Identity politics

Identity politics, is by its nature a problem, it allows people to become close minded and shut down instantly from views other than their own. It makes people ignorant to things. To become a mere robot and not question their belief, to simply say "My party is defined by these traits, I support my party so I should mirror these beliefs."

It creates schisms where there were none, it breeds conflict, but not in a rational way, rather it promulgates an "us and them" idea. Something that this world already has too much of.


YOU define yourself, not your political view. Discuss. (33 mark question, please do not write in the margins or use your real name, student numbers please.)

A little like the indefinite mainstream, or more specific?
Mainstream, though it seems a torrential raging river, when picked apart is nothing but a piddly puddle of whichever group the focus is on at any one given time.

What you've just described is called "culture".

Obedience vs. deviance.

Obedience is necessary for structure which is necessary to prevent anarchy, and creates norms

but deviance is creativity and innovation rebelling against those norms which is also necessary.

Which one someone values more, is often highly correlated with their social position.

Those in power, police, etc.. often value structure more, because it makes their job easier, and those without jobs, people that are not managers, arists, or people in social activist groups, etc.., often the other.

It takes a real mature person to not lazily write off the other side of the coin, which we probably all are guilty of several times a day.

Identity politics is largely a result of class divisions like race and so on, and also largely a product of a liberal-democratic society. When classes are divided amongst each other they will pursue what they perceive to be in the interests of whatever group they self-identify with, leaving concerns about class and the wider society in general by the wayside. It's generally not helped by a highly individualistic, consumerist culture, where people are encouraged to brand themselves the same way everything else in their life is branded. A lot of this isn't even conscious, it is just the natural mode of how a person understands themselves when brought up in a society where everything is a commodity to be sold.

Originally Posted by Shahada

Identity politics is largely a result of class divisions like race and so on, and also largely a product of a liberal-democratic society. When classes are divided amongst each other they will pursue what they perceive to be in the interests of whatever group they self-identify with, leaving concerns about class and the wider society in general by the wayside. It's generally not helped by a highly individualistic, consumerist culture, where people are encouraged to brand themselves the same way everything else in their life is branded. A lot of this isn't even conscious, it is just the natural mode of how a person understands themselves when brought up in a society where everything is a commodity to be sold.

This is actually one of my main critiques of the liberal effort in general. To add to what you said, mainstream liberalism tries to combat forms of systematic oppression, such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., by reinforcing the existence of these classes. The logic seems roughly to be "we have class x, and class y of people, now let's give them equal lists of de jure legal priveleges." The problem is that this sort of identity-based thinking ("the gays," "the blacks," etc.) even if well-intentioned, bolsters the systematic oppression brought about by the more fundamental assumptions and social/economic institutions in our society by reinforcing not only the existence, but the primacy, of the identity group. And, as you said, this often isn't even conscious.

Originally Posted by Valdyr

This is actually one of my main critiques of the liberal effort in general. To add to what you said, mainstream liberalism tries to combat forms of systematic oppression, such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., by reinforcing the existence of these classes. The logic seems roughly to be "we have class x, and class y of people, now let's give them equal lists of de jure legal priveleges." The problem is that this sort of identity-based thinking ("the gays," "the blacks," etc.) even if well-intentioned, bolsters the systematic oppression brought about by the more fundamental assumptions and social/economic institutions in our society by reinforcing not only the existence, but the primacy, of the identity group. And, as you said, this often isn't even conscious.

Yeah and I think it's worth pointing out that for me as a leftist this is particularly insidious. I am categorically against racism, sexism, homophobia and so on, full stop. At the same time though identity politics, as you say, often entrench these divisions, and it is very hard, at least for me, to make convincing anti-racist arguments without falling into identity politics traps myself. Maybe I just need to learn how to explain my ideas better, but it's very difficult to make an anti-racist, anti-misogyny, etc. argument without falling into some sort of "vs. them" type mindset. For example one of the easiest ways to explain racism is to point out the inequality between whites and blacks in the US, but this very easily falls into those problems: People perceive the two as necessarily in opposition to each other, and ingrained biases in language and culture lead us to frame them in such a way verbally and in our thoughts. Being an anti-racist/misogynist/whatever can be pretty difficult in our society if you're not a liberal.

I find it's also difficult because it's easy to find yourself arguing for things that are wrong for the right reasons. For example, I've been in really heated debates on this forum about affirmative action before. I think AA has generally been a positive thing for minorities in the US and has harmed other groups of people relatively little. So when someone says "AA is racism!" or something else I strongly disagree with I feel compelled to argue because I do not think what they are saying is backed up by the facts. However, I'm really opposed to any sort of system wherein a quota program like AA is needed in general, and consider AA a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. So on the one hand I feel like I need to correct racist myths about the concept, but on the other hand I worry that by doing so I am legitimizing the ideological underpinning of a liberal system generally, which I don't want to do.

