is what I wrote above me being keen to defend identity politics?

All i've done is question your assertion because it doesn't chime with my understanding of 'identity' formation. I also gave an example of why seeing it as only about 'an individual's relationship with self and how they create their stories about them selves (self image)' seems limited and limiting to me.

 

[newbie]

I agree, but I'm still not seeing where this goes. Can you explain why you bring this up?

because it's been running through my head for the last few days as I've read the various contributions and seems to me to be a missing component. The notion of identity and nationality bubbled in and out of threads about both Scottish and Euro refs but was never really explored in detail.

The nature of class based analysis has always been internationalist in tone, hasn't it, decrying focus on nationality as chauvinism. I'm not getting why it's not been a core part of this discussion. Is it simply that the young identity politics crowd are more interested in other things? e2a and have set the agenda

 

[newbie]

Have you read the thread? It's been mentioned a number of times. EDIT at newbie

mentioned yes but only in passing, not as a central theme in the lists of eg racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia. Come to that religion, another assigned/self identified identity used for othering has been little mentioned. I suppose I'm trying to understand what is and what isn't a core part of this identity politics discussion, and why it's framed like that. Does that make any sense?

 

[mojo pixy]

I asked a few times tbf.

You still haven't answered my questions.

It's not going to happen is it? And what about the conflict of ideas I outlined in response to your questions, any thoughts on that?

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's not going to happen is it?

I have answered, and I don't agree that my answer was not good enough.

And what about the conflict of ideas I outlined in response to your questions, any thoughts on that?

You gave an example of why you think it's about cognitive dissonance. Given I haven't disagreed with you i'm not sure what more you want to be honest. CD and the power dynamics aren't mutually exclusive things/processes.

 

[mojo pixy]

OK then, thanks for the contributions

From another article on a different subject, a quote which in a small way crystallises the issue:

''...a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.''

For me, that's pretty much identitypolitics2017 in a nutshell.

 

[danny la rouge]

mentioned yes but only in passing, not as a central theme in the lists of eg racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia. Come to that religion, another assigned/self identified identity used for othering has been little mentioned. I suppose I'm trying to understand what is and what isn't a core part of this identity politics discussion, and why it's framed like that. Does that make any sense?

What is your question and to whom is it posed?

Are you asking those of us critical of identitypolitics something (and if so, what?)? Or are you asking others, such as those less able/willing to make a distinction between anti-racism and identitypolitics (and if so, what?)?

I'm personally all debated out on nationalism after the Scottish independence referendum, but you can still read my contributions to that debate. For me there were three chooses facing socialists - choose between a pragmatic support for the aims of one of the two nationalisms on offer (pro-independent or pro-Union), balancing the functional reasons for backing one or other plus a judgement on the relative toxicity; or choose to abstain.

(I offer these sample posts from that debate: one, two).

 

[Athos]

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

Can you give some examples of more powerful people smearing less powerful people by misusing the term 'identity politics', please? (With reference to exactly what that power is, in the context of the alleged smear, and why you think the use of the term 'identity politics' was inaccurate.) Because this is a oft-heard moan, but not one that I've seen backed up with any evidence.

 

[friendofdorothy]

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.

I'm just questioning why certain behaviours or ways of organising are being labelled as ID pol.

 

[mojo pixy]

Because that's what they are: a politics based on identity.

 

[kabbes]

All i've done is question your assertion because it doesn't chime with my understanding of 'identity' formation. I also gave an example of why seeing it as only about 'an individual's relationship with self and how they create their stories about them selves (self image)' seems limited and limiting to me.

I did actually say that, "It’s the story you tell yourself about who you are, as well as being how others perceive you via the story they tell themselves about who you are." So there's your mirror. It's a two-way process of the construction of the self.

 

[friendofdorothy]

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?

No, I don't find it impossible to imagine organising with people whose oppressions you don’t directly share - but I've never personally done it. I've certainly attended actions and generally supported other groups, like striking miners in 84, Anti Apartheid and free Nelson Mandela demonstrations. (As you can tell I've not been very active for a while)

 

[friendofdorothy]

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.

I'm just questioning why certain behaviours or ways of organising are being labelled as ID pol.

Because that's what they are: a politics based on identity.

I'm being told contradictory things here - that fighting for my rights as an oppressed person was fine and wasn't IDpol /or it was?

or is it just the the way we did it was 'ID politics'?

 

[TruXta]

I did actually say that, "It’s the story you tell yourself about who you are, as well as being how others perceive you via the story they tell themselves about who you are." So there's your mirror. It's a two-way process of the construction of the self.

If there is such a thing as a self...

 

[kabbes]

If there is such a thing as a self...

Well, if there isn't then the construction of a politics based on self-definition, self-determination and self-improvement is going to be heading up a bit of a blind alley.

 

[TruXta]

Well, if there isn't then the construction of a politics based on self-definition, self-determination and self-improvement is going to be heading up a bit of a blind alley.

To put it mildly!

 

[mojo pixy]

I'm being told contradictory things here - that fighting for my rights as an oppressed person was fine and wasn't IDpol /or it was?

or is it just the the way we did it was 'ID politics'?

