Whither political leanings?

[garbon]

The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.

A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.

They are still the aggressors in that particular situation.

[Martinus]

The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.

A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.

They are still the aggressors in that particular situation.

Their "aggression" is relatively harmless and may be the only way they are allowed to react to a society which created such immense inequality in the first place.

In any case, if you misread a situation, you are not likely to arrive at a workable solution. Same if you concentrate on trivial things while ignoring the big problem.

[garbon]

The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.

A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.

They are still the aggressors in that particular situation.

Their "aggression" is relatively harmless and may be the only way they are allowed to react to a society which created such immense inequality in the first place.

In any case, if you misread a situation, you are not likely to arrive at a workable solution. Same if you concentrate on trivial things while ignoring the big problem.

Well that's certainly a condescending response. They've no option but to yell vulgarities at the woman wearing Prada?

[Martinus]

BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism.  BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse.  Gay marriage is about a straight application ()of liberal principles as can be imagined.

Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against.

I think this is a mischaracterisation of the "identity politics", at least to the extent it is being criticised presently.

The problem with it is that it is a reaction to the reactionary "majority is always right", by claiming that "minority is always right". Both views are dysfunctional. The proper response should be weighing of the conflicting interests of different groups and individuals and arriving at a conclusion that causes least unhappiness and most happiness (which is the classic utilitarian / eudaimonean response).

[garbon]

Besides I think you are tossing out all historical context. Society has always had established rules about social norms - what is and what isn't appropriate behaviour. Now previously in public what was and was not accepted was always determined by white men. What's the big shift if women and minorities have their voices heard?

[Martinus]

Besides I think you are tossing out all historical context. Society has always had established rules about social norms - what is and what isn't appropriate behaviour. Now previously in public what was and was not accepted was always determined by white men. What's the big shift if women and minorities have their voices heard?

The trouble is in the example I made you are focusing on a relative inconsequential fact while ignoring a huge problem, that is income disparity and the likely fact that these men never had an opportunity to achieve the social and financial position that woman enjoys (and also that she is wearing a suit they would have to work for several years to earn). This is the problem with "identity politics" - it does not prioritise problems because of their societal effects or how badly they affect people - it prioritises them based on the identity of the victim.

So in this example, a minor inconcenience faced by the woman suddenly is more important than what seems like a huge inequality facing these men, because she is a woman and they are men. Identity politics at its finest.

[Martinus]

And to elaborate on something Minsky said about gay marriage etc., popular attention in addressing social ills is subject to finite resources - both material ones and the number of fucks the public has to give. So while the ability to be able to get legal recognition for your marriage is indeed important, forcing some poor mom and pop to bake your rainbow wedding cake isn't - and I'd much rather have these resources being spent elsewhere - such as addressing growing functional illiteracy and reduced advancement opportunities among working class white males.

And this is not really even out of a goodness of my heart. I don't want there to be more people who would vote for more "Brexits".

[The Brain]

It used to be that the ideal to strive for was a society where a person's race, gender, religion etc didn't matter, and what mattered was a person's ability and similar. With identity politics race etc are the things that matter, which seems to me to be a very unhealthy state of affairs and in fact the exact opposite of what would be desirable.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I hung out with my first transgender person on Sunday.

[Hamilcar]

I think I hung out with my first transgender person on Sunday.

As far as you know.

[mongers]

So how much of this is just hand-wringing from the sidelines?


I've a somewhat radical suggestion for some languishites, become involved in politics if you don't like the way things are going. :gasp:

[Sheilbh]

Which is what is different from the 70s. The post-war consensus had a clear challenger in monetarism/market economics etc. It was a reasonably coherent approach and had political support by the 1960s (Goldwater, Powell etc). It was only a matter of time before it captured the right in the US and UK.

That's not true right now. The anti-globalisation movement has no unity, no real common purpose and no coherent platform. It is purely oppositional.

Unless the populist right is that response? I mean Haider happened about 15 year ago and it's been a steady trend since then in Europe and now, suddenly the US. They may have less of a clear alternative but perhaps the challenger to our consensus is the populist right and the political capture will be the mainstream right sort-of capturing or falling to it.

[Valmy]

Populist right came along in the US in the late 80s.

[Hamilcar]

My take on Sheilbh's analysis from earlier is this: in the capitalist liberal system, there has always been a layer of "losers": people with poor education, skills, intelligence, what have you. As long as those people were a sufficiently small minority and they were take care of at some level, this wasn't a threat to the system. But now the constituency of these "losers" has grown such that appealing to them is close to a winning political strategy (see Trump and Trumpism).

I worry as inequality continues to soar and as the liberal elite fails to address this, the loser constituency will propel truly scary, illiberal authoritarians to power.

[Jacob]

My take on Sheilbh's analysis from earlier is this: in the capitalist liberal system, there has always been a layer of "losers": people with poor education, skills, intelligence, what have you. As long as those people were a sufficiently small minority and they were take care of at some level, this wasn't a threat to the system. But now the constituency of these "losers" has grown such that appealing to them is close to a winning political strategy (see Trump and Trumpism).

From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.

IIRC, the typical Trump supporter works in construction or owns a small construction company, makes above average income, has medical insurance, but knows someone who has been financially ruined by medical bills... something like that.

I worry as inequality continues to soar and as the liberal elite fails to address this, the loser constituency will propel truly scary, illiberal authoritarians to power.

I think that the scenario is possible, but if it happens it's won't be the losers who propel the scary illiberal authoritarians to power as much as the authoritarians purporting to speak for the losers and promising those scared of becoming losers that it won't happen to them.