[luckyjez]

Just some amateur musings really, about identity politics and the rise in conflict and nationalism in most of the world.
Identity politics seem to have come to the fore in the last few years, and justifiably so in communities that have been oppressed and persecuted. Whilst we all have identities we use (white, climber, male, tall, heterosexual etc etc), some feel more important than others to us and are used for different purposes or at different times (or not consciously used at all). It's likely that identity labels don't feel that important to me as I am the least oppressed category of the lot (probably) - white, male, middle class, privately educated.
Do identity labels always mean conflict? By definition, labeling anything about yourself means that other people will not be the same label as you, and therefore different. Difference can cause fear and uncertainty and a possible reaction to that is to move closer to those most similar (safety in numbers?) and act defensively (even if there is no attack), leading to ideas like 'either you're with us or against us', with no middle ground. I guess nationalism or identifying most strongly with the nation of your birth or habitation, is the one I struggle with - you have no choice where you are born so why defend and promote something you had no control over. I understand that through nurture we become part of where we grow up and if you live in a community where most people you meet have similar identifying labels, you could take that as 'normal' and anything different as 'other' and therefore to be avoided or attacked.
I guess I'm trying to balance within myself, the positives of identity where raising the profile of a community (LGBTQ+ for example) makes those who identify as such, more familiar and less frightening and helps them gain legal equality, and the negatives where only those whose identities are the same as yours are deemed acceptable, and identity is more important than behaviour or character (Trump possibly (?) where his supporters believe he's 'one of them' and ignore his actions??).
I'm sure this is all 'virtue signalling' on my part however. 

[i_a_coops]

Interesting topic. I actually think there is a big difference between progressive or inclusionist politics (where the idea is 'let's actually listen to what oppressed groups have to say and try to modify our behaviour accordingly') and the alt right reactionary nationalist stuff 'ugh the SJWs are taking my free speech and also immigrants aaaargh'.

I mean yes the white nationalists think they are being oppressed by postmodern neomarxist sjw snowflakes challenging their freedom of speech and that immigration is actually 'white genocide'  but.... Um..... I don't actually know where to start deconstructing that shit but they are wrong

So I think there's an important difference between campaigning for lgbtq+ rights or for anti racism and right wing nationalism even though they are both centred around identity :p

[user deactivated]

As a rule of thumb, the stronger the identification whatever that might be. E.g profession, work, looks, cause, politics, football team etc etc. The greater the potential to generate misery for ones self and possibly others. The slightly uncomfortable paradox being trying not to identify with ‘being the person who doesn’t identify’. It seems that some identities are recognised as good while others bad and these things shift from time to time. Facts don’t really have an identity. Often you see certain identities to a cause as being positive ones  e.g wearing a red ribbon or poppy at the right time as identifying with a cause, I’m pretty sure that if identity politics of all types was abandoned then the world would be a better place.

[andy popp]

Disclaimer: I’m writing from a US perspective

"Identity politics" is often used pejoratively (rather in the same manner as "political correctness" is). There are at least two strands to the critiques:
 
1. Identity politics are trivializing
2. Identity politics divide rather than unite us

It is most often the right accusing the left of practicing identity politics and committing these sins. But of course, as Coops points out, the right practice identity politics zealously. There is no greater trader in identity politics than Donald Trump (this is the politics of whiteness, of course). UKIP seem to have been boiled down to pure identity politics at this point. I have friends whose Catholic parents vote on issue and one issue alone: abortion – more identity politics As Coops notes these identity politics are exclusive and exclusionary. They are designed to divide. Moreover these identities are often assigned from outside. A black person in America has no choice but to have a black identity (at least in some contexts).

However, a genuine, inclusionary identity politics, based in an understanding of intersectionality, can be a basis for coalition building. The barrier to that happening is defensiveness (e.g. white peoples’ defensiveness over issues of race). Intersectionality simply means recognizing the entanglement of different issues. Old school leftism recognized class as they only meaningful analytical category. But that doesn’t really stand any more. To give an example, in the US economic injustice and racial injustice are inseparable, not least because of history. They can’t be addressed separately (and that goes for poor white people as well as poor black people). This might sound all fine and dandy but rather abstract but I have direct personal experience of such deliberate coalition building – a coalition that genuinely crosses boundaries of race, class, faith (and no faith), gender and sexuality. It is intended to use it to build political power (e.g. get people elected).

This potential is one reason why identity politics isn’t trivial. The other reason is that the problems of being of one particular identity are rarely trivial. Given black economic equality, mass incarceration and police violence, being black in America isn’t trivial. Given the determined push to once again make abortion illegal, being a woman in America isn’t trivial. And given the determined push to quash only recently granted LGBQT rights, being LGBQT in America isn’t trivial.

