8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Which questions? What do you think the questions are?
Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
Which questions? What do you think the questions are?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think there's many here who think like that, to be honest.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Having finished the Malik piece I am surprised at how many people are supporting his idealist framework, which comes out quite clearly against the notion of class war.
The interesting bits are right at the beginning and the end when he talks of identity as a matter of relationships. His definition of ID politics that "ones values and aspirations come from ones identity" isn't one I recognise in the vast majority of campaigns that are decried as Idpol.
As a defender of universalism I am surprised he doesn't recognise the fact that many of these struggles are about being accepted as part of that universal. In contradiction to what he writes in the article quoted later, slogans like 'All lives cant matter till black lives matter' and 'its not black against white its everyone against racists' have dominated over white privilege.shame ones. The whole 'trans v women's rights' argument is about how to ensure the human rights of both are recognised and supported, not saying one is better than the other.
The interesting bits are right at the beginning and the end when he talks of identity as a matter of relationships. His definition of ID politics that "ones values and aspirations come from ones identity" isn't one I recognise in the vast majority of campaigns that are decried as Idpol.
As a defender of universalism I am surprised he doesn't recognise the fact that many of these struggles are about being accepted as part of that universal. In contradiction to what he writes in the article quoted later, slogans like 'All lives cant matter till black lives matter' and 'its not black against white its everyone against racists' have dominated over white privilege.shame ones. The whole 'trans v women's rights' argument is about how to ensure the human rights of both are recognised and supported, not saying one is better than the other.
brixtonscot
Well-Known Member
KM talking about autonomous ( e.g. Black , women , gay ) movements in 60's & 70's that they were attached to a wider political project ( as Asad Hyder also says below ) .....but that now that wider political project had "disintegrated".
The failings or weakness of the wider Left in general over the past 4 or 5 decades coincided with the rise of liberal "identity politics" - but to what degree is there a correlation between the two ?
I think Jeffrey Weeks term referring to gay identity as a "necessary fiction" (in combatting homophobia) is useful , if litttle used or understood.
From interview with Asad Hyder about book Mistaken Identity -
"Your book describes the origins of identity politics as a radical movement for mass emancipation. Could you expand?
The original presentation of the term was by the black feminist organisation the Combahee River Collective, whose important 1977 statement has now been published, along with illuminating interviews, in the collection How We Get Free, which anyone interested in the question should read. The starting point of this statement was to show how the existing political organisations of the black liberation and feminist movements had been based on exclusionary identities that effaced the intra-group differences I mentioned before. Hierarchies internal to these group identities had made it so that black liberation organisations were led by men, and feminist organisations were led by white women. So asserting their identity as black women meant disrupting these exclusionary identities. The conclusion of the statement was to call for an inclusive revolutionary politics, which became possible when black women organised autonomously.
Needless to say, this is not what Democratic Party elites mean when they go on TV and talk about “identity politics.” "
newhumanist.org.uk
The failings or weakness of the wider Left in general over the past 4 or 5 decades coincided with the rise of liberal "identity politics" - but to what degree is there a correlation between the two ?
I think Jeffrey Weeks term referring to gay identity as a "necessary fiction" (in combatting homophobia) is useful , if litttle used or understood.
From interview with Asad Hyder about book Mistaken Identity -
"Your book describes the origins of identity politics as a radical movement for mass emancipation. Could you expand?
The original presentation of the term was by the black feminist organisation the Combahee River Collective, whose important 1977 statement has now been published, along with illuminating interviews, in the collection How We Get Free, which anyone interested in the question should read. The starting point of this statement was to show how the existing political organisations of the black liberation and feminist movements had been based on exclusionary identities that effaced the intra-group differences I mentioned before. Hierarchies internal to these group identities had made it so that black liberation organisations were led by men, and feminist organisations were led by white women. So asserting their identity as black women meant disrupting these exclusionary identities. The conclusion of the statement was to call for an inclusive revolutionary politics, which became possible when black women organised autonomously.
