Prometheus 6

I was planning to write a wiki article about this at my own wiki, as part of a general discussion of belief systems. However, my article was going to treat IP in a fairly intensely negative way. Specifically, I had written a rough draft post on the conservative movement and I needed to explain the concept of IP for business managers (which is my narrative for the CM ideology).

Basically my view is that IP is a poor substitute for ideology or even dogma; IP is dogma stripped of all philosophical-cum-ethical content whatever. For example, sometimes women will self-ID as "feminists" not because of they share the philosophical or ethical outlook of [any current of] feminism, but because they just resent "men." I know of lot of people who are like this; they don't have the time or interest to even consider how the rest of their world view tends to throw members of their own group under the bus.

The way I see it is, Whiteness emerged as an early form of IP; it lacked ethical content because it could coexist amid great white-on-white cruelty, nor was there any reflection of a proper ethical construct of relations--not even so much as an arrogant, condescending white-superior one. The latter attitude comes out in the writings of early US political leaders writing letters to each other worried that whites and blacks will never be able to coexist, and hoping slavery goes away when all the Africans return to Africa. As an ideology, it was horrid, but at least it had ideological content. Subsequently, as individual members of nonwhite groups rose within the white power structure, they would embrace IP of their own to validate themselves while throwing other members of their own group under the bus.

You've accepted the conservative movement definition of the term. What would you call what Jill is talking about?

You've accepted the conservative movement definition of the term. What would you call what Jill is talking about?

Let's look at the article again. Jill references both the atrocious behavior of GWB thus:

• white, straight, Christian male is the default, [so] it’s only commented on when the rest of us voice our opinions.

• George W. Bush dressing up as a cowboy and appealing to “authentic” American men?
  
• “America’s Toughest Sheriff” swaggering around Arizona and making inmates wear pink underwear to emasculate them?
  
• John Kerry donning a hunting vest to prove his toughness?
  

Not “identity politics.”

Why not? I'd say that's a pretty good example.

1. Hillary Clinton recognizing that she’s female and perhaps that matters?
2. Obama being black?
3. Feminists promoting women’s rights?
4. People of color promoting racial equality?
5. LGBT communities challenging heteronormativity?

Suddenly identity politics are ruining America and harming the elections.

Items 1 & 2 don't say anything specific. Hillary Clinton no doubt recognizes she's female and "that matters"; but so does Carla Bruni (probably). Likewise, Barack Obama: his being Black doesn't, by itself, carry any signifiers about his own belief system. I would require a better illustration. Items 3, 4, and 5 are fairly vague, but actually refer to ideologies (applications of an ethical system to a particular setting, viz., a patriarchal system in which male normativity oppresses humans who are women, and so on). Feminism is an ideology when it's effective and accomplishes things. When it's not, you see it used sloppily as neo-colonial discourse ("Muslim societies oppress women so it's OK to wreck them and degrade them"), or invoking Black pride on behalf of Clarence Thomas. The minute you start inquiring about Justice Thomas' role in a SYSTEM that oppresses Blacks qua Blacks, then you're talking about an ideology, or, at worst, a dogma. But not, IMO, IP.

Beautiful and to the point.

Unfolding understandings of who we are and of how our various, layered identities intersect and interact with systems of power and domination are crucial to the development and articulation of our agendas.

Without our identities, without us being clear...as we can be...about how our identities shape us and our communities, it becomes difficult for us to find intelligent, intentional common ground.

My identities don't limit me and my alliances. They support me building on solid ground with those who are able to not just witness this crucial self articulation, but who are also able to self articulate.

The mix, the engagement is a crucible place, a heated forge that has the potential to create well interrogated alliances able to withstand the brunt of attacks from people like the george bushes of the world.

Though the risk may be great, the alliances have the potential to be not just great and powerful, but beautiful, vibrant, too.

Thank you again.

James:

Jill isn't saying the Bush stuff wasn't identity politics.

Her point is that "progressives" use the term the exact same way conservatives do, thereby demonizing a number of their purported allies.And they do so because WASP is their baseline too.

Reflecting on the larger philosophical outlook of this blog, I am well aware of the fact that Jill captures a basic principle you've defended yourself many times at this site: that Usonian politics is a pastiche of rival identity politics, and the way in which people debate politics consists of an elaborate triangulation of identity ("As a woman, I think x, but as an employee of Walmart, I think z, and as a White person I think -oo."). So the Conservative Movement (CM) is being hypocritical when it condemns it, because it's being selective.

I totally agree there.

One way of responding to this is to say, "Identity politics is a basic part of life" (true) "and therefore we should use the term as a non-pejorative, because people not in the 'prime normative group' need to fight back."

Another way of responding to this is to say, "The demands of feminists, of African American community activists, of LGBT activists, inter alia, are fundamental to justice." All I can tell you is, the latter approach hooked me in.

Identity politics is dangerous because it substitutes nonsensical debates (whether the president has increases melanin content in his skin or has a vagina) versus the SHOOTING WAR going on in Iraq. Jesus Christ people, there are way more @#$%$ important things in the world right now!

You know, most humans with normal intelligence can have two conversations that don't even take place at the same time, without obstructing anything.

The issue is about more than politics. It's about the way we understand our world. As I see it, relativism is no better than reductionism. Neither is a reality-based approach to understanding the world.

Jill isn't saying the Bush stuff wasn't identity politics...

Absolutely, she wasn't. That's why I included them in the bulleted list. So she said,

"Not 'identity politics'."

Which I interpret to mean, "That never gets referred to as 'identity politics,' but it clearly is."

JILL: Identity has always influenced elections. Identity has always been a political cornerstone. Identity has always been something candidates focused on in order to get themselves elected.

ME: yes, it has. But in order to form a coalition of voters in a diverse environment, you cannot use identity politics; you require an ideology. If a homogeneous community is "besieged" by other people, then that homogeneous community will likely respond to identity politics. If the leaders are guided by "the iron law of institutions" then they will not make the institutional jump from identity politics to ideological governance.

Okay. You're on a different topic. Jill was writing about getting one's own vision clear.

I agree with where how she's looking at the term IP as an extension of the white normative frame. It is. I am bothered by the conclusion that we should, not abandon, but use the term positively. Doesn't anyone else find that dissonant with getting outside of the white male Christian frame? Cultural hegemony is a real thing. If it were as simple as taking terms and making them positive, it would have been done and would be happening with many things right about now.

That's not how it works.

When you don't control the main levers of power, you can't just flip meanings around in that way. We should abandon the right wing term, IP. We shouldn't abandon our politics. But we shouldn't use their characterizations of us to describe ourselves, positively or negatively. We should never use their words on ourselves. Ever.

The problem is, whatever term you choose folks will say, "Oh that's just identity politics," and you're back where you started. Folks like our anonymous friend upthread will tell you what your words mean and you waste time flipping terminologies. Or you use the new word to mean the same thing you meant when you said the old word...again, no net gain.

Years-years-years back I was having conversation about the ills of Black collective politics in light of the OJ verdict. The guy said something like, "When I say 'race' I mean 'tribe'...no more, no less." I said, "When I say 'race' I mean the first cut at the American caste system...no more no less. Now we each know what the other means when we say 'race.'"