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

[Athos]

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.

I don't think we're a million miles away, to be honest.

I am not averse to the idea of taming per se; my only problem would be where taming in the sort term is detrimental to the prospects of 'smashing' in the longer term i.e. where reformism entrenches capitalism. In that respect, I don't agree with the idea that every struggle takes us closer - why would it? I do accept, though, that many have the potential to do so, though, even where not currently based on what I would consider the right grounds.

On the specific example, I don't agree that to achieve what appeared (at least initially) to be the movement's implied aim would necessarily be an improvement; it could be most easily achieved by killing more (inevitably working class) white people! That's why I see the more recent stuff - which increasingly recognises class, and relies less on white privilege - as more positive e.g. demilitarising police, interracial solidarity, and addressing economic inequality. I think those things further the interests of the working class by reducing the disproportionately high rate at which police kill black people (even after controlling for class).

I've not read the book, but seen a lot of the criticism of it. Perhaps I'll add it to the reading list.

The last point is fair. We can't blame idpol for all the failings of 'the left'. In fact, in some respects, the latter has caused the former.

 

[ska invita]

On the specific example, I don't agree that to achieve what appeared (at least initially) to be the movement's implied aim would necessarily be an improvement; it could be most easily achieved by killing more (inevitably working class) white people!

...on this point I think you've gone way too far into clever rhetorical arguing.

I'd like to bring up one more concrete example: The Campaign For More BAME CEOs!
Does this even exist? I don't remember hearing What do we want? More BAME CEOs! When do we want it? Now! ringing out in the streets, but lets say a group of BAME middle managers are angry at not getting a further deserved promotion and do make such a campaign. To make there be no doubt, lets say this is happening at a particularly shit racistly-exploitative company like Shell. This is an absolute worst case of ID Politics campaigning, right? Open and shut case, surely.

It would be a fight far removed from my support, however even such a deeply liberal equality-within-capitalism campaign could have at least a smidgen of reducing wider racist attitudes in the here and now, and as someone who doesn't experience racism I am no position to say it isn't worthwhile..... in fact I am happy to see racist attitudes being challenged at all levels of society, including by hypocrites and exploiters. This is a very extreme case, usually there's much more common ground.

That doesn't mean you let people off the hook, it doesn't mean you clap and cheer when neo-colonialists companies like PG Tips play the anti-racism card, however ultimately their attempt to play that card can be useful overall. There's a seeming contradiction there, but I think its possible to call them out on their colonialism whilst being happy they are slapping down UK racists so publicly. To me that's a small act of erosion.

I've not read the book, but seen a lot of the criticism of it. Perhaps I'll add it to the reading list.

My impression is that the book starts from a position of recognising the depth of the weakness of the left, an honest account of its historic failures and shortcomings, based on a lifetime of personal lived experience. This immediately opens it up to criticism from those who see the world more in terms of pure ideology than actually existing balances of power. I think its a realistic reflection of the here and now in a country like the UK.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd like to bring up one more concrete example: The Campaign For More BAME CEOs!

Several speakers at the Glasgow BLM protest on Glasgow Green argued precisely that.

Not that it stops me supporting BLM, or feeling generally encouraged by the worldwide response to the murder of George Floyd. Of course not.

I was particularly cheered by the statue going in the river. That was a great moment.

But some people do seem to think that ratios are a substitute for equality.

 

[LDC]

Several speakers at the Glasgow BLM protest on Glasgow Green argued precisely that.

Not that it stops me supporting BLM, or feeling generally encouraged by the worldwide response to the murder of George Floyd. Of course not.

I was particularly cheered by the statue going in the river. That was a great moment.

But some people do seem to think that ratios are a substitute for equality.

The speeches at the Leeds BLM event were pretty much exclusively of that kind of demand as well apparently. Ditto what Danny said about that not stopping conditional support for BLM stuff though.

Which I think brings up one of the issues that is problematic about the identity politics/multiculturalism nexus; the issue of leaders and representation, especially with some 'communities' already having entrenched spokespeople and leaders ready to step up and speak for any movement they feel is theirs.

 

[Athos]

...lets say a group of BAME middle managers are angry at not getting a further deserved promotion and do make such a campaign. To make there be no doubt, lets say this is happening at a particularly shit racistly-exploitative company like Shell. This is an absolute worst case of ID Politics campaigning, right? Open and shut case, surely.