Needless to say, this is not what Democratic Party elites mean when they go on TV and talk about “identity politics.” "
The problem with identity politics
Q&A with Asad Haider, author of "Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump"
Attachments
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Combahee was also a crucial event in the later development of intersectionalism, which, despite its many shortcomings especially as it has become now, was an attempt at recognising and showing how these different identities influence one another, that there is no single one that could be said to be 'better than.'KM talking about autonomous ( e.g. Black , women , gay ) movements in 60's & 70's that they were attached to a wider political project ( as Asad Hyder also says below ) .....but that now that wider political project had "disintegrated".
The failings or weakness of the wider Left in general over the past 4 or 5 decades coincided with the rise of liberal "identity politics" - but to what degree is there a correlation between the two ?
I think Jeffrey Weeks term referring to gay identity as a "necessary fiction" (in combatting homophobia) is useful , if litttle used or understood.
From interview with Asad Hyder about book Mistaken Identity -
"Your book describes the origins of identity politics as a radical movement for mass emancipation. Could you expand?
The original presentation of the term was by the black feminist organisation the Combahee River Collective, whose important 1977 statement has now been published, along with illuminating interviews, in the collection How We Get Free, which anyone interested in the question should read. The starting point of this statement was to show how the existing political organisations of the black liberation and feminist movements had been based on exclusionary identities that effaced the intra-group differences I mentioned before. Hierarchies internal to these group identities had made it so that black liberation organisations were led by men, and feminist organisations were led by white women. So asserting their identity as black women meant disrupting these exclusionary identities. The conclusion of the statement was to call for an inclusive revolutionary politics, which became possible when black women organised autonomously.
Needless to say, this is not what Democratic Party elites mean when they go on TV and talk about “identity politics.” "
The problem with identity politics
Q&A with Asad Haider, author of "Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump"
The part about how identities are formed in opposition to bigotry and oppression is important, indicating (contra KM) that it is still bigotry that is maintaining and recreating discrimination, not simply a reaction to and subversion of anti-racist politics. And it indicates that the argument against narrow IdPol (as defined by KM) is not just about ideas and values, but is rooted within wider society - ie that it is systemic.
I also think the Simpsons cartoon is an excellent example of the liberal struggle for universalist rights, not for IDpol ones. Its about not excluding people from positions, not about looking at those systemic biases that will continue whoever is at the top.
ska invita
back on the other side
Agree, though how much these negative expressions come up is part of the confusion and talking at cross-purposes (that are all coming back to me now from this thread in the past!).
The most stupid bits of identity politics, such as expecting all black people to have the same politics, doesn't actually exist in the real world very often I don't think.
The Kanye example in the video - a black man supporting a racist president - does make people think wtf, but then most things Kanye does make people think wtf! Kanye singled himself out as probably the most high profile black person to endorse Trump, so it was a shock.
And of course there are many black Republicans - this is nothing new and would be a surprise to few in the US.
For those who have a reductionist, essentialised view of identity - that identity Y automatically means you must think X - it doesn't take long before this crashes up against reality and gets shattered. It does seem to have come up in universities at times, which I would chalk up as youthful naivety, but I just don't expect this is a problem in most peoples lived experiences. Certainly not to the degree there is a panic about identity politics.
Then there's essentialist-tokenism. The notion "we need a female leader of the labour party for once" is wrong-headed if there isn't a single female candidate with the right values and skills to do it, but if you presume there are many, then there's nothing wrong IMO with a bit of positive discrimination if it addressees a long pattern of inequality.
The Hilary Clinton example from the video on one level, yes, is ridiculous, yes she's a woman but she has terrible politics! However it actually makes good sense within the logic of the Democrat party, because the Democrat party has terrible politics and she fits right in to a lot of Democrats expectations!
