I identify with post leftism, but not the post left take on "identity politics"?

Question

I identify with post leftism, but not the post left take on "identity politics"?

I identify with almost every aspect of post leftist anarchism, but I am really wary of the post left take on identity politics. In regards to identity politics I don't think that all people who share an identifier have the same experiences or can be assumed to hold the same stance on certain things, but I feel that things like race, class, queerness, disability, and etc are related to very important lived experiences and oppression that shouldn't be ignored?? I don't believe that social justice is an attempt to silence unpopular opinions from white dudes or whatever. Not quite sure if I'm making sense. Are there any folks that are involved with social justice and are also post leftists that might be able to offer some advice or clarification or alternatives??

asked Sep 1, 2014 by anonymous

"... but I feel that things like race, class, queerness, disability, and etc are related to very important lived experiences and oppression that shouldn't be ignored??"

therein lies one of the, uh, misinterpretations (giving a HUGE benefit of the doubt) by identity politicians of the perspectives of most post-left @'s i know (myself included). the fact that some folks do not buy into the specific prescribed (by said politicos) responses to these oppressions is twisted - it seems to me often disingenuously - into the claim that those folks don't acknowledge or want to fight against those oppressions.

i agree with flip's answer below, and i want to pull out something dot said in a comment to it, which i think is spot on:

"the question isn't whether racism, etc *exist* (to deny that would be insane), but rather whose will do we follow in reacting to it? "

in addition, i will add that the "oppression pyramid" (aka, "MY oppression is really, REALLY the root of all oppression [and therefore the most important one]") is a very popular game with identity politicians, and that is one game that most post-left @s i know refuse to play.

commented Sep 1, 2014 by funkyanarchy (13.4k points)

I think the danger of identity politics , like all ideology,is it requires lifeless concepts/categories and most often these tend toward the binary. For example, victim/perpetrator. There's no doubt that horrible things happen to people by people, but it's so easy to be a victim and live a life of what Nietzsche termed 'ressentiment.' The blame game continues and the psychology of victimization becomes further embedded hindering a joyous, rebellious life.

Meanwhile, the 'white guilt' syndrome circulates mostly among college-educated, upper-crust whites whose only interaction with persons of color (I hate that phrase!) are those who've been able to attain the same economic class, or when these liberal whites can swoop down from on high in the form of an 'aid' organization like the Peace Corp or some NGO.

Often the liberals' class bigotry gets the best of them though in two ways: 1. they very often live in economically segregated neighborhood/towns and 2. they very often lay the blame of 'racism' at the doors of 'lower class' whites usually accompanied with vitriolic epithets like 'redneck' and 'hick.'

This gives the lie to the notion of 'white privilige' being some monolithic antagonism between whites and 'persons of color' since it's obvious that not all whites are 'privileged' in the same manner. It may be the case it's easier for me to walk down the street without police harassment due to my skin color, but the rub is, my street most often hasn't been the racially segregated street of so many self-proclaimed progressives.

Personally, I think Landstreicher's "Against the Logic of Submission" is one of the best post-left writings I've come across that deals with identity politics. http://www.audioanarchy.org/submission.html

commented Sep 2, 2014 by AmorFati (7.5k points)
edited Sep 2, 2014 by AmorFati

rs666: your perspective, and particularly the issues it raises for you living in this shithole world, are both extremely understandable and not at all uncommon, imo.

as ba@ says, it is difficult not to care at all about what others think. it is also often impossible to *know* what others are thinking about you, regardless of whatever clues we might receive. i myself find that i don't really give a shit, except when it comes to people i really care about. but i find that it is more important for me to simply do the best job i can of expressing my viewpoint (in any given context), and then let people think what they will. if they are interested/interesting/critical enough, it will no doubt lead to more discussion, enabling further clarity (hopefully). so i guess my objective is clarity, rather than (not) being perceived as judgmental or wing-nutty or whatever.

i often find that as folks discover and explore more radical perspectives whjch resonate with them, there is a period of finding their own being/comfort/confidence with what those changes in them mean, related to the world at large. too often (in my experience) that results in a period of outspoken and almost dogmatic expression of the new ideas, which can surely come across as judgmental, unrealistic, immature, whatever. i interpret that as something related to insecurity, and if one really finds that these ideas resonate deeply and become an integral part of oneself, that insecurity fades away and the ideas (whatever parts of them) become a part of the dynamic whole which is that individual. of course, some people just have a condescending way of communicating, which may have nothing at all to do with any of this. :-) but that does not sound like you, from what little i can glean.

some friends and myself have considered setting up a secure discussion forum, possibly invitation only (surely fully password protected and not open to the public). i will let you know if that ever comes to fruition.

commented Mar 3, 2015 by funkyanarchy (13.4k points)

funky@, I offer a second of cb's sentiments.

i had a bit of a cathartic experience a few months ago which allowed me to come into something i hadn't engage with before, at least in the magnitude it hit me then, and this experience was- there are extremely subtle social techniques of silencing those of us who feel at all traumatized or angsty by the fucked up ways of relating most people accept as 'normal.' these shared and accepted techniques are an insidious way people gang up on someone vulnerable in some way, with normalized bodily cues, tones and pitches in speech, etc.