I may well get lambasted or lampooned for this post, but I don’t really care.

[user deactivated]

I may well get lambasted or lampooned for this post, but I don’t really care.

Not even a little bit? 

[Stu Littlefair]

... genuine, inclusionary identity politics, based in an understanding of intersectionality, can be a basis for coalition building. The barrier to that happening is defensiveness (e.g. white peoples’ defensiveness over issues of race).

There’s so much to like in your post Andy, that I feel churlish picking apart this one particular paragraph. However, in my limited experience of US gender politics, the ideal you describe seems to be an exception.

I’ve seen far too many examples of “I don’t have to listen to or engage with your views because your [delete as appropriate] privilege means you cannot understand my lived experience”.

I’m deeply uncomfortable with that and it colours the whole issue for me.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, this thread was sooooo ripe for a piss take (along the lines of “I don’t even identify with my own reflection”).

Then I ended up agreeing with so much.
In particular Stu’s point, which is going to be the biggest stumbling block to any “coalition”, going forward.

[andy popp]

... genuine, inclusionary identity politics, based in an understanding of intersectionality, can be a basis for coalition building. The barrier to that happening is defensiveness (e.g. white peoples’ defensiveness over issues of race).

There’s so much to like in your post Andy, that I feel churlish picking apart this one particular paragraph. However, in my limited experience of US gender politics, the ideal you describe seems to be an exception.

I’ve seen far too many examples of “I don’t have to listen to or engage with your views because your [delete as appropriate] privilege means you cannot understand my lived experience”.

I’m deeply uncomfortable with that and it colours the whole issue for me.

I get that Stu. That's why I wrote "a genuine ... identity politics" - to indicate that this isn't always how things work out. I'm writing from my own personal experience and perhaps I've been lucky in my experiences.

That said, I think some discomfort is inevitable and part of the process.

[A Jooser]

Patrick was a Welshman, taken to Ireland as a slave by the Irish who were... you know... slavers...

I think someone needs to apologise...   

[AndyR]

Semi-serious question ... a thought popped into my head can a person of unambiguous Irish descent ever be accused of "white privilege"? Given that that they never colonised anyone.

Large parts of Boston?

[Mike Highbury]

And the old favourite for fans of political graft, Tammany Hall, of course.

[Oldmanmatt]

Growing up in Darkest Cornwall, in the 70’s and early 80’s, I was mocked for being dark skinned.
Often branded “Gandhi” ,“Wop”,  “Dago”  or just “Monkey” (a legacy of my Mother’s Italian/Maltese ancestry, mixed with my Father’s Romany Grandmother).

It was a shock, when I moved to San Hose, at 14, to simply be unquestionably “White”. I don’t recall, during any of my many years in the States (both later, as an adult, and as a minor in the 80’s); ever being asked what “kind” of white I was. As soon as I spoke, I was instantly recognisable as English, but few people actually asked where I was from.
I can pass for local, throughout the Mediterranean rim, though, working clockwise from Gibraltar; I need sunglasses from the Southern Boarder of Israel.
Again, until I open my gob.
Same in the Mid East.
But, hit India/Pakistan and I’m white again.

I am absolutely certain, that throughout a lifetime of travelling and living overseas, being “white” is an advantage (on balance) and everywhere I was “not white enough”, I was at a disadvantage.
For me, the proof coming when I opened my mouth and my accent etc, instantly made my perceived skin tone several shades lighter, in the eyes of whoever I was addressing.
From my N=1 perspective, White privilege, is absolutely a thing, and it’s got very little to do with which country you actually hail from.
That latter distinction might come into play, within the broader “White” community, but those outside, or on the edge, couldn’t give a toss. 

[ghisino]

I am absolutely certain, that throughout a lifetime of travelling and living overseas, being “white” is an advantage (on balance) and everywhere I was “not white enough”, I was at a disadvantage.

the same is probably true for any visible sign that might be associated with social dominance.

i recall an amusing example from a french youtuber. the guy, as a part time job during his student years, had occasionally spent afternoons out with professional models, being a sort of "tourist guide" for them in Paris. Whenever shops/retaurants/cafés' employees assumed that he and the model were actually dating, he would be treated with unusual reverence, as if said employees thought that since he was dating a mannequin he should be some sort of VIP.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, as I think about it, the concept of “identity” is incredibly subjective isn’t it?

The “social dominance” thing that Ghisino mentioned, is a majorly double edged sword (as is whiteness).
I’m 6’1”, built like the back end of a bus and a somewhat brutal visage and that influences people’s initial impressions of me, every bit as much as my skin tone (again, until my voice is heard, where upon my rather posh, if overly loud, tones; can be seen to visibly shift those perceptions).

