Identity politics

[Bowlofbabelfish]

Not a TAAT, more a question that I want to ask but don’t want to derail another thread.

Identity politics. It’s a problem - a big one. It’s childish, immature and divides societies.

How has this predominance of identity politics arisen?

How can it be solved in a peaceful and positive way? I’m thinking of past incidences and all seem to involve some sort of unpleasant national disaster or war which brought people together. That’s not an ideal solution. So what is?

How can we move away from this identity politics type scenario (peacefully without damaging societal upheaval, war or natural disaster ) and coexist a bit better?

And the politics of class always is more important than the politics of identity.

I suppose the germane question for this board is: is identity politics good for women? I'd say not, despite the best obfuscations of the third wave, and particularly not for any groups of marginalised women who are impacted by institutional intersectionality.

is identity politics good for women?

No. On many levels. It actively feeds the ‘all you bloody feminists wanted equality so...’ trope. It creates us and them and it allows and feeds the idea of women as other, to be marginalised.

Feminism should centre on women - without actively damaging other classes ofc but if we all sit in silos proclaiming where we are on the victim ladder we are fucked.

"There is an increasing tendency - on left and right - in North America and across Europe - for people to look at political questions through the prism of identity. The identitarians want to move to away from liberal principles of equal treatment for all, colour blindness and respect for individual rights Instead they embrace a politics which divides society into contending groups and demands people define themselves by their group membership rather than as autonomous individuals.
"Those who embrace identity politics want to pit their group against others - oppressors or outgroups - in a conflict for recognition, rights and resources. Identity politics involves an assertion that group membership confers certain specific rights or benefits on members which are denied to others and attempts by others to encroach on the in-group’s rights must be rebuffed
"So an insistence that an individual should check their privilege before speaking, and therefore pipe down if they don’t fit in, or avoid cultural appropriation, in other words know their place in the world if they want to get a hearing, is a sign of left identity politics.
"And there is an equally concerning identity politics on the right. You hear it when there is an appeal to defend men’s rights, which is an attempt to make gender a cause of conflict not an aspect of character, or when some politicians suggest that our borders be closed to people because of their faith or origin. Those are just some of the signs of a growing right identity politics.
"Both right and left identity politics stand in opposition to the principles of genuine respect for diversity - of opinion and view as well as background and culture - and both subvert the idea of respecting the radical equality of the individual by demanding that some are owed more respect - and more equality - than others."

That's from a speech
Michael Gove made yesterday: policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/A-New-National-Consensus.pdf

Ye gods. Michael gove said something I agree with. Pass the smelling salts.

He’s right though. Interesting phrase about access to resources. That ties in with the inequality and austerity trigger doesn’t it?

It’s ok being all free and easy when there’s plenty to go round but when people feel under a squeeze for any reason then they huddle back in their tribes? And defend those imagined resources?

Interesting phrase about access to resources. That ties in with the inequality and austerity trigger doesn’t it?

It’s ok being all free and easy when there’s plenty to go round but when people feel under a squeeze for any reason then they huddle back in their tribes? And defend those imagined resources?

This is what a lot of lib fem trans allies think is going on with rad fems over self ID. Huddling into tribes to hold on to resources...

It demonstrates how divorced liberal feminism is from class politics IMO.

It’s a total misunderstanding, it’s a form of confirmation bias.

I noticed on the mirror world thread that LP understood real life experiences of how class and law materially affect women’s lives and that how the class is defined matters as ‘worry about losing scarce resources’ rather than worry about the few rights there are being redefined so that they are of no use.

It’s a different approach to understanding that needs to be resolved before we can stop talking at cross purposes IMO. I do wish she had hung around for that reason.

I was glad when Scotland voted to stay in the UK as I like the British setup of multiple groups all loosely gathered together under the British umbrella, giving them some room to manoeuver but with them all still being part of something greater.

In France, when people obtain French nationality they're expected to leave their old identity/identities behind.

Conversely, over here, people seem to be being positively encouraged to identify with a group rather than the nation of which their identity is part. Wariness of Nationalism has developed to the point where it's actually counterproductive, with Trevor Phillips making programs about lack of integration leading to self-imposed ghettoes and ex-Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs talking about how the UK resembles a block of flats where the occupants never talk or mix, but live separate lives.

And, though Horrible Histories can often pick apart our national myths, maybe a little more focus on the overall nation, rather than the perpetual splintering and in-fighting of identity politics, would be a more positive approach (and it still wouldn't be as uncompromising as that of our Gallic cousins).

I didn't expect to this conclusion but here we are - I've even got to the point where I can see the value of having a Royal rather than an elected Head of State (half the country wouldn't have voted for, say, President Major or, shudder, President Blair so they have half the country against them before they even started).

(What a meandering piece - I'm sure those for and against it will do a better job of getting their point across. I'm merely endeavouring to add something new rather than just reheating the same old arguments).