This is the bit I have a problem with:
Struggle for minority rights happening at a time when there's a buoyant left fighting for deeper structural change to which both struggles can synergise (such as black rights struggle in the USA in the 60s-70s) = Good
Struggle for minority rights happening when there isn't a buoyant left (now) = Bad (and must be Liberal)
I'm sure I've said this before on this thread, but it makes it sound as if its those struggling for their minority rights fault that they're not part of a wider left, even though that left is in deep retreat. Many in those struggles do express anticapitalist sentiments, but are as ineffective as any of us at bringing that to fruition. The limitations of the left at this time are a whole other topic.
I still support someone with liberal, continuity-capitalism politics who is campaigning for equality within the system, even if they have no desire or vision to change the system much. Its still part of a bigger struggle, can open other doors, and give momentum to challenge the continued cultural conservatism in many other parts of the world.
If Black Lives Matter activists in the US are pushing relentlessly to get rid of racism they might simultaneously:
-win some small structural differences - such as the choke law
-change some peoples minds and shape cultural attitudes of the future
-still come up against the unresponsive monolith of the state which takes the struggle nearer to it, and might sharpen certain individuals minds as to what the nature of the problem really is
....all the above seems good to me, even if any number of those taking part aren't particularly engaged in any conscious way with anticapitalist and class struggles (yet)
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Does anyone actually argue that, though?
ska invita
back on the other side
Probably not...certainly not exactly like that....but it can definitely sound like that though...it can sound like it in this video....theres a lot of chasing shadows that goes on in this whole thing.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I have a longer post I am reminding myself to come back to, in response to ska's posts. But for now, it is well worth pointing out that Malik's viewpoint really matters now, because Johnson has appointed his former comrade and co-thinker to head up the commission on racial equality. Munira Mirza, a repeating Spiked writer, doesn't believe in structural inequality or institutional racism. She says (and Spiked agree, even if no one else does) that she and KM share the same values of defending he enlightenment. But she is someone we can have a dialogue with if we simply taking it on the level of ideas and ignore power.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't get that from the video, but you're right that a lot of times people from both sides seen to be tilting at windmills.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think we should take her word for what Malik thinks. Judge him on his own. I've not read or heard anything to suggest he doesn't believe in structural inequality; quite the reverse - he explicitly talks about structural racism in the piece quoted up-thread.
'White privilege' is a distraction, leaving racism and power untouched | Kenan Malik
This is a transformational moment. Let’s use it to challenge structural injustice, not to elicit or wallow in guilt
ska invita
back on the other side
I've relistened to the start of the video and he explicitly says at 7 minutes this is why modern minority movements are bad, unlike those of the 60-70s they are divorced from deeper "universal" movements, and focus only on their own identity rights <its the basis of his definition of bad ID politics as he sets out his stall. Like I said in long post above, I think this is justifiable and even positive within the present circumstances, and also as Bebloid says does in fact look to a universal treatment. Yes I wish there was a stronger left current than there is today, yes I wish minority rights struggles fed into that more than they do today - and vice versa - but I don't conclude from that this is identity politics gone bad, that its necessarily divisive, that its necessarily an attack on enlightenment values etc.
There are so many different elements to discuss here that they get confused and even overlap. All X people must think Y is one of the easier ones to deal with. A minority rights campaign that clashes with enlightenment liberation values is a theoretically more complex one: such as Catholics should have the right to ban/prevent abortions, but even then I don't think its that hard to come to a conclusion. Islamaphobia debates pulled the left two ways a bit, those who wanted to support a group that was being particularly prosecuted at the time, and those who saw Islamists as repressive and regressive. Both things can be true, but life is full of contradictions and sometimes its possible to hold two opposing ideas at the same time, though navigating these things can get messy, and in the Iraq war era did lead to some objectionable people being invited up on platforms for example.
What would be useful perhaps if someone is feeling masochistic enough would be to make a numbered list of 1. all the criticisms of theoretical ID positions and a separate thing 2. the shit behaviour by some individuals associated with identity politics, so they can be looked at one by one and without any blurring of lines. This kind of happened over the 90 pages of this thread, but in a very mixed up way.