all too often it's in the guise of so-called positive thinking (rs666's really good question on this subject: http://anarchy101.org/9219/when-did-positivity-start-to-enter-our-culture), but it also manifests itself in a sort of eye-rolling condescension which, to me, smacks of a spineless way of dealing with a new and/or threatening perspective. it places the 'impoliteness' on you; the impoliteness labeled as and chalked up to, dogma, the unrealistic, immaturity, etc.

just as those hawking the wares of positivity, the blame of any social discomfort is placed squarely on the one who's 'acting out;' again, the rolling eyes, the glances, the "ooookayyy' muttered with raised eyebrows. it seems to me this behavior, and our submission to it, sanctions a remnant of that old christian soul and sin concept: if you got a problem it's your problem. the world is fine and normal. you are fucked up.

i guess i'm simply adding a qualitative addendum to your thoughts, a reminder, as much for myself as anyone else, because it's so easy to fall into this pattern, this fucked up pattern of relation, one of the very fucked up patterns adding to our angst to begin with! differentiating between what others hold as impolite and the discomfort in fitting into our new perspectival britches is rarely an easy feat.

commented Mar 4, 2015 by AmorFati (7.5k points)
edited Mar 4, 2015 by AmorFati

i might say that this catharsis was a culmination of events within my life, newer and older; also events outside my life, historical events prior to my birth, the way my parents were brought up, the world they were brought up in, for instance; cultural shit, if you will.

a few nights previous there was a gathering at our place. an old friend asked me if i was ever happy, simply because i was bringing some shit up about things people take for granted in the region i live; like going snowboarding/skiing at resorts which use pharmaceutical-laden piss-water ('reclaimed' as they call it) to make snow, fuck up the forest as well as just being spectacular pieces of ugliness. *they* asked me if i skied, answered in the negative they asked me why. i told 'em. they didn't like it and off on the 'positive thinking' crap they went...of course all the while making it my problem. it's that old testament scapegoating combined with what's supposedly 'the good news' ('positive thinking') of the new. it's a common tack for moralists (in this case, liberals) to take: compassion...but only a distance; understanding...only at a distance; etc.

there were other factors; a book i was reading a the time, work shit, and so on. there was no single 'cause' of this catharsis. but i became acutely aware of some insidious ways we've grown accustom to silencing one another and alienating ourselves from the potential of a deep life and relations. it was at once liberating and painful, though no less joyful.

commented Mar 4, 2015 by AmorFati (7.5k points)

i try to avoid mantras like that in general, because if im unhappy about something those mantras just make me really pissed off. As insidious as it sounds, when i engage in conversations with people i generally try to control the content of discussion for practical reason, im only willing to get into small talk to a certain extent....

ive used anarchist critique to make conversations a lot more practical, and i generally try to shut down and negate dumb generalizations people make about men, women, children, teenages, ect., because they are always self-serving narratives. But when i say "shut down and negate" i don't mean yelling at them, i mean forcing people to question whether the stupid things they said was actually true, questioning their assumptions in a way they can't argue with it. It's really tricky and i've been practicing this now for a few years

commented Mar 5, 2015 by anonymous

1 Answer

flip · Answer 1 · 2014-09-01T13:27:33+0000

This is something I've had trouble with myself. Here are a couple of things I've thought about in recent times:

Identity politics is forever stuck in a loop of acknowledgement. In the 60s you can see that a big issue was to get white people to ACKNOWLEDGE that this thing called 'white privilege' exists. Identity politics now does not attempt to go further than that, but still 'grows' in its own dimension. For example, with the uprising in Ferguson you see social justice warriors on tumblr whining about 'white anarchists fetishizing riots.' Rather than look at uprisings as potential to fight against these terrible systems of oppression that you mention, the ideological tool that is identity politics just gives them a difficult-to-argue, intellectually lazy means to express their liberal politics. Since the internet is so big, this never has to end. There will ALWAYS be 'fucked up' people to feel self-righteous against.

The 'post-left' people I encounter still try to be aware of the way society privileges them, don't get me wrong. But to focus on it and fetishize it ultimately implies that one doesn't want to get rid of the shitty oppressive system, one just wants everyone to acknowledge that it exists.

Also: you may be critical of the 'one big identity' phenomenon, which is good. But identity politics yields to that type of thinking all the time. The "Ally" phenomenon is a good example of that. Realizing that one is privileged and therefore can't possibly understand anything about the experiences of one not privileged, said people work to be their 'allies:' meaning to support the cause uncritically.

This one, to me, is more insidious and intentionally terrible. Resistance and opposition always has a dominant narrative, usually institutionalized by an opposing party, non-profits, or NGO's. If one is to be an 'ally' to 'women' for example, one is basically uncritically adopting whatever popular narrative exists in those circles. If, in this case there are women who disagree with these institutionalized narratives, they are considered 'not feminists' or something like that. Rather than try to be 'ally' to a totally diverse range of perspectives (some of which are totally enemies to each other), it makes sense to work with people who you feel some kind of affinity with. Identity politics, I feel, inherently leads to this kind of thinking. One has to think hard about it to break free from it.

Categories

I identify with post leftism, but not the post left take on "identity politics"?

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

1 Answer

Please log in or register to add a comment.