It would be a fight far removed from my support, however even such a deeply liberal equality-within-capitalism campaign could have at least a smidgen of reducing wider racist attitudes in the here and now, and as someone who doesn't experience racism I am no position to say it isn't worthwhile..... in fact I am happy to see racist attitudes being challenged at all levels of society, including by hypocrites and exploiters.

I guess the pragmatist in me would feel the same about it as you, but I'd be concerned that the net effect might be doing more harm to both black and working class people by helping Shell paper over the cracks. I'd also be concerned if such campaigns diverted attentions and resources from struggles - including those conducted through a lens of race - to end capitalism which would help far more black people (and white) people (specifically the working class), or meant the appointment of middle class 'community leaders' whose interests aren't necessarily aligned with most of those they purport to represent. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure it would reduce racist attitudes in any meaningful way.

 

[ignatious]

Several speakers at the Glasgow BLM protest on Glasgow Green argued precisely that.

Not that it stops me supporting BLM, or feeling generally encouraged by the worldwide response to the murder of George Floyd. Of course not.

I was particularly cheered by the statue going in the river. That was a great moment.

But some people do seem to think that ratios are a substitute for equality.

This is where the dogmatic nature of the left grates with so many I think Danny. Businesses are not going to stop existing anytime soon, so there will be a demand for CEOs for the foreseeable future at least.

Are we saying that people should remove themselves from these positions, or not apply for them, on account of their colour, and in deference to an abstract need to satisfy the desires of the ‘pure’ left?

Is it not self evident that having greater numbers of ‘successful’ (as defined by the mores of our time) people of colour in prominent positions, would create better opportunities and greater equality for subsequent generations?

Why, exactly, should people of colour wait for the glorious revolution to get a fair share, and if they shouldn’t wait, how do they achieve that aim without recourse to some variety of identity politics, given that the universal aims of the left seem some way from being reached?

 

[redsquirrel]

Is it not self evident that having greater numbers of ‘successful’ (as defined by the mores of our time) people of colour in prominent positions, would create better opportunities and greater equality for subsequent generations?

No, not to me anyway.

Why, exactly, should people of colour wait for the glorious revolution to get a fair share, and if they shouldn’t wait, how do they achieve that aim without recourse to some variety of identity politics, given that the universal aims of the left seem some way from being reached?

Again this does exactly what ska did it equates identity politics with the fight for equality. Absolutely nobody on this thread is saying that the fight for equality should be put on hold, they are discussing about the best way to go about that fight.

Are we saying that people should remove themselves from these positions, or not apply for them, on account of their colour, and in deference to an abstract need to satisfy the desires of the ‘pure’ left?

I'm not Danny but I'd say that if you go for a CEO position then you are electing to cross the line, you will become the enemy.

 

[ska invita]

I guess the pragmatist in me would feel the same about it as you, but I'd be concerned that the net effect might be doing more harm to both black and working class people by helping Shell paper over the cracks. I'd also be concerned if such campaigns diverted attentions and resources from struggles - including those conducted through a lens of race - to end capitalism which would help far more black people (and white) people (specifically the working class), or meant the appointment of middle class 'community leaders' whose interests aren't necessarily aligned with most of those they purport to represent. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure it would reduce racist attitudes in any meaningful way.

This is the crux of it I think. I think, on balance, it does have the possibility of reducing racist attitudes and challenging old orthodoxies. I'm as sceptical as anyone else here though.
I also think the cracks cant ever truly be papered over, that's not where we are in the world, so attempts to do so in vain in themselves serve a useful purpose and bring people closer to the heart of the issues.

But some people do seem to think that ratios are a substitute for equality.

Sad to hear about these two example from you and Lynn....a substitute, emphatically no, and it needs challenging. As a step though it's hard to argue against, especially so if you've never been held back at work on skin colour grounds.

Id expect people who are active and think it is a substitute are then much more amenable to being pushed further in their thinking. And if they're not, and they end up CEO of Shell and it's business as usual there is still there tiniest of net gains overall on some levels at least.

Obviously its no end game, and such representational goals mustn't be allowed to act as dampeners on more meaningful demands. I guess the bigger the movement (and this wave of BLM has been huge), the shallower the common denominator in terms of analysis. These arguments come out through doing though. Its all fertile ground and should be constructively supported.