I was certainly “White” enough to be targeted by the Tigers in Sri Lanka (and held for a little over 24hrs as a suspected Mercenary working for the Government (Surf board and Wife in tow, not withstanding)).
And, again by some (rather pleasant, actually) Communist Insurgents, on Mindoro (released in exchange for a couple packets of Marlborough Red, from my Yank mate Dwight, after a whole 2hrs!).

And, the number of people who assume I want to fight them! What the fuck is that all about?

My point being, we ascribe identity to others and that may not correspond to their self perceived identity, or  the identity imposed upon them by the person standing next to you, or even your own perception, five minutes after the first one!

So, can someone explain how “identity politics” is useful in any way? I can’t see anything more pointless than trying to define and sharply delineate “identity” in yourself or others.

[petejh]

So, can someone explain how “identity politics” is useful in any way? I can’t see anything more pointless than trying to define and sharply delineate “identity” in yourself or others.

Identity politics are needed to clearly delineate who the riff-raff are and aren't.

Useful for keeping pre-practising pad-party wankers^tm in their rightful place in the hierarchy of British Climbing.

[Oldmanmatt]

On the above note, and not too far off topic...

Having now read this review, I feel I should read the book.

Sort of.

However, I’ll be buggered if I’m going to buy it, so it’ll have to wait until I find an abandoned copy or it drops to £0.01 on iBooks...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/24/white-by-bret-easton-ellis-review-sound-fury-and-insignificance?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1556102560

[petejh]

edit, CBA

[Sasquatch]

Semi-serious question ... a thought popped into my head can a person of unambiguous Irish descent ever be accused of "white privilege"? Given that that they never colonised anyone.

Large parts of Boston?

Big difference between immigration and colonization innit? Or we can say that large parts of europe have now been "colonized" by africans?  Whole areas of the pacific states have been colonized by either Chinese or Mexicans?  Is reverse colonization happening?  No.  Colonization was generally a harsh and imperialistic dictatorship imposed by a country over another location who had no say in their "new government"

However, a genuine, inclusionary identity politics, based in an understanding of intersectionality, can be a basis for coalition building. The barrier to that happening is defensiveness (e.g. white peoples’ defensiveness over issues of race). Intersectionality simply means recognizing the entanglement of different issues. Old school leftism recognized class as they only meaningful analytical category. But that doesn’t really stand any more. To give an example, in the US economic injustice and racial injustice are inseparable, not least because of history. They can’t be addressed separately (and that goes for poor white people as well as poor black people). This might sound all fine and dandy but rather abstract but I have direct personal experience of such deliberate coalition building – a coalition that genuinely crosses boundaries of race, class, faith (and no faith), gender and sexuality. It is intended to use it to build political power (e.g. get people elected).

Nitpicking first - You state that economic injustice and racial injustice are inseparable, but then in the in the next sentence you say the same goes for both poor white and poor black people.  I'm a bit confused here, but think you mean that the means to address economic inequality is different for whites vs. blacks.  Is that what you meant?  If so, then I massively disagree.  To me there are two cornerstones of balancing economic inequality.  One is education and the other is general social supports and I don't mean just welfare.  Social support to me is family support (both immediate and extended), community support (friends, friends parents, acquaintances, church, etc.), and then governmental support.  I believe that these apply regardless of race. I do believe that there are societal structures in place, both real and perceived, that lead to continued racial inequality and need to be broken down, but that is a different case. 

In regards to the identity question, I honestly feel that the defensiveness is one side of a coin.  Most often I see that as being a reaction to accusations of discrimination from people who genuinely believe that they are not discriminating. This creates a us vs. them situation.  On both the Left and Right today in the US, the "evangalists" on both sides are yelling so loudly that they're the only voices being heard.  It's bullshit, but that's where we're at.  My question is how do you shut them up?

By the way, I agree with the idea that "class" is the most useful category in getting a "progressive" movement to get genuine support and benefit the largest number of people overall. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Seriously though, we’re not pretending “Empire” , “Colonisation”  and “Slavery” are purely White/European perpetrated atrocities, are we?

Because history would suggest they might be the least racially correlated human activities. Seemingly more a matter of relative military technology. The moment a group of humans develop something capable of defeating another group of humans (or, preferably, travelling to somewhere with a much less technologically advanced group), they do so; regardless of the skin tone of the perps or the perp’ed upon.

17/18/19th century European colonialism aren’t even particularly brutal compared to many others.
Fucking brutal, to be sure, but not “more so” than “non-white” imperialists. (Japan, anyone? Zulu Empire? And others).

