A brilliant left wing take down of identity politics

[leyat]

Wanted to share this video I just watched, it is a brilliant left wing take down of identity politics, totally worth making a cuppa and giving it a wee watch. Nice to have a new exciting online voice out there.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=2RmO9GUh8pM

(Also for those on twitter you can follow her @tan_1th)

Whether woman is material biology or not, feminism is still identity politics.

"Identity politics refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics are shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations. Examples include social organizations based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, * sex*, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status."

The only people who try to assert feminism isn't identity politics, are those who are trying to frame identity politics as inherently negative.

Identity politics just basically means any politics at all, as in trying to influence the government, that is outside of a formal political party.

Feminism is an identity politics because it is based on the experiences of females, and your sex is part of your identity, feminism is not a formal political party.

(I agree completely you cannot simply opt in or self identity your way into being a female in the way you cannot identify into a social class or race).

Marx viewed feminism as a single issue politics (the term identity politics was not used until about the 60's) and detrimental to the overall aim of economic equality, most of the aims of feminism in theory should be solved by Marxism without the need for single issue campaigning.

Under Lenin, women experienced a great liberation, were welcomed into all areas of the workforce and the communist party. Marriage was viewed as a type of prostitution and was virtually destroyed, childcare was communal.
Unfortunately when Stalin came in, he changed everything and women were forced back into the home.

The Queen belongs to a different class to her female cleaners, all are female. In class analysis 'class' really refers to socioeconomic position not state of being female or not. Indeed women are referred to as a 'class' but that's using the word to mean 'group' iykwim.

Thanks Materialist. That makes sense to me as a fundamental position. Race too as I understand can be analysed from a class perspective and was done so by those looking at the legacy of slavery, colonialism and i
Immigration. Esp in 70s and 80s sociology.

I do need to read more on this but I think a reason why some on the left moved away from class analysis was because it felt limiting for and paternalistic for some women and ethnic minorities as their economic situations improved. Also as you helped me to see on another thread it doesn't necessarily work for all groups that would have protection under EA 2010 so there did need to be other ways of thinking about disadvantage and discrimination other than class analysis.

Problem now is that although people can see economic inequality they don't think society can be changed. With some people you have this you have this combination of neoliberalist thinking, narcissism, branding and the and need be special. Half understood ideas about 'identity' are being used to shut down debate and police the thinking of others. Those of us outside of this bubble may throw our hands up in frustration as we don't know how to deal with this. Calling for the end of consideration of group identity as some on the right do is a dangerous response. Calm rational consideration of claims is needed. Unpicking how people feel from what it means for how others should act. Plus more class analysis and less pomo.

garam, that definition is bollocks. I don't "identify" as a woman, I am an adult human female, one of the child-bearing class. This is biological reality and it is at the root of all sexism and misogyny. Oppression is something others do to you, not something you identify into.

From the few books I've read on identity politics, I understand that a/ it rose in the academic sphere, and b/ analysis of oppression or privilege is based on groups. People's identities - which group an individual feels part of - is where the 'individual' comes in, and also when we discuss 'lived experiences' i.e. how each person experiences oppression. When people of these self id groups got together, they pooled experiences and found broad stroke commonalities e.g. employers making negative comments about kinky hair. Just like women did and do.

That seems entirely valid and sensible. Although I don't see sex as an identity group, it is nonetheless hard to deny that feminists have long spoken about privilege, oppression and made group statements (that controversial 'men are rapists').

I do think identity politics has become authoritarian. Also, the use of academically precise terminology in everyday contexts is inflammatory and hugely unhelpful to progressive causes. To my mind, that is not to say identity politics movement has got the wrong ideas, nor does it say there is no place for a class-based analyses of oppression. None of these things are mutually exclusive imo.

It's always amusing when someone thinks they've got a gotcha with "feminism is a type of identity politics". Implying that the correct way to think about this is either having to accept identity politics or, if we oppose it, having to reject feminism.

I wasn't that impressed with the video. She was coming from a very specific viewpoint that sees class as the only real, or most important, axis of oppression. Which is not a very feminist viewpoint!

When Thatcher / Reagan neoliberalism came along, it was guided by the concept of the "rational consumer". Individualism was the key to freeing the people from the State. It would, so the theory ran, allow us all to rationally chose the life we want and, by those rational choices, create a fair and prosperous society.

Of course, it hasn't worked out that way. Society isn't equal or fair, and it's only the wealthy who prosper. Yet the concept of the "rational consumer" has become instilled into society. Identity politics is about liberating the individual by protecting them from any and all possible societal restrictions, so that they can choose the life they want to live. It views society as inherently flawed and corrupt. It isn't "leftist" and it isn't even "liberal". It's libertarian, and comes straight from Ayn Rand's playbook.

As with many political ideologies, it's capable of hypocrisy. If a particular movement comes to dominate an area of libertarian society, it strictly enforces its moral code to make sure people are libertarians in the right way. So, religious right-wing libertarians will oppose abortion because pro-life is the wrong kind of personal choice. Left-wing "progressives" oppose laws that protect women because giving women autonomy through protected spaces and sex-based positive discrimination is the wrong kind of personal freedom.

I think our current political environment is best described as ideologues vs realists. The ideologues are the Brexiters and the Corbynistas, whilst the realists are the centrists and left or right of centre liberals. Whilst we expect libertarianism on the right, I think we've been caught off guard by libertarian entryism on the left. By donning the terms "liberal" and "progressive", and by claiming to be for social equality, rather than just personal liberty, the ideologue libertarians have hijacked left-wing politics.