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

[Kevbad the Bad]

I think this is an area where it might have helped you to know a little bit about Vygotsky and Luria.

Fair point

 

[maomao]

I think this is an area where it might have helped you to know a little bit about Vygotsky and Luria. Vygotsky’s work was specifically informed directly by Marx and remained at odds with Bolshevism. In fact, one reason his work ended up relatively buried for 40 years (he died in 1934 and remained relatively obscure until being rediscovered in the 1970s) is that it didn’t fit with Bolshevik ideology.

Meanwhile, Luria got heavily in trouble with the Soviet authorities for his Uzbekistan work, because, again, it ran counter to Soviet ideology. Amongst other things, his findings showed that there was no reason to have derogatory views of ethnic groups; there was no essential underpinning to any form of racism.

The fact that both Vygotsky and Luria managed to produce such original and extraordinary insights into the way culture impacts development, subjectivity, learning and cognition in spite of and in the face of hostile Stalinism is reason to be even more impressed by what they produced.

Of course, all work is heavily influenced by its ideological underpinnings. That’s kind of the whole point of what I’m saying. That’s precisely why you need to understand and lay bare what it is that the research relies on, in terms of its theories both of the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge. And those ideological influences include the influences on all work on and understandings of culture created from within the capitalist and individualist ideologies of the west. The cross-cultural assumptions relied on to produce the section on cultural relativism within this pamphlet are not explicitly acknowledged. However, they are, ironically, underpinned by the ideologies of western market capitalism. They are based on an essentialist ontology of the self as having universal, atomised attributes, and culture just beings overlaid on top as the way these attributes are expressed.

You might be interested in Daniel Everett's books on the Piraha language which have been at the forefront of recent arguments for linguistic relativity.

 

[danny la rouge]

Will have to get round to ordering the pamphlet and giving it a proper read at some point, but if that is the level at which BLM's discussed then it does sound like a pretty poor critique. ETA: and also seems kind of at odds with the stuff that the ACG was actually publishing last summer, like All around the world the police are our enemy - Anarchist Communist Group

The passages belboid quotes are separate mentions, the first (p15) from a section specifically discussing cross class alliances, and the second (p18) from a section about the practical inadequacy of guilt. The contexts are important.

The article you link to (and others) are to be taken as our commentary on BLM. This, for example: The Fire This Time - Anarchist Communist Group

This pamphlet is a critique on the shortcomings of identity politics as defined in the pamphlet. We state several times throughout the pamphlet that we are making a distinction. We deal with the issue in the introduction. For example, we say:

Being critical of identity politics is controversial and widely misunderstood and misconstrued. We
must therefore begin by being clear that when we say we are critical of identity
politics, this does not mean we oppose fighting oppression. Indeed, we disagree
with identity politics precisely because we believe it entrenches inequality and
oppression and makes it more difficult for us to achieve the overall goal of
anarchist communism. Focusing only on discrimination against one particular
group within capitalism can often lead to a reinforcement of inequalities. It is not
about ensuring there is the right proportion of women, black and disabled
business leaders or trans, Muslim and gay cops. It is about ending oppression,
not about having oppressors with the right diversity ratio. (pp4/5).

 

[hitmouse]

The passages belboid quotes are separate mentions, the first (p15) from a section specifically discussing cross class alliances, and the second (p18) from a section about the practical inadequacy of guilt. The contexts are important.

The article you link to (and others) are to be taken as our commentary on BLM. This, for example: The Fire This Time - Anarchist Communist Group

This pamphlet is a critique on the shortcomings of identity politics as defined in the pamphlet. We state several times throughout the pamphlet that we are making a distinction. We deal with the issue in the introduction. For example, we say:

Being critical of identity politics is controversial and widely misunderstood and misconstrued. We must therefore begin by being clear that when we say we are critical of identity politics, this does not mean we oppose fighting oppression.

See, that sounds fair enough as far as it goes, but I would say that - especially when making an argument that you know is going to be controversial and widely misunderstood and misconstrued - it's important to not just say that you support fighting oppression, but to explicitly spell out what your alternative strategy looks like, and preferably not just at the level of "it would be nice if there was a hypothetical anarchist communist mass movement" but with reference to contemporary real-world examples. Such as BLM, or at least specific elements within the BLM protests. If the pamphlet doesn't do that then it seems like it's setting itself up to be more misunderstood and misconstrued than it needs to be?

I should probably get around to ordering and reading it before I have any more opinions about it, though.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Well the ACG has certainly contributed to the debate.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I thought the pamphlet was OK, although obviously raises other questions. I need to read it again.

 

[danny la rouge]

I thought the pamphlet was OK, although obviously raises other questions. I need to read it again.

As you say. It’s not a final word; it’s a contribution to the debate.

 

[danny la rouge]

I should probably get around to ordering and reading it before I have any more opinions about it, though.

Please do. It took a long time to prepare because we had a lot of things we needed to cover, but we absolutely know it hasn’t covered everything. Good faith engagement is the aim.