 

[ignatious]

No, not to me anyway.

Really? You don’t believe in role models?

Absolutely nobody on this thread is saying that the fight for equality should be put on hold.

Given the likely timeframe of the Universal aims being met, it is the obvious consequence isn’t it?

 

[danny la rouge]

This is where the dogmatic nature of the left grates with so many I think Danny.

I don’t think it’s dogmatic to think that “aspirational role models” like Lord Sugar do fuck all for the lot of East End working class lads called Alan; that having Thatcher or May as PM did anything for working class women; that having Obama as president did anything for working class African Americans. And so on.

The diversity of the ruling class is pretty much irrelevant to the lives of immigrant women cleaners, to my mum when she worked as an admin in a printers’, to the women I pass on Maryhill Road every day.

To me, that’s not dogma, that’s realism.

 

[redsquirrel]

Really? You don’t believe in role models?

I don't believe it is self-evident (your words) that having role models leads to greater equality. Did having Thatcher as PM lead to an increased gender quality? Did Indira Ghandi improve gender equality? I certainly don't believe such claims are self-evident.

Given the likely timeframe of the Universal aims being met, it is the obvious consequence isn’t it?

I've not idea how this relates to what I (or others) have said.
No one has argued that the fight for equality has to be pushed aside for "class war", no one has said that unless the total revolution of society can be achieved that measures that will improve racial/gender equality should not be fought for.

 

[danny la rouge]

You don’t believe in role models?

To do what?

 

[Athos]

This is the crux of it I think. I think, on balance, it does have the possibility of reducing racist attitudes and challenging old orthodoxies. I'm as sceptical as anyone else here though.
I also think the cracks cant ever truly be papered over, that's not where we are in the world, so attempts to do so in vain in themselves serve a useful purpose and bring people closer to the heart of the issues.

Meh, I'm unconvinced. Not that it makes much real-world difference; neither of us would necessarily rail against it nor support it enthusiastically.

 

[ska invita]

Meh, I'm unconvinced. Not that it makes much real-world difference; neither of us would necessarily rail against it nor support it enthusiastically.

Exactly. If it's holding other people back though that's a problem, I recognise that

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

Where does/has Mailk explicitly reject any materials basis for identity politics? Are you making this claim from what he has said in the video or from other his comments elsewhere?

In the 1st section I transcribed he specifically outlines how the "disintegration" of wider social movements is connected with rise of identity politics (an argument he's made elsewhere too). How is that not an argument with a material basis? You might argue that the material basis is not as developed as it should be, that there is too much idealism in his arguments, ok but that is different to saying that Malik rejects any material basis for the development of identity politics.

 

[chilango]

To do what?

Model a role.

Which, in a Situationist sense, I guess they do perfectly.

 

[ignatious]

I don’t think it’s dogmatic to think that “aspirational role models” like Lord Sugar do fuck all for the lot of East End working class lads called Alan; that having Thatcher or May as PM did anything for working class women; that having Obama as president did anything for working class African Americans. And so on.

The diversity of the ruling class is pretty much irrelevant to the lives of immigrant women cleaners, to my mum when she worked as an admin in a printers’, to the women I pass on Maryhill Road every day.

To me, that’s not dogma, that’s realism.

I’d guess plenty of Jewish kids in the east end feel a twinge of happiness when they see what Sugar has achieved. Likewise women and Thatcher.

I know from my own extended family the sense of strength/pride (not sure what the right word is) that was felt by many black people when Obama became president.

That‘s realism too. Having a sense of belonging in the world matters to people.

Did having Thatcher as PM lead to an increased gender quality?

it probably did, yeah. Still a long way to go, but I’d imagine it made a good number of women think beyond their existing boundaries, and a good number of men question their own opinions too.

No one has argued that the fight for equality has to be pushed aside for "class war", no one has said that unless the total revolution of society can be achieved that measures that will improve racial/gender equality should not be fought for.

How are they fought for without recourse to identity politics though? All paths seem to lead inexorably to class war, and I just don’t see the appetite for that on anything like the scale required.

 

[LDC]

But this elevation of some selected POC/women into positions of power isn't just neutral and a result of 'pure struggle' either is it? (And it's got nothing to do with equality really either has it?) It's given partly to defuse more radical demands, it's the soft cop of recuperation to the bad cop of repression of radical elements with those social movements.

