Identity politics and having a go at groups
I've had a bad conscience since my last thread in which I made a casual unfunny dig at republicans by putting them somewhere half way on a scale of 'degrees of consciousness'. Hillary Clinton famously referred to some Trump voters as 'deplorables'. Why do I feel bad? I don't actually think it's because I have been nasty to anyone, in fact I haven't actually been nasty about anyone in particular. I've picked on a group of people, and I think that's what I feel bad about. It's how genocide starts, I guess. I think it's OK to criticise individuals, or better, their opinions, values and actions, but criticising groups of people is potentially dangerous. Jordan Peterson criticises identity politics, and I think he is broadly right to, although some vulnerable groups do need collective representation. What are your thoughts?
Comments (37)
Identity politics have existed since the Roman Republic. They have since been vital in supplying universal suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, woman's rights, etc. Criticizing identity politicstout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male.
It's just common sense to be as specific as possible in terms of groups in proportion to the intensity of your criticism. As in when dealing with groups as vague as Republicans or Democrats pretty much every type of person is represented, so there's not a lot you can say accurately with any force.
Quoting Maw
You taking the piss here, bro?
My son, this is not a sin and therefore can not be forgiven. You are being too sensitive. Now, get out of the confessional; there is a long line of people who have real sins to confess and for which severe penance will be required.
Quoting bert1
"Groups of people" don't have feelings, consciousness, morals, or anything else. "Groups of people" is a vague concept. As for the individual persons in groups... if the shoe fits, wear it.
Quoting bert1
As a homosexual, I would much prefer people reference us as "a group of perverted, immoral, disgusting, monsters, a genuine threat to the American Way of Life" (or Turkish, Russian, North Korean, Saudi Arabian, Ugandan... WOL) than have them say that about me personally. While we certainly are a collective threat to American manhood and empire, I am as pure as the driven snow.
On the other hand, please do remember that we took down the Roman Empire.
Quoting bert1
There are numerous vulnerable individuals who can be grouped into a common cause. Take physically handicapped people. It wasn't that long ago (within the lifetimes of living people) that people with physical handicaps were not recognized as people who faced real barriers: like millions of buildings that could not be accessed without inconvenient and visible assistance. Like millions of people with sensory deficits (varying degrees of deafness and blindness) who could not access large parts of the culture because there were no assistive devices.
In response to agitation, there are now many buildings entrances without stairs, equipped with elevators. There are assistive devices at many intersections that verbally announce a walk sign and a countdown to "don't walk". Many public bathrooms now have doors which allow access to wheelchairs. Braille markings have been added to visual symbols in buildings (like elevators). Closed captions allow the deaf to follow television programs. And more, besides.
That is all to the good.
Quoting Maw
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Politics is about individuals forming groups to represent their peculiar interests. There is nothing new about it, and nothing special about it. Whether it is coal mine owners, gay men, sexually harassed women, small farm owners, lesbian vegans, mass transit drivers, cod fishing boat owners, and so on--it is all pretty much the same. And it's fine and dandy -- that's how a diverse more or less democratic society is supposed to work -- people represent their interests and attempt to protect themselves.
It's fine and dandy until, as often happens, a group takes up protective positions which positively disadvantage other interests group. Mine owners, for instance, represent their interests so well that mine workers get shafted. Mass transit drivers go on strike to protect their interests, but entire populations of commuters are negatively affected, sometimes severely. Relatively small numbers of gays and lesbians claim absolute equality with heterosexuals in religious, civic, family, and moral contexts, which conflicts with the at least as strong beliefs of relatively large numbers of heterosexuals that gays and lesbians are not absolutely equal in all contexts.
All this makes for lively politics, good outcomes and bad outcomes.
Tactical errors are made. BLM protestors shutting down mass transit lines at rush hour probably costs them more sympathy than the attention they gain is worth. Straight white males are as diverse a group as straight white females, all females, and all males. The coal industry and coal miners may be in direct conflict with the goals of reducing greenhouse gases. Gays and lesbian activists may display tone deafness when making their arguments.
The only solution in the short, medium and long run is to continue politics, and let the abrasion of politics grind off the unacceptable prominent views that groups tend to have. This, in itself, can be disappointing to people deeply invested in a cause. Gay Liberation began with what I thought were good aspirations, but they were also extreme, in comparison where most people were at in 1969. Over time, the extreme points were ground away and we ended up gaining a set of civil rights and protections (all to the good) but lost "liberation". So, gay marriage in imitation of heterosexual marriage means getting locked into a chaste relationship with ONE INDIVIDUAL until one dies, or flies the coop. Barbaric.
"sex worker" appeared in print around the 1985-1990, pretty much the same way that "identity politics" did.
It's one thing to criticize a group of people on the basis of trivial and/or inborn qualities such as race, sex, or sexuality. That's the kind of thing that is wrong and leads to unfair prejudice.
But when you pick on Republicans, you're picking on people on the basis of their values, beliefs, and actions. Although one ought to be careful in how far that goes in some cases, it's also often justified. Descrimination shouldn't be made legal towards opinions and political views, but for instance, if I choose to avoid socializing with a KKK member, that's not bigoted of me. I can also call those people out for being racist dimwits. It's not an unfair criticism.
With political affiliation it's the same thing. You just have to be prepared for some Republicans to claim not to be one of THOSE Republicans.
Sure, you could be right. I'm fairly new to the concept.
Indeed
This doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't genocide happen when one group is demonised and blamed for the suffering of another group? In which case the origin is in the suffering and passivity of a population.
One hopes your presumption is correct. I fear it may not be. My particular comment is obviously insignificant. But a heap of a million other similar ones may become significant.