 

[LDC]

Speaking of good faith... it's been mentioned on the Bookfair thread, but has there been any contact or response from the London Bookfair about the ACG being there?

 

[danny la rouge]

Speaking of good faith... it's been mentioned on the Bookfair thread, but has there been any contact or response from the London Bookfair about the ACG being there?

Not last I heard. But we are involved in the anti-university programme.

 

[kabbes]

As you say. It’s not a final word; it’s a contribution to the debate.

That’s not great, though, when your answer to somebody responding to that debate is, “well, we’re not going to agree so I won’t respond further.”

 

[steeplejack]

Beyond the walls of U75, who actually reads pamphlets, anyway?

I fear it's only a few grizzled old walruses, tusks yellow and worn, on one of the few remaining ice floes of what was once a giant continental shelf, called "the left".

I am a fan of the fanzine like graphics though which is a nod and a wink both to samizdat and the hipster-inflected re-emergence of fanzine culture, a pale echo of the 80s and 90s originals.

 

[danny la rouge]

That’s not great, though, when your answer to somebody responding to that debate is, “well, we’re not going to agree so I won’t respond further.”

Not what I said. But specifically on you being a declared cultural relativist and me being declared against cultural relativism I’m not sure where it would get us.

Also, although I am an author of the pamphlet I’m not the only author, and if we disappear off down a detour about Vygotsy, I don’t want people assuming I’m speaking for the ACG. I’m not the ACG spokesperson on Vygotsky. You will be unsurprised to learn we don’t have one.

The pamphlet is not, however, presented as all there is to say. It is, as it declares from the outset, a contribution.

 

[danny la rouge]

Beyond the walls of U75, who actually reads pamphlets, anyway?

Other political nerds who want to judge each other.

 

[kabbes]

Not what I said. But specifically on you being a declared cultural relativist and me being declared against cultural relativism I’m not sure where it would get us.

Also, although I am an author of the pamphlet I’m not the only author, and if we disappear off down a detour about Vygotsy, I don’t want people assuming I’m speaking for the ACG. I’m not the ACG spokesperson on Vygotsky. You will be unsurprised to learn we don’t have one.

The pamphlet is not, however, presented as all there is to say. It is, as it declares from the outset, a contribution.

But your declaration against cultural relativism is made on incorrect grounds and based on a strawman for what its implications are. Why is that not worthy of engaging with?

 

[danny la rouge]

But your declaration against cultural relativism is made on incorrect grounds and based on a strawman for what its implications are. Why is that not worthy of engaging with?

You did engage. And I said I don’t agree it’s a straw man. You responded that it is. I thought probably thread readers had had enough of that exchange.

Your criticism is there for people to see. If they read the pamphlet and also reflect on what you’ve said, I’m happy.

 

[hitmouse]

Not last I heard. But we are involved in the anti-university programme.

Which all feels a bit confusing given that the antiuni thing is specifically advertised as being in collaboration with the bookfair: ANTIUNIVERSITY NOW x ANARCHIST BOOKFAIR IN LONDON 2021

Having said that, I've just had a look at the main bookfair site, and either my browser's playing up or else they've just not confirmed many stalls so far:

(possibly this is on the wrong thread though?)

 

[danny la rouge]

possibly this is on the wrong thread though?)

Almost certainly.

 

[belboid]

The passages belboid quotes are separate mentions, the first (p15) from a section specifically discussing cross class alliances, and the second (p18) from a section about the practical inadequacy of guilt. The contexts are important.

The article you link to (and others) are to be taken as our commentary on BLM. This, for example: The Fire This Time - Anarchist Communist Group

This pamphlet is a critique on the shortcomings of identity politics as defined in the pamphlet. We state several times throughout the pamphlet that we are making a distinction. We deal with the issue in the introduction. For example, we say:

Being critical of identity politics is controversial and widely misunderstood and misconstrued. We
must therefore begin by being clear that when we say we are critical of identity
politics, this does not mean we oppose fighting oppression. Indeed, we disagree
with identity politics precisely because we believe it entrenches inequality and
oppression and makes it more difficult for us to achieve the overall goal of
anarchist communism. Focusing only on discrimination against one particular
group within capitalism can often lead to a reinforcement of inequalities. It is not
about ensuring there is the right proportion of women, black and disabled
business leaders or trans, Muslim and gay cops. It is about ending oppression,
not about having oppressors with the right diversity ratio. (pp4/5).

So you admit my statement was correct but say it doesn’t matter because there’s a separate article about it? What a joke.

you were meant to have written about identity politics, to have identified its praxis and critiqued it. But you didn’t you just reposted a bunch of general criticisms and made a few dubious claims. You pointed out the role of praxis so know that it’s how you put your principles into practise that counts. But it’s not here.

a single mention of a current movement and it grossly misrepresents the organisation. Why should anyone continue reading after such a lie?

and you don’t define identity politics as distinct from ‘good’ anti oppression movements. You just say ‘what we do good, what they do bad’

 

[danny la rouge]

So you admit my statement was correct but say it doesn’t matter because there’s a separate article about it? What a joke.

No. Neither of those claims is correct.