One of the most instructive discussions I've had about the state of anti-racist struggles was with some ex-Black Panthers while in the US years ago, and they very sternly reminded me that most of the anti-racist organisations and personalities that you see now are the moderate ones that the State funded and facilitated with one hand while murdering their comrades with the other hand.

 

[danny la rouge]

I, for one, am delighted that Gordon Brown was born in Scotland.

 

[CNT36]

One of the most instructive discussions I've had about the state of anti-racist struggles was with some ex-Black Panthers while in the US years ago, and they very sternly reminded me that most the anti-racist organisations and personalities that you see now are the moderate ones that the State funded and facilitated with one hand while murdering their comrades with the other hand.

What year? Did you enter the country legally?

 

[Sue]

I’d guess plenty of Jewish kids in the east end feel a twinge of happiness when they see what Sugar has achieved. Likewise women and Thatcher.

I feel more than a twinge but certainly not one of happiness.

 

[redsquirrel]

it probably did, yeah. Still a long way to go, but I’d imagine it made a good number of women think beyond their existing boundaries, and a good number of men question their own opinions too.

You think Thatcher improved the lot of single women? Of working class women? Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

How are they fought for without recourse to identity politics though? All paths seem to lead inexorably to class war, and I just don’t see the appetite for that on anything like the scale required.

Because, yet again, identity politics is not the same as the fight for greater equality.

Class war is happening all the time, there are elements of class war in the BLM actions (there are also elements of identity politics). It is not a choice between class war or greater equality, the point is the to fight for greater equality via class war.
One simple example, workers fighting to reduce/eliminate casualisation are fighting for greater gender and race equality via class war. Even if totally successful such a fight is not going to result in a transition to socialism that does not mean that most (revolutionary) socialists would not support it.

 

[belboid]

Where does/has Mailk explicitly reject any materials basis for identity politics? Are you making this claim from what he has said in the video or from other his comments elsewhere?

In the 1st section I transcribed he specifically outlines how the "disintegration" of wider social movements is connected with rise of identity politics (an argument he's made elsewhere too). How is that not an argument with a material basis? You might argue that the material basis is not as developed as it should be, that there is too much idealism in his arguments, ok but that is different to saying that Malik rejects any material basis for the development of identity politics.

I say it because he is explicit in doing so. His drive is defending the enlightenment and universal values. ‘Social movements’ arent necessarily materialist, they’re frequently idealist - eg nuclear weapons are immoral. And his view of the development of racism and ideas generally is idealist - as if it is just a debate about ideas and values, not about the material conditions of people’s lives. That why he says racism was invented in the late eighteenth century, when ‘scientific racism’ came along, not with the creation of colonialism when all foreigners were just savages (who needed to learn the way of the lord). It’s why he can list a number of occasions ideas did change rapidly and significantly, but fails to relate how those occasions (the ones he chose) were following capitalist crises.

And that means he doesn’t see how ideas are open to change when they come into struggle, into conflict with the day to day realities of life.

I still don’t recognise the ‘idpol’ as defined by Malik as being represented in most identity based struggles. As I said, they are overwhelmingly about simply demanding the same human rights as everyone else. About recognising that even if formal ‘equality’ is achieved there are still dozens of barriers placed in the way of oppressed people being able to take a full role even within bourgeois society.

 

[redsquirrel]

I say it because he is explicit in doing so.

OK but where is this explicit statement that reject sany materials basis on identity politics made? I don't recognise it in what I've read/heard from Malik but I'll admit I've not read all of his work.

‘Social movements’ arent necessarily materialist, they’re frequently idealist - eg nuclear weapons are immoral.

I'm not claiming otherwise, I'm saying that he links the rise of identity politics to the disintegration of wider social movements - that is linking the "material conditions of people's lives" to the development of identity politics. I the film this is not touched on in much detail but in other pieces of work he expends on it, talking about how the decay of unions, etc is linked with the rise of identity. I'd note that in the Guardian piece linked to he says

Volatility and polarisation are expressions of the same phenomenon: the detachment of politics from its traditional social moorings. It’s an issue much discussed in recent years in the context of the rise of populism and of the shifting allegiances of working-class voters. Over the past few weeks, we’ve witnessed one of the unpredictable expressions of the current unpredictability of politics.
...
As the old moorings have become detached, so politics has become driven as much by cultural or psychological anxieties as by material concerns – witness the influence of identity politics or the reframing of working-class grievances in terms of cultural loss.