I think Zizek has said some very interesting things on this subject, particularly the failures of liberalism in combating prejudice and "intolerance" and how "tolerance" is in many ways as problematic as traditional prejudices. Here's a link for anyone who's interested: Europe must move beyond mere tolerance | Slavoj This is a subject he's spoken and written on a fair amount, but I think this is a fairly good distillation for the purposes of this topic. Particularly this portion:

Instead of bemoaning the newly emerging racist Europe, such statements announce, we should be self-critical, asking to what extent our own abstract multiculturalism contributed to this sad state of things. If all sides do not share or respect the same civility, then multiculturalism turns into legally regulated mutual ignorance or hatred. The conflict about multiculturalism already is one about Leitkultur: it is not a conflict between cultures, but between different visions of how different cultures can and should co-exist, about the rules and practices these cultures have to share if they are to co-exist.

One should thus avoid getting caught in the liberal game of "how much tolerance can we afford": should we tolerate it if they prevent their children going to state schools? If they force their women to dress in a certain way? If they arrange marriages or brutalise gay people? At this level, of course, we are never tolerant enough, or we are already too tolerant, neglecting the rights of women, gay people etc.

The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants. Struggles where "there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks" are many, from ecology to the economy.

And a more detailed essay on the subject: Slavoj Zizek- Tolerance as an Ideological Category

Originally Posted by Souled In

It takes a real mature person to not lazily write off the other side of the coin, which we probably all are guilty of several times a day.

This^^ Critical thinking is for the most part dead. I find that most so called independent thinkers are only trying to mindlessly act independent because the people around them are acting independent -- a "herd of independent minds." Don't get me wrong, there are many critical thinkers out there who have my respect including a few on these boards (even if they don't agree with my own ideas) but I often get annoyed when people automatically assume that critical thinking always leads one to become more "non-conformist" which is not always the case. At some point too, being a "conformist" really becomes being a non-conformist.

Originally Posted by Shahada

"tolerance" is in many ways as problematic as traditional prejudices.

There is something called the fallacy of positive tolerance. People like to split things into categories of positive tolerance where we accept/set all ideas as equal and negative tolerance where we only accept certain ideas that are our own. The truth of the matter is, positive tolerance does not exist. Advocating "tolerance" is really just intolerance for ideas that are not your own. You're just as guilty of being intolerant of people who do not think like you.

Everytime I point out this logical contradiction in the arguments of others, they get very offended but I often think that these people do not understand what it means. The fallacy of positive tolerance does not automatically mean that we should accept so called "intolerant" ideas (honestly every idealogy is inherently intolerant). It points to niether side in an argument as being better in regards to tolerance. What it does say is that if the only reason for advocating a policy/idea is just because it is more "tolerant" (from your selective definition) then its a load of junk. It's not a valid argument to use but it amazes me as to how people automatically buy into many things purely on the grounds of this false notion that "its more tolerant."

Multicultarlism has its ups and downs. I would like to see a multicultural society because I think it generates more innovation. Repressing large portions of a nation's talent pool is damaging to the future prospects of a country in the long run economically, socially, and militarily. I can back that up with evidence. On the reverse side, someone could propose many other logical arguments against it with evidence of their own. Both are valid premises; we can have a good debate. Arguing for multiculturalism simply because its more "tolerant," however, is a rather flimsy and flawed position to take.

Originally Posted by Aegis

This^^ Critical thinking is for the most part dead. I find that most so called independent thinkers are only trying to mindlessly act independent because the people around them are acting independent -- a "herd of independent minds." Don't get me wrong, there are many critical thinkers out there who have my respect including a few on these boards (even if they don't agree with my own ideas) but I often get annoyed when people automatically assume that critical thinking always leads one to become more "non-conformist" which is not always the case. At some point too, being a "conformist" really becomes being a non-conformist.

Haha true, when a conformist or pragmatist has two groups of equal influence, they must choose.

I also note that I tend to start out critically, and then do a bit of backtracking as my diplomacy kicks in.

Since I do it, I try to be more open to it in others, but I do want to improve my ability to be fair.

Now that I think of it, critical thinking is a bit harsh sounding. Though, I understand that I will when no favors from half of the world in calling it useless past the point of maintaining Love.

Why is there identity politics?

In a nutshell...

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

- Booker T. Washington (1856-1915.)

Just substitute in whatever "identity group" you want.