Athos
Well-Known Member
For me, the issue isn't as much about campaigns which focus on identity without being tied to a wider struggle (though, obviously, I'd prefer if they were), but where that focus on identity is anathema to that wider struggle e.g. the examples you give re Islam (albeit my issue with it isn't that it offends enlightenment values, so much as it hampers class struggle).
I can't imagine anyone being masochistic enough for such a list!
Well .... maybe enforcing laws that the government is already pushing is not very radical ... maybe this all smaks of neoliberalism .... maybe the peace movement is being destroyed by middle class tossers who have a vested interest in the state/war by being middle class .
Maybe freedom of speech is a classical progressive (anarchist ) essential .... basically .. anyone who subscribes to controlling the bewildered herd by enforcing laws cos they are to stupid.... is not an anarchist .... but a classic liberal .
These people incite violence(with no gorilla tactic) thus discrediting the anti war movement. They are the classic stereotype : bourgeois apologists for the war IMO.
Maybe freedom of speech is a classical progressive (anarchist ) essential .... basically .. anyone who subscribes to controlling the bewildered herd by enforcing laws cos they are to stupid.... is not an anarchist .... but a classic liberal .
These people incite violence(with no gorilla tactic) thus discrediting the anti war movement. They are the classic stereotype : bourgeois apologists for the war IMO.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I think in the eighties - when Malik n my politics were formed - there was an element of ‘if women/black people ran the world it would be different. Thatcher, as well as straight forward sexist abuse from blokes, was also accused by some feminists of having simply taken in male values and behaviours. Going back to that Simpsons cartoon, the IdPol reaction should have been 'if they were women of color we wouldn't have exploitation and wars.' That really existed in the eighties.
We don’t get that really now, Priti Patel is just a piece of shit, whatever her gender and race. We might have a view that she should recognise racism more than some other tidies, but that’s down to her (not entirely presumed) lived life experience. It’s like going ffs at working class tories.
That’s down to his being an idealist - thinking it’s all down to ideas and not how those ideas interact and, crucially, contradict our day to day lived experience.
Within that specific example, or any specific example, it’s absurd to say 'sex over values'. But he doesn’t ask why, in over 100 attempts, there had never previously been one case of a woman having better values. He misses out the systemic biases.
No one is ever going to state it that crudely, but I think there is some truth in it. ID issues are almost be definition cross class (as are most/many single issue campaigns), even if they impact more heavily upon working class people, so if you look more likely to get short term results appealing to liberal sentiment rather than long term class analyses, it’s not really surprising when campaigns veer in that direction. Loads of people are drawn into struggle by things that aren’t strictly class based, we need to show why class politics (not an idealist battle of ideas) are right, not just say why everyone else is wrong.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
yes, he mentions it a couple of times, but then stops, as he does in the video. There's not even any description of them let alone analysis or attempt at a solution. That's a definite failing. In the article he starts by saying how BLM is taking on systemic issues but spends far more time talking about the smaller numbers talking about 'white privilege,' and then about how police brutality isn't really racism, it's classism (or mainly classism, at least). Which seems to be in contradiction to a recognition of structural problems. (the Mass Incarceration piece is very interesting and deserves a separate discussion)I don't think we should take her word for what Malik thinks. Judge him on his own. I've not read or heard anything to suggest he doesn't believe in structural inequality; quite the reverse - he explicitly talks about structural racism in the piece quoted up-thread.
'White privilege' is a distraction, leaving racism and power untouched | Kenan Malik
This is a transformational moment. Let’s use it to challenge structural injustice, not to elicit or wallow in guiltwww.theguardian.com
But I shouldn't be too hard in him for this piece alone, he is a Guardian columnist and has to give them the copy they want (at the word length they want)- a slightly controversial view of BLM that they wont be slated for printing.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Note that the contention in the first quote is not the same as in the one in the second quote.
To say that some struggles for minority rights occurring at the current time are bad because they are divorced from a deeper structural analysis, is not the same as saying struggles for minority rights occurring at the present must be bad because there is no buoyant left.