 

[belboid]

No. Neither of those claims is correct.

What the claim that those are the only mentions of BLM is incorrect? Or have I missed you mentioning another actual current movement?

I certainly didn’t miss this mythical definition of IP you say is in there. It isn’t.

 

[LDC]

What are your politics belboid? Are you in any groups or political party?

 

[belboid]

What are your politics belboid? Are you in any groups or political party?

Irrelevant to this thread.

some kind of post Trotskyist or something. I support RS21, or give them some dosh anyway.

We need to take part in liberation politics movements (even if stereotyped as ip) as (long as) the cause is right (like it is with BLM and trans rights). And we need to make our arguments (eg around cross class collaboration and the lack of value in getting more mixed boardrooms) within them, as we are supporting the struggle. The job of revolutionaries is to change the world not just interpret it.

 

[LDC]

Cheers for answering, I find it useful for context in discussions. I do find it relevant btw, it often helps me understand why people have the positions they do.

 

[Serge Forward]

What are your politics belboid? Are you in any groups or political party?

Whatever belboid's politics, I get the impression they are not arguing in good faith. The ACG makes it clear from the outset that this is a "contribution to a debate" rather than the last word on this subject - how could it be otherwise - and in no way claims that the ACG has all the answers.

Also, the ACG would agree about involvement with "liberation politics" but this is not the same as identity politics and we shouldn't conflate the two.

Finally, cultural relativism is wank.

 

[kabbes]

Finally, cultural relativism is wank.

Strawmen generally are. And easy to knock over, to boot.

 

[belboid]

Whatever belboid's politics, I get the impression they are not arguing in good faith. The ACG makes it clear from the outset that this is a "contribution to a debate" rather than the last word on this subject - how could it be otherwise - and in no way claims that the ACG has all the answers.

Also, the ACG would agree about involvement with "liberation politics" but this is not the same as identity politics and we shouldn't conflate the two.

Finally, cultural relativism is wank.

I would be very happy if this pamphlet was well argued and convincing. But it isn’t. To dismiss criticisms I make as ‘bad faith’ is a pisspoor way of avoiding criticisms. Especially considering how BLM is misrepresented in the pamphlet. If that isn’t bad faith, what is?

The fact that this is merely a ‘contribution to the debate’ doesn’t absolve it of the need to cite sources, be factually accurate and to actually define terms. Anyone can say they support ‘liberation politics’ but without stating what the distinction between them and identity politics are, then it’s a meaningless statement.

 

[danny la rouge]

What the claim that those are the only mentions of BLM is incorrect? Or have I missed you mentioning another actual current movement?

I certainly didn’t miss this mythical definition of IP you say is in there. It isn’t.

It’s fairly straightforward. This pamphlet is about things we are critical of. That is explained in the pamphlet. At some length.

BLM is a cause we support. At its core it is a straightforward and clear message about police violence against black people. We clearly have no disagreement there. (I have personally been involved in BLM actions. I even have posters in my windows).

On the specific instances mentioned we do have criticism. As you note, those are brief.

If you’re commissioning a pamphlet on Things We Agree With, get in touch with our pamphlets group with funding details.

 

[belboid]

It’s fairly straightforward. This pamphlet is about things we are critical of. That is explained in the pamphlet. At some length.

BLM is a cause we support. At its core it is a straightforward and clear message about police violence against black people. We clearly have no disagreement there. (I have personally been involved in BLM actions. I even have posters in my windows).

On the specific instances mentioned we do have criticism. As you note, those are brief.

If you’re commissioning a pamphlet on Things We Agree With, get in touch with our pamphlets group with funding details.

So it isn’t an ‘engagement with’ it’s just a string of criticisms. Not as good a subtitle I guess.

this is a one off pamphlet, not part of a series. Who knows what the acg have said about BLM elsewhere? It doesn’t take much to say you support various aspects of BLM, so why not? It would indicate you are taking the issue seriously not just setting up a straw man.

and none of that is any excuse for failing to cite any sources. When and where did this mythical meeting with the liberal tears actually happen?

likewise, who actually opposes opposing fgm? You make these assertions but show no evidence to back them up. Straw man after straw man.

How does anyone know you agree with various points if you don’t actually say so?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

So it isn’t an ‘engagement with’ it’s just a string of criticisms. Not as good a subtitle I guess.

this is a one off pamphlet, not part of a series. Who knows what the acg have said about BLM elsewhere? It doesn’t take much to say you support various aspects of BLM, so why not? It would indicate you are taking the issue seriously not just setting up a straw man.

The pamphlet I read is not just a string of criticisms.

I think it is clear from the title that has been discussed here at length that this is not the only statement that the ACG has ever, or will ever, make on the subject. Indeed you'd think that the nature of debate is that people make contributions at various points.

A small point I was going to make was about the section on supporting autonomous groups towards the end. Possibly what those might be (and at what point an autonomous group stops being one and becomes a vehicle for identity politics) could have been made clearer. But I think it would be a pretty ungenerous reading of the pamphlet to suggest that the ACG has absolutely no truck whatsoever with BLM.