[andy popp]

However, a genuine, inclusionary identity politics, based in an understanding of intersectionality, can be a basis for coalition building. The barrier to that happening is defensiveness (e.g. white peoples’ defensiveness over issues of race). Intersectionality simply means recognizing the entanglement of different issues. Old school leftism recognized class as they only meaningful analytical category. But that doesn’t really stand any more. To give an example, in the US economic injustice and racial injustice are inseparable, not least because of history. They can’t be addressed separately (and that goes for poor white people as well as poor black people). This might sound all fine and dandy but rather abstract but I have direct personal experience of such deliberate coalition building – a coalition that genuinely crosses boundaries of race, class, faith (and no faith), gender and sexuality. It is intended to use it to build political power (e.g. get people elected).

Nitpicking first - You state that economic injustice and racial injustice are inseparable, but then in the in the next sentence you say the same goes for both poor white and poor black people.  I'm a bit confused here, but think you mean that the means to address economic inequality is different for whites vs. blacks.  Is that what you meant?  If so, then I massively disagree. 

No, I meant the opposite, that black and white poverty need to be addressed together and equally, even if the roots of that poverty are not identical. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

On class, the political organizations I'm most involved with are black led but place at least equal, if not more, stress on economic issues compared to others.

[Sasquatch]

Ok -

No, I meant the opposite, that black and white poverty need to be addressed together and equally, even if the roots of that poverty are not identical. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

On class, the political organizations I'm most involved with are black led but place at least equal, if not more, stress on economic issues compared to others.

OK, that makes sense.  I think there's a big difference between historical reasons for why certain things are the way they are, and using those reasons to address current issues.  Both are important, but shouldn't be intermixed. 

Seriously though, we’re not pretending “Empire” , “Colonisation”  and “Slavery” are purely White/European perpetrated atrocities, are we?

Because history would suggest they might be the least racially correlated human activities. Seemingly more a matter of relative military technology. The moment a group of humans develop something capable of defeating another group of humans (or, preferably, travelling to somewhere with a much less technologically advanced group), they do so; regardless of the skin tone of the perps or the perp’ed upon.

17/18/19th century European colonialism aren’t even particularly brutal compared to many others.
Fucking brutal, to be sure, but not “more so” than “non-white” imperialists. (Japan, anyone? Zulu Empire? And others).

I don't think anyone really thinks that, but they certainly are the most recent, and the only ones that haven't fallen as a result. 

My issue with identity politics on both sides is that there is a tendency to operate under a zero sum game concept (us vs. them).  For one side to "win", the other has to "lose". 

[ghisino]

So, can someone explain how “identity politics” is useful in any way? I can’t see anything more pointless than trying to define and sharply delineate “identity” in yourself or others.

i'm not sure if what i'm about to write is on topic with "identity politics".

I suspect that for politics to work as intended, i.e. as a power-management and collective decision making system , it is very useful that the individuals perceive themselves as belonging to the group for which the leaders are taking the decision, doesn't matter if it is a social class, a sexual orientation, an ethnicity, a geographical entity,  a culture, a language, etc...

This sense of belonging to the same "tribe" seems to be helped by the act of defining those who do not belong to it: not necessairly "enemies", but at least strangers, outsiders.

I recall seeing a very interesting documentary about the social relations and politics of chimps in their natural environment. The identity-related issue goes as follows: when a group thrives and reaches quite a big size, it seems that the chimps start to loose track of who is "us" and who is "them". Maybe because they can't recall too many faces with certainty. When the critical size is reached, a period of very unstable chimp-politics occurs, a civil war of sorts, until finally the group splits in two. At this point the political order within the two now-independent groups is quickly re-established and the two remaining tribes can go on with their usual monkey bussiness (including fighting, killing and eating their neighbors)

[user deactivated]

Never mind all this bollocks, whatever happened to ‘luckyJez’?

[petejh]

I recall seeing a very interesting documentary about the social relations and politics of chimps in their natural environment. The identity-related issue goes as follows: when a group thrives and reaches quite a big size, it seems that the chimps start to loose track of who is "us" and who is "them". Maybe because they can't recall too many faces with certainty. When the critical size is reached, a period of very unstable chimp-politics occurs, a civil war of sorts, until finally the group splits in two. At this point the political order within the two now-independent groups is quickly re-established and the two remaining tribes can go on with their usual monkey bussiness (including fighting, killing and eating their neighbors)

Presumably they eventually end up introducing regulations on bananas.


(great post btw - chimps teach us so much!)

[SamT]

Never mind all this bollocks, whatever happened to ‘luckyJez’?

Lit the intellectual blue touch paper and ran..