If only confession were so popular absolution had to be rationed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Indeed, it's far less personally offensive. However I suspect it's a heck of a lot more dangerous. Individual members of a collective threat (such as the Gays) are targeted because they are an example of that collective - and any example will do, it doesn't matter about any of your other virtuous individual qualities. Whereas an attack on you as an individual (rather than a representative example) must take into account all your complexities.
As an example, a white supremacist will attach himself to all the important things that white people have done; strength and/or accomplishments. As part of this herd, you can sort of accept credit for what Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein did, since both were white and therefore part of that same herd. This can inflate the ego, so it is no longer grounded in reality.
As another example, those who relate to the black victim herd, can find a way to accept restitution for slavery, even though this all happened a century before they were born. Again, an attachment to that herd, extrapolates the ego beyond their own reality.
Identity policies is currently pushed by the left, since they know when people lose their individuality, to become attached to a herd, you can manipulate lots of individuals, by simply spooking the herd, thereby compounding unconsciousness. A herd of buffalo can be made to stampede if you startle one. The rest will move in unison without consciousness. The herd mentality is lower than human but above an animal; beast. A beast is an unnatural animal.
An individual has their own history, their own dreams and accomplishment and their own dark times and disappointments. This history belongs to them. If we were all individuals, politicians and other who wish to shepherd herds, would need to spook each person separately, to get people to stampede as groups. This is way too much work. If we can attach individuals to herds, it is easier to get everyone to move. One shepherd dog can move a herd of sheep.
Belonging to a herd and losing your individuality has its downside, since you can be hurt simply by someone keying in on a few negative or vulnerable stereotypical attributes of the herd. The left has reinforced this with PC. PC does not teach one to have a tough skin by showing you how to separate oneself as an individual. Rather it teaches how each herds to stampede on cue, adding further unconsciousness.
Consider the term white guilt. One, if white, is expected to stampede with the white herd, even when you know there is no wolf. One is being induced, to be part of a herd, by accepting its downside as your own, so you can be stampeded for something you did not do. If you allow this to happen you will lose your contact to reality. The evil shepherds have no concern for you they need to get you to market.
Who selects the representative? How is such a representative selected?
Group identity politics right there. Sexist and racist.
Let's then forget Martin Luther King Jr's famous words then shall we?
How does the fact that it happened a century before they were born prevent it from having a detrimental effect on their reality today? Are you suggesting that events are isolated and none have any influence on how the future pans out?
Although "restitution for slavery" is not a remedy. Perhaps a good psychologist, just as a good psychology approach can be a positive help for a victim of something that actually happened to said victim within their own lifetime.
What?
I used English words.
Yes, just not in an order which made any sense.
.
I'll attempt to simplify for you.
Those who feel they are victim of a victim of a victim of an actual victim of slavery should probably seek out a psychologist to address their personal issues.
As I said in my original post, are you suggesting that it is not possible for historical events to have a continued real impact on people in contemporary society? At what point does the impact of events stop? Is it immediately after they have happened? Do events somehow only affect the people alive at the time? If there was a wildfire during one generation which destroyed a forest, would the next generation miraculously find the forest had returned because the event is only able to affect the generation alive at the time? I'm baffled by your logic here.
Yes, and slavery obviously had impacts on the descendents of slaves in addition to the slaves themselves. The first generation faced resentment and bigotry which made it harder to get earn money and limited social opportunity. The next generation faced prejudice resulting from the predominantly low social class of the first generation, resulting from slavery. The third generation suffer from low educational opportunity, low investment and prejudice caused by the previous generation's status, which in turn was caused by that of the generation before, which in turn was caused by slavery.
I don't understand what you're finding so hard to comprehend about this that you think anyone who feels affected by slavery needs a psychiatrist.
There are many ways to address the psychological without necessarily seeing a psychiatrist.
I think that the 'restitution' idea is not one of them. I think 'restitution' has gone as far as it can go, such as equality rights that the US has evolved into.
The point is, what in all of this is 'psychological'. People who have been affected by slavery as a consequence of their heritage tend to be poorer with fewer social and educational opportunities. How are they 'psychological'?
Many people are poor. Many people suffer a poverty of consciousness. Life is difficult most of the time for most of the population of the entire world.
Some can escape their poverty of consciousness and still be poor materially. Some escape their poverty of consciousness and rise up materially.
And then some are very wealthy and powerful but still live in a state of poverty of consciousness.
Yes, so how does any of that change the fact that the treatment of slaves materially affected their descendants?
One can ask for anything.
So we should look at the question of asking for something and demanding something.
If one asks for something with the expectation they should receive it then they did not really ask in the first instance.
It was a demand.
To ask is to only reasonably expect an answer in the negative or the positive or no answer at all.
Ultimately all one can do is ask.......apart from doing something for yourself.
So if I stole your wallet from you you wouldn't 'demand' it back, you wouldn't be able to utter the expression "give me back my wallet!" without feeling the need to seek psychiatric help?
Everyone can claim to be affected negatively by history. Many feel this to be the case.
Feelings are a psychological issue.
I would do only what is in my power to retrieve my wallet.
Doing all I can possibly do and then accepting I have done all I can possibly do is a good psychological outcome.
Expecting others to do all of that for me is not a good outcome with regard to my psychology.
Not with equal veracity they can't. The poor are not definitively descended from other poor people. Black people are pretty definitely descended from other black people so their heritage (and therefore the effect history has had on them) is much more certain.
History may well have negatively affected me, but I've got no good reason to think it has. Some groups simply have a better reason than others.
So how is combining with others who feel the same and using whatever emotional means are at your disposal to influence those in power not one of the thing you can "possibly do"? You're saying it's reasonable for people to do everything in their power to retrieve what they believe is theirs, but then arbitrarily denying some of the methods by which they might do that.
People can try anything. Good luck to them.