The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
You could say that bourgeois and proletariat are "identities," but they function in a manner very different from that of contemporary identity politics.
Identity politics assume an elective aspect: someone identifies as gay, or queer, or man, or woman, or even black in the case of Rachel Dolezal. This is because identity politics necessarily falls back on a metaphysics of identity, or identity as something ultimately determined by interior sensations and beliefs. By what we might call a presence, a sense of oneself as oneself.
Marxism rejects this premise in terms of class disparity. One cannot become a member of the bourgeois simply by choosing; bourgeois and proletariat aren't elective identities, they're materially determined economic classes.
Identity politics assume an elective aspect: someone identifies as gay, or queer, or man, or woman, or even black in the case of Rachel Dolezal. This is because identity politics necessarily falls back on a metaphysics of identity, or identity as something ultimately determined by interior sensations and beliefs. By what we might call a presence, a sense of oneself as oneself.
Marxism rejects this premise in terms of class disparity. One cannot become a member of the bourgeois simply by choosing; bourgeois and proletariat aren't elective identities, they're materially determined economic classes.
Dak
mentat
Taking the common arguments from respective sides into consideration, wouldn't this be backwards? People do not/can not elect to be gay, queer, man, woman, black etc? However, people can change their economic situation, at least partially by making different choices.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is how identity used to be understood, back in the good ol' days of Marxism and historicism: identity is obligatory, you belong to an identity because culture classifies you as such. This is not how identity is understood today though.
You seem to be focusing on the tendency of people to say "I didn't choose to be gay." What this statement implies is that said person didn't choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. That's not the same as "identity." Identity, by today's political standards, is something one identifies with - internally, personally, on an intimate level.
According to contemporary identity politics, someone could sleep with members of the same sex and still identify as "straight."
By the way, I have a lot of issues with identity politics that I'm not going into here; I'm simply explaining why Marxism and identity politics don't get along, at least conceptually/methodologically.
But the point is that one cannot make oneself wealthier, or a member of a different class, by instantaneously and internally identifying as a member of that class.
Dak
mentat
Dolezal tried this though and was roundly excoriated by people who are pro-identity politics. I guess maybe there's no consistency then if what you're saying is the case?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Identity politics is inconsistent because it promotes a notion of identity that aligns entirely with selfhood - what someone feels themselves to be. I know I've said this before, but my problem with identity politics lies in the way it transforms identity into a metaphysical presence, something that corresponds an internal sense of self rather than an external set of conditions.
That's all well and good, sure, whatever - I don't believe in identity as a metaphysical presence, or that it corresponds to some internal selfhood, or that it's as easy as simply "choosing"... but whatever. More power to them. Except that identity politics runs into a glaring problem when it comes to racial difference, and that is that someone can't will away racial discrimination by internally identifying as "white." It's much easier to pass as straight than it is to pass as white (obviously, people shouldn't have to "pass" one way or another, people should be able to express themselves... but still, it happens to be the case).
Now, second issue: while queer people absolutely experience bigotry, the experience of being queer isn't aligned historically or culturally with economic disparity, as is the case with African Americans (largely due to slavery I say, but let's not get into that again). So, identity politics emerged en force primarily among a group of generally economically privileged/entitled individuals, as being gay did not necessarily prevent you from getting a job, the way being black might.
So, identity politics became a contemporary narrative of metaphysical identity that promoted the liberal expression of selfhood, of who we "really" are inside; and this radically conflicts with Marxist notions of identity as determined economically and socially. Black people don't have the privilege of avoiding discrimination by "choosing," and their history of discrimination and exploitation isn't wrapped up in what identity they chose for themselves. So, when it comes to race relations, Marxism and historicism were the primary touchstones for a long time because they addressed the material (i.e. external, we could say) dynamics of race relations, the way that racial identity is something produced by exterior phenomena (skin color, dialect, physiognomy, etc.). When identity politics came along and coopted race relations, it introduced an intersectional quandary that's seeing its effects in cases like Rachel Dolezal (although she's a rarity, she's emblematic of the contradiction at the core of identity politics).
Also for the record, and to plug my own field of study: This is why we see strikingly imagined fantasies in black literature like George Schuyler's Black No More, which imagines the invention of a machine that can change black skin white (the story is a satire, and it's incredible). Schuyler's book can be read as a critique of identity politics, and it was published in fucking 1931.
That's all well and good, sure, whatever - I don't believe in identity as a metaphysical presence, or that it corresponds to some internal selfhood, or that it's as easy as simply "choosing"... but whatever. More power to them. Except that identity politics runs into a glaring problem when it comes to racial difference, and that is that someone can't will away racial discrimination by internally identifying as "white." It's much easier to pass as straight than it is to pass as white (obviously, people shouldn't have to "pass" one way or another, people should be able to express themselves... but still, it happens to be the case).
Now, second issue: while queer people absolutely experience bigotry, the experience of being queer isn't aligned historically or culturally with economic disparity, as is the case with African Americans (largely due to slavery I say, but let's not get into that again). So, identity politics emerged en force primarily among a group of generally economically privileged/entitled individuals, as being gay did not necessarily prevent you from getting a job, the way being black might.
So, identity politics became a contemporary narrative of metaphysical identity that promoted the liberal expression of selfhood, of who we "really" are inside; and this radically conflicts with Marxist notions of identity as determined economically and socially. Black people don't have the privilege of avoiding discrimination by "choosing," and their history of discrimination and exploitation isn't wrapped up in what identity they chose for themselves. So, when it comes to race relations, Marxism and historicism were the primary touchstones for a long time because they addressed the material (i.e. external, we could say) dynamics of race relations, the way that racial identity is something produced by exterior phenomena (skin color, dialect, physiognomy, etc.). When identity politics came along and coopted race relations, it introduced an intersectional quandary that's seeing its effects in cases like Rachel Dolezal (although she's a rarity, she's emblematic of the contradiction at the core of identity politics).