But Malik does NOT explicitly say what you claim. First, the context the statement below is in giving a historical summary of the how identity politics have come about, not about why they are "bad".
Malik said:
Second, none of the above states, either explicitly or implicitly, that modern minority movements must be bad. It's not even an argument for such, it is an explanation of why identity politics have come about. The defines here is not a formal statement of what identity politics means but the outlining of how the politics came to be defined, created by material conditions, i.e. one might say class war in the UK 45-75 was defined by the post-war social contract, that does not mean that the post-war social contract was class war, it is saying that the influence of the post-war social contract played a very important role in (influencing) class during those years.
Third, throughout the whole film piece Malik constantly stresses the the struggle for equality is not the same as the identity politics. Indeed straight after the part quoted above, you have the following discussion.
Presenter said:
Malik said:
Malick is not making a criticism of "modern minority movements", he is making a criticism of identity politics. And part of that criticism is the equating of the fight for equality with identity politics - something that you have done in your post.
[NB: There may be some mistakes in the passages quoted from the film, I've had to do them by ear.]
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Thanks for taking the time to do those transcriptions redsquirrel
I’ve lost the energy required to argue these points. Not the argument itself, but the way that the argument is misunderstood and misrepresented. And it’s not done deliberately or with malicious intent; it’s just that - as you say - the perceptual Windows are so far apart.
So thanks for the effort. It’s important to try to express the argument clearly.
I’ve lost the energy required to argue these points. Not the argument itself, but the way that the argument is misunderstood and misrepresented. And it’s not done deliberately or with malicious intent; it’s just that - as you say - the perceptual Windows are so far apart.
So thanks for the effort. It’s important to try to express the argument clearly.
Athos
Well-Known Member
For me, this is the heart of it. I suspect that ska invita and belboid think that those of us who criticise identity politics are criticising analysis or organisation which includes race as 'a' (not 'the only') focus. Whereas I think the critics of identity politics here would agree that it makes sense to recognise that capitalism can affect black workers differently from white workers. What we don't agree is that the ultimate goal should be a version of capitalism that's 'fairer' on identity lines. But I get how that might be misinterpreted as saying that e.g. black people shouldn't try to improve their lot in the here and now.
I guess the important thing is to do both, to improve the lot of minorities in the short term in a way that doesn't entrench capitalism in the longer term (since the end if capitalism with bring a fairer system for all of us - a seat at the feast our own labour produces, rather than ther crumbs be distributed proportionately to identity characteristics).
To be honest, at the outset, when the focus seemed to be about white privilege and the implied goal of police killings at equal rates, I thought BLM was going down the Idpol route. But, increasingly, it seems to recognise the importance of class (and that black people are over-represented in the working class) and the necessity for solidarity in the working class (regardless of race). Now, I think that, whilst I don't agree with every aspect of the politics or actions in the name of BLM, the movement represents an opportunity to improve the lot of all black people and all working class people (obviously a big overlap) in the short and longer terms.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sorry bit this is drivel. You and all the other ultra liberals here are ignoring the fact that Malik gave a definition of Id politics. And it is nothing like the one you’re skirting around here. There is absolutely nothing about those politics being developed due to material conditions because he rejects that argument.
It’s not that that the ‘perceptual windows’ (lol) are too far apart, it’s that Malik is frequently and importantly wrong. He is a liberal idealist. Who is 100% attacking ‘minority rights’ - because he’s a universalist. As he said repeatedly. If you don’t get that you don’t get a single thing he says.
Threshers_Flail
Well-Known Member
Someone transcribes an interview to try and help you and this is how you respond?
Cid
Proper break this time
So... his definition of identity politics, as stated in the opening bit is: "... the idea that one's values or aspirations comes from one's specific, narrow, identity. You can think of it as the relationship between being and values. What identity politics suggests is that one's being, whether one's black or a woman, or gay, muslim or white European defines one's aspirations, one's values." which he contrasts with being arising from values.
