The stark contradiction at the heart of identity politics



For ideologues of identity, a racist is someone who does not share a whole, approved and totalised view of race, racism and how to combat it; likewise with sexism and gender. Their arguments come down to an assumption that, since they are ‘fighting’ racism or sexism or both, then anyone who criticises anything about them or their approach is by definition racist or sexist.

We can see here a stark contradiction, that you can be defined as (and therefore known to be) racist or sexist without having expressed a single racist or sexist thought, indeed for just sitting at home watching TV and not joining the struggle.

This approach is based on the assumption of higher knowledge and understanding; in seeing that terms like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ have a broader meaning in relation to the status of society as a whole rather than the person who is being judged and condemned. We might see it as an example of  a sort of ‘social justice’ trumping personalised ideas of justice and ethics: whether you are a racist or not does not matter if you are a racist on a structural level which those of superior understanding can see. 

As a form of moralistic judgement this negates morality itself and places knowledge – of the ‘real’ situation - in its place. It negates factual reality for a higher plain which most of us do not have access to. Alas, we poor souls are stuck in a version of the old Marxist ‘false consciousness’, failing to see reality as it really is beneath the false sheen of...reality.


For more on similar themes, see Identity politics and the left page.

Comments

  1. Sam13 June 2015 at 17:38

    I shudder whenever I hear the term "structural". It's all about denial of the fact that any problem relates to actual real people, in the real world. For me, if you don't believe in justice on an individual level then you don't believe in justice. I guess that's the difference between enlightenment liberals and authoritarians. It's sad that kids are not taught properly about basic democratic principles - equality before the law, presumption of innocence, etc. I honestly think that would help counter the kind of nonsense we are seeing these days. You have to hope it is temporary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phil13 June 2015 at 18:16

    I don't think many of these people understand how truly alienating their behaviour is. I have noticed with myself that I have to be careful not to abandon all my 'left wing' principles because I am in conflict with some very strident and arrogant members of the left. If you're not careful you end up becoming contrarian and Clarkson or Liddle-esque.

    A close personal friend said I was a racist yesterday when I commented that given that it is possible that White Britons will be in the minority in the UK by the end of the century, it might have been nice if someone had asked them if this is what they wanted. To be frank, I don't think it's what my Great Uncle fought and was wounded in Normandy for.

    I'm not convinced that such sentiment is 'racist' although I accept that since it is fear-based, it is xenophobia. I am not comfortable with myself for that but I recognise it nonetheless. I think what I really object to is that it has all been so undemocratic.

    The difficulty for me is that I have worked with students from around the world for over seen years. Currently, my learners are from Nigeria, Kuwait and China. I have never worked in a less politically correct environment in my life. Just the suggestion the other day that via immigration / migration their countries might receive a 15 per cent change in their ethnic make up caused howls of protest. Does that make my Nigerians, Kuwaitis and Chinese racists?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ian Glendinning17 June 2015 at 09:24

    (Plane rather than plain, maybe?) anyway - there also self-identification distinct from being identified. As you know I'm struggling to pull together something myself on identity, and finding as I broaden from not just race, gender & sexuality to ethnic-religio-cultural, national and local identities. A minefield between (say) Paul Mason calling identity "bogus" and (say) Kenan Malik (say) seeing a more amorphous continuum.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments, however critical, will be accepted as long as they are not personal and/or abusive.

Popular posts from this blog

Schopenhauer on Hegel: "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan."

There's nothing like a good insult or two, and if you're looking for insults in philosophy, you need look no further than Arthur Schopenhauer's comments on his German contemporary, the much more popular and successful Friedrich Hegel.  Schopenhauer suggested as a motto of Hegel’s philosophy some words of Shakespeare: ‘s uch stuff as madmen tongue and brain not’. He added : " Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to ac...
Read more

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of our system of diversity is the way feminists and Islamists avoid directly confronting each other. Their ideologies are utterly opposed to each other, but within the system they are allies, so maintain distance and attack others. We can see this in how feminists resolutely avoid picking up on specifically Islamic-related instances of actual misogyny and discrimination in action. They nearly always stick to generalities and abstractions about the world or society as a whole, as Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers does in telling Owen Jones that , “We have a very misogynistic culture in the UK.” In this version of reality, there is a single culture – or at least all the cultures we have come from the same root - and it is ‘very misogynistic’. This is the ‘patriarchy’ theory that is remarkably popular in the upper echelons of the liberal-left, just as it is among young feminists coming out of their Gender Studies courses at universit...
Read more

Immigration: our public debate misses the main point

Our public debate on immigration in Britain almost always focuses entirely on money and thereby misses the main point, a point that our political-media class finds difficult to deal with and that many regard as almost illegitimate. This is how people feel . It is emblematic of the state of democracy in Britain that any sort of negative opinions about immigration routinely get shouted down and lambasted as ‘wrong’ by the siren voices of people and institutions, most of which are on the supposedly ‘liberal-left’ side of politics. It is particularly disturbing the way that anyone who talks about negative effects of immigration is routinely attacked (often by hordes of lefty people on Twitter) as ‘racist’. These voices have a huge and in my view poisonous impact on the debate, forcing anyone who wants to make some nuanced points about immigration and identity into defending themselves against charges of racism, which is well established as one of the the worst offences one...
Read more