4 ms·

It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but wh

It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but who are now entering the political arena and making demands. It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands merely on the basis of identity. People should be treated with fairly because of merit and the "content of their character." People should not be treated with because of their age, their sex, who they are attracted to, or their skin color. What we should also recognize in 2018, is that tribalism itself is toxic. Tribalism can also be attached to life choices, political stances, and subculture, and those sorts of tribalism can be toxic to the same order of magnitude as older forms, such as those based on ethnicity. Tribalistic toxicity stemming from immutable characteristics is arguably worse, because people are trapped on a side. This is why identity politics should be avoided in general. A politics that would be humane should be about principles and policy, not identity. This is also why the association of principles like Free Speech with particular identities, even identities of choice, is also particularly corrosive.

40acres 8y ago
> It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely on the basis of identity.* I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify, being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you lobby for. I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as "identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise usually when fair treatment is not given to them specifically and so they lobby on their own behalf. Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics. Our basic social instincts are designed around identity politics formed along ethnic lines. What we really need are politics around principles, however. It's the same general evolutionary lag as with our instincts around food. We are wired-up to eat as much fat and sugar as we can, whenever we can, which suited us just fine for most of our history. So too, are we wired-up to be nice to our own tribe and quite hostile to the other. In 2018, just giving into either set of basic instincts is likely to kill us, however.
- dbrueck 8y ago
  Hopefully that's the case generally, but the problem is with the branch of identity politics that goes from "we've been mistreated and want that to stop" to "you share some physical trait with people from the past who did bad things, so you're bad too". The former is something that can unify (e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's) while the latter is inherently divisive, which makes it really hard to accomplish anything. BLM is a mixed bag as far as examples go - it's loose organization has resulted in a pretty broad message, and sometimes that message has gone well into the range of the bad type of identity politics (see e.g. https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/ https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-foun... ).
- abnry 8y ago
  I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see as prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate Men article the Washington Post published (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men...). The problem is that these people aren't arguing for fair treatment. They are arguing for unfair treatment, but just unfair treatment that now favors them, and this treatment is determined by group identity (i.e. men=bad so you can hate any man). If that's the approach, then to me it reveals that any rhetoric about fair treatment is just that, rhetoric, and what is really wanted is power.
  - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

40acres 8y ago

> It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely on the basis of identity.* I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify, being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you lobby for. I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as "identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise usually when fair treatment is not given to them specifically and so they lobby on their own behalf. Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.

stcredzero 8y ago
This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics. Our basic social instincts are designed around identity politics formed along ethnic lines. What we really need are politics around principles, however. It's the same general evolutionary lag as with our instincts around food. We are wired-up to eat as much fat and sugar as we can, whenever we can, which suited us just fine for most of our history. So too, are we wired-up to be nice to our own tribe and quite hostile to the other. In 2018, just giving into either set of basic instincts is likely to kill us, however.
dbrueck 8y ago
Hopefully that's the case generally, but the problem is with the branch of identity politics that goes from "we've been mistreated and want that to stop" to "you share some physical trait with people from the past who did bad things, so you're bad too". The former is something that can unify (e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's) while the latter is inherently divisive, which makes it really hard to accomplish anything. BLM is a mixed bag as far as examples go - it's loose organization has resulted in a pretty broad message, and sometimes that message has gone well into the range of the bad type of identity politics (see e.g. https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/ https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-foun... ).
abnry 8y ago
I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see as prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate Men article the Washington Post published (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men...). The problem is that these people aren't arguing for fair treatment. They are arguing for unfair treatment, but just unfair treatment that now favors them, and this treatment is determined by group identity (i.e. men=bad so you can hate any man). If that's the approach, then to me it reveals that any rhetoric about fair treatment is just that, rhetoric, and what is really wanted is power.
- 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]