The problem of racism is primarily social and structural – the laws, practices and institutions that maintain discrimination. The stress on “white privilege” turns a social issue into a matter of personal and group psychology.

But the heart of the problem lies in warped social relations and deformed institutional structures. As we search for new political moorings, we need to think not just of identity and psychology but of the material and the social, too.

How good a material analysis the above is is up for debate but it clearly connects material conditions to politics in some manner.

That why he says racism was invented in the late eighteenth century, when ‘scientific racism’ came along, not with the creation of colonialism when all foreigners were just savages (who needed to learn the way of the lord).

Again what are you referring to? The film, the piece in the guardian or his wider writings (and if so which)?
In the film he does not explicitly say that racism was invented in the late eighteenth century. In reply to the question of how identity politics originated he says (starting at ~1:20)

Well the interesting thing is that we think about identity politics as something on the left and as a recent phenomenon, I would argue that the roots of identity politics lie on the reactionary right and to understand it you have to go back to the late eighteenth century, to the counter enlightenment.
The argument against universalism and equality coming out of the counter enlightenment were the roots of identity politics, we did not call it identity politics but that's what they were. And the biggest expression of identity politics then was that of the concept of race, the idea that ones racial type defined one's place in the world, one's rights, one's aspirations, one's needs.
As I said we did not call it identity politics but that idea was essential to the politics of identity, that one's identity, one's being defines one's place in the world, one's values, one's aspirations, one's needs and that was applied in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century not just to racial groups but women ....

The above can be interpreted in different ways. I'll accept that one could interpret the above as "racism was invented in the late eighteenth century", but I don't think that is the most natural interpretation, it is certainly not the only. Of the top of my head I can't remember what, if anything, Malik has said about the creation of racism, so I can't say whether your interpretation is or is not consistent with Malik's general position.


EDIT: There are two pieces, 1, 2, of Malik's on the Enlightenment and race. I'm not sure it directly addressing the claim but probably is of relevance. At the start of part 2 he summarises

In my last post, on The Enlightenment’s “Race Problem”, I questioned the idea that the modern roots of the idea of race lie in the Enlightenment. The relationship between race and the Enlightenment is, I argued, far more complex than much contemporary discussion allows for. It was the transformation of Enlightenment attitudes through the course of the nineteenth century that helped mutate the eighteenth century discussion of human variety into the nineteenth century obsession with racial difference. This is the story of that transformation.

 

[kropotkin]

Listening at work, excellent, thanks. Although I thought the interviewer wasn't great.

No, she was very weak. Didn't seem to process any of his arguments- as in nothing he said altered what she was going to say next. It was frustrating to listen to- although as always Malik was excellent.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The most pervasive form of identity politics is white identity politics. Indeed, white identity politics is hegemonic in Britain. The Boris regime rules through white identity politics (aka British nationalism).

 

[Shechemite]

The most pervasive form of identity politics is white identity politics. Indeed, white identity politics is hegemonic in Britain. The Boris regime rules through white identity politics (aka British nationalism).

what is the ‘white identity’ bit of this politics?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

what is the ‘white identity’ bit of this politics?

The whole racism thing.

 

[ska invita]

I, for one, am delighted that Gordon Brown was born in Scotland.

The election of Obama was a hugely significant moment. A complex one, a disappointing one, a million other things arising from it, but hugely significant, particularly for black people in the US and beyond. Im aware of the Ta-Nehesi Coates vs Cornel West reckoning of Obama, which neatly sums up the key differences in understanding his impact, but within all of that it remains an important historical and even emotional moment for many, and rightly so.

 

[Shechemite]

The shit/edgy comedian bit went on for ages and didn't even make any sense as there were no subs when the editor or whoever kept cutting to the two of them staring at the screen. Kenan Malik piece in the guardian as well. He waded through laurie's apparently unsellable piece to give her the mention.

'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

www.theguardian.com

The Yorkshire tea thing was as transparently co-ordinated as the nice holocaust denying old veteran at the BLM rally furore. Same group of people too