I'm at work and am not going to watch the whole thing again now... But I'm struggling to see how that conflicts with redsquirrel 's interpretation.
I'm at work and am not going to watch the whole thing again now... But I'm struggling to see how that conflicts with redsquirrel 's interpretation.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
??? Sorry, whats the point of this comment? Wrong-headed comments dont suddenly become right because someone has typed them out. And idealism doesn't suddenly became materialism.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I do think it's a shame he focusses on values, though; it'd have been better if he'd clearly said material interests (which I suspect is what he was really driving at). To me, that's the real weakness of idpol: the idea that a black worker always has more in common with a black boss than with a white worker. And that's where it's danger is: that it can subvert struggles into those between identities, rather than betwen classes (especially as the grouping in the former tend to be dominated by and refelct the values of those at the 'top' of that particular vertical slice i.e. idpol movements for more black CEOs).
ska invita
back on the other side
I don't disagree in principle with any of that, but perhaps do in practice
Perhaps our difference is i think every struggle takes us closer, or to lower expectations from that, at least can potentially go somewhere useful. Talking in abstract without using a concrete example of a campaign, what may seem a small c conservative, liberal, continuity-capitalism campaign to you still often has merits to me. Abstracts aside youve given a concrete example, BLM, and your respone to that, so lets look at the one:
Lets say the (at least partially spontaneous) grassroots mass movement that is BLM only had an "implied goal of police killings at equal rates" - cynical though that summarisation is, lets go with that - to actually achieve that aim (far from easy) lots of things change along the way, materially, psychologically and ideologically, for all who come in contact with the campaign, and potentially way beyond that narrow end goal. To dismiss it is.....dismissive...of how social change can happen, I think. Smaller victories can have bigger knock on effects, and lead to greater things, especially if successful. Having strategically chosen achievable aims is an important approach.
I read a book last year I liked - How to Be an Anticapitalist in the Twenty-First Century by Erik Olin Wright - he makes a cold and i think accurate reckoning of the failures of the revolutionary left of the last century and asks strategically, where are we at now. The conclusion he comes to can be summarised as keep "eroding capitalism", keep at it through the range of traditions and practices, all of which have their merits and should be tried to connect and feed into one another as much as possible. It doesn't rule out more explicitly revolutionary driven action, in fact it hopes for it, and hopes all other actions create fertile ground for that to yet happen.
...."taming" (reformism) has a role to play within the wider struggle....if the "smashing" element of the wider struggle isn't as strong as it was in the 60s and 70s that's not the fault of people responding to their own particular persecutions seeking immediate reforms in whatever way feels correct to them. Best to discuss why other parts of the left are weak in separation from blaming it on "ID politics" - that blaming can fee like passing the buck and condescension.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I'm not quite what has got belboid so upset but I will point out that at no point in the last couple of pages have I ever claimed that I am in (total) agreement with Malik's opinions or politics.
FTR I do think that Malik's politics are overly idealistic and lacking in class politics. Post 2508 was not an argument that Malik is right about everything ever but that ska invita's summary of what Mailk said was incorrect.
FTR I do think that Malik's politics are overly idealistic and lacking in class politics. Post 2508 was not an argument that Malik is right about everything ever but that ska invita's summary of what Mailk said was incorrect.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
It explicitly rules out revolutionary socialism (on the basis of a very silly strawman) as a tactic for eroding capitalism.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
That is a central part of his definition, absolutely. But it isn't one that is recognised by most people putting forward 'idpol' arguments. Racism (which he thinks was invented in the late eighteenth century - so he can make it a ‘battle of ideas’ and not a materially routed phenomenon as he would have to if he placed it, as I would (and Marx did) with the development of colonialism) isn't just an idea, or a response to an idea.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
what has gobsmacked me is you claiming this nonsense has a materialist basis! You've said Malik supports things he explicitly rejects, and completely ignore his definition of 'identity politics' and just use it any discussion about identity related issues. It is the complete inconsistency.
Similar threads