It seems as if you're getting hung up on the term itself rather than what the term means.

 

[LDC]

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. My activism generally didn't put class first, it put women and queer people first - but supporting each other and solidarity was always vital.

Probably wasn't identity politics as we're talking about here then. I think a political definition of class is at the heart of some of the confusion on this thread. Reading some contributions it feels like they think 'doing class politics' is about arguing for more greyhound tracks or real ale pubs.

 

[Athos]

Probably wasn't identity politics as we're talking about here then. I think a political definition of class is at the heart of some of the confusion on this thread. Reading some contributions it feels like they think 'doing class politics' is about arguing for more greyhound tracks or real ale pubs.

Now that's a manifesto I could get behind.

 

[mojo pixy]

I'm being told contradictory things here - that fighting for my rights as an oppressed person was fine and wasn't IDpol /or it was?

or is it just the the way we did it was 'ID politics'?

A limited-scope group fighting for a particular right IS identity politics, broadly speaking, and nobody here as far as I can tell, is saying that shouldn't happen.

But educated, financially-secure, socially successful, respected members of a minority group using their identity to exclude or even criticise poor, marginalised and scorned members of a majority group, just because they have a majority-identity, is a problem.

Of course identity politics has its uses in specific fights for particular rights, and for making those fights more visible outside the group where they're happening.

However, if we're talking about all-around social justice, economic liberation, access to education, healthcare and social mobility then focusing on identity doesn't cut it.
1) because the loudest and most articulate (representative) voices within that identity who claim to share in being as oppressed as all other members of that group, by virtue of who they are are in truth unlikely to really be oppressed - exactly because they're educated, healthy, successful. Large numbers of people listen to them - which is rather the opposite of oppression.
2) because by definition an identarian struggle excludes most people (who don't belong to that particular minority group).

Either way, the ones who get left behind are the poor and inarticulate. And in the most egregious cases you might see (self-styled or appointed rarely elected) ''community leaders'' cynically using the oppression of others to bolster their own personal success.

I'd also say that for ''white people'' identity politics definitely isn't the answer because that journey can only end at something like the EDL or KKK .. or going back only little in time, to the NSDAP. Which sort of makes the point more articulately than I can in words.

tl;dr, it's not about raising up all - it's about raising up me and my friends. And fuck the rest of yous.

OK, I'm probably making things worse, digging this hole for myself to stand in. I'll try and go back to just reading and liking for a few more days.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

OK then, thanks for the contributions

From another article on a different subject, a quote which in a small way crystallises the issue:

''...a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.''

For me, that's pretty much identitypolitics2017 in a nutshell.

the 1% is not a class politics idea tho is it.

 

[friendofdorothy]

It seems as if you're getting hung up on the term itself rather than what the term means.

Do you know I don't think I care any more.

I know what my core values are - that we are all human, that we should care for and look after each other, that the earths resources shouldn't be all used up, that what we have should be shared fairly, that we should all have the same right to live peacefully.

And what we call that and how we go about trying to acheive that doesn't really matter.





That and, of course, most things that are wrong in this country today the fault of Thatcher and her selfish 'no such thing as society' and her sell it all off ways.

 

[mojo pixy]

the 1% is not a class politics idea tho is it.

Good thing the article doesn't use that expression then: ''The 1%'' (TM)

It's using that idea to make the point that from a certain political position, if 1% of the population did control 90% of the world's resources, that would be fine as long as that 1% was diverse enough.

 

[newbie]

fj

What is your question and to whom is it posed?

Are you asking those of us critical of identitypolitics something (and if so, what?)? Or are you asking others, such as those less able/willing to make a distinction between anti-racism and identitypolitics (and if so, what?)?

I'm personally all debated out on nationalism after the Scottish independence referendum, but you can still read my contributions to that debate. For me there were three chooses facing socialists - choose between a pragmatic support for the aims of one of the two nationalisms on offer (pro-independent or pro-Union), balancing the functional reasons for backing one or other plus a judgement on the relative toxicity; or choose to abstain.

(I offer these sample posts from that debate: one, two).

is nationality an identity worth considering within this thread? asked of anyone who cares to respond.

that's nationality, not nationalism, which is a somewhat different matter, being a preoccupation of rightwing types and not something one is assigned at birth and which can, after jumping through some hoops, be changed if desired. Well, some starting nationalities confer greater or lesser scope for voluntary changes in later life. That's the point, the nationality assigned at birth helps determine personal opportunity, acceptance and life trajectory at least as much as sex, gender or race, surely.

It's also the case that questions revolving around nationality are causing convulsions here, the rest of Europe, the US and elsewhere.

I have no wish to rerun either of the ref debates. But while people are oppressed by virtue of having (or more likely not having) a particular nationality it's potentially a component of the politics of identity which bears examination. Or not if no-one wants to, it's not compulsory to address a question just because it's been asked.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Good thing the article doesn't use that expression then: ''The 1%'' (TM)

It's using that idea to make the point that from a certain political position, if 1% of the population did control 90% of the world's resources, that would be fine as long as that 1% was diverse enough.

I know what it's saying. I was just commenting on Reed's support for the democrats.