Also for the record, and to plug my own field of study: This is why we see strikingly imagined fantasies in black literature like George Schuyler's Black No More, which imagines the invention of a machine that can change black skin white (the story is a satire, and it's incredible). Schuyler's book can be read as a critique of identity politics, and it was published in fucking 1931.
Last edited:
Baroque
Active Member
My problem with identity politics is identity is transient. We are a certain person at work, we are a certain person at school, we are a certain person with our families. Sure there are some overlaps but if we change jobs or family members die we change too. There's no one identity we identify with 100% of the time In My Opinion else we would be unwise and unadaptive to real life situations.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yes, that's a good way to put it: there's no such thing as an interior stable identity, something we can definitively say we are over an extended period of time.
I would go so far as to say that identity, as it relies on a metaphysics of presence (which is philosophically suspect), is ultimately nothing more than a means of representing (culturally, but also personally) the impression that consciousness produces of an interior self. Ultimately, this sense of selfhood is an effect of cognitive processes - a centrally experienced Cartesian subject that is not the source of our experiences (cognitive or otherwise), but the product of them.
I would go so far as to say that identity, as it relies on a metaphysics of presence (which is philosophically suspect), is ultimately nothing more than a means of representing (culturally, but also personally) the impression that consciousness produces of an interior self. Ultimately, this sense of selfhood is an effect of cognitive processes - a centrally experienced Cartesian subject that is not the source of our experiences (cognitive or otherwise), but the product of them.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Dak
mentat
I can see this occurring all around me in the indoctrination centers known as the Western University. Like Pat notes, there are all sorts of inherent contradictions. "DON'T BE DEFINED BY SOCIETY" etc etc etc but I AM WOMAN HEAR ME KATY PERRY.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
One of the funnier examples is the way people collect identities. Straight white able-bodied male both holds the best hand and the worst.
If he is injured and is wheelchair bound for the rest of his life, + 1 point. Turns out his family is Muslim? + 1 point. Comes out as trans? + 1 point.
If he is injured and is wheelchair bound for the rest of his life, + 1 point. Turns out his family is Muslim? + 1 point. Comes out as trans? + 1 point.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I would normally post this in Dak's thread, but seeing as it speaks to the recent discussion, I'd thought it appropriate to leave it here:
http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/fredric-jameson-fascism-not-yet-there/
Helps to illuminate the historical difference between "class politics" and "identity politics"; also, Jameson is a good example of "old guard" Marxism, which saw its end after the failures of the 1968 revolts. The "identity politics" group is derived mostly from Foucault, whom Jameson mentions.
Here's the very beginning of the interview:
http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/fredric-jameson-fascism-not-yet-there/
Helps to illuminate the historical difference between "class politics" and "identity politics"; also, Jameson is a good example of "old guard" Marxism, which saw its end after the failures of the 1968 revolts. The "identity politics" group is derived mostly from Foucault, whom Jameson mentions.
Here's the very beginning of the interview:
People vote in favour of leaving the EU because they want to 'take back control'.
High Court rules that the UK government cannot start the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary approval, something that should come as no surprise to anyone aware of the fact that the UK is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.
Leave voters lose their shit and throw up more nonsense in the space of 24 hours than the 'remoaners' have managed over the past several months.
Even the more articulate leave voters are just, well...
"The latest ruling is yet more evidence for why this was the right decision. The country should not be ruled by any court system – including any European courts – and I am now more determined than ever to go. It’s dreadful that democracy can be overturned in court by law."
High Court rules that the UK government cannot start the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary approval, something that should come as no surprise to anyone aware of the fact that the UK is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.
Leave voters lose their shit and throw up more nonsense in the space of 24 hours than the 'remoaners' have managed over the past several months.
Even the more articulate leave voters are just, well...
"The latest ruling is yet more evidence for why this was the right decision. The country should not be ruled by any court system – including any European courts – and I am now more determined than ever to go. It’s dreadful that democracy can be overturned in court by law."
Dak
mentat
tl;dr: Democracy is great as long as the majority agrees with me (and when me is a member of the elite, when the majority defers to me). Typical human.
That's what happens when government officials remain out of touch with the middle class in a democracy. Changes are made by the registered citizens of that country when they are sick and tired of being ignored and painted as evil when noting real concerns about immigration policy under the EU.
What really disgusts me even more than the whimpering, pathetic pleas to overthrow democracy due to not liking the result is their constant propagandizing after Brexit was over and decided. Just a constant stream of falsified statistics and loaded rhetoric that was solely meant to shame the populace, saying how horrible it is that they voted to leave the EU and how the British citizenry are regretting it even though only 6% had regrets about the decision. The MINORITY. Unbelievable.
What really disgusts me even more than the whimpering, pathetic pleas to overthrow democracy due to not liking the result is their constant propagandizing after Brexit was over and decided. Just a constant stream of falsified statistics and loaded rhetoric that was solely meant to shame the populace, saying how horrible it is that they voted to leave the EU and how the British citizenry are regretting it even though only 6% had regrets about the decision. The MINORITY. Unbelievable.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
The left overwhelmingly owns the media, so of course they had to shit on the populace for doing something they didn't like.
Afterall, they're unbiased remember?
Afterall, they're unbiased remember?
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Wow, it's almost like black people are normal citizens who have their own sense of agency and are clearly able to participate in the proceedings of government. SHOCKING! 
