THREAD: In the identity politics debate there are 3 memes that I hear often: 1. that all politics is identity politics 2. critics of so called "identity politics" ignore issues of marginalised groups and 3. they perpetuate a white male chauvinist worldview.
It's flawed because it ignores the fact that there have been many critiques of identity politics by non-whites, many of whom have been deeply involved in struggles against racism, injustice and colonial oppression.
I don't like to do the whole "speaking as a [insert identity]" but as a bisexual 'man of colour' I criticise identity politics not because I oppose the rights of marginalised groups, but because it is an impediment to these struggles of liberation.
Some anti-anti identity politics people will say, or imply, that POC who critique "identity politics" are inadvertently perpetuating class reductionism or may be exploited by white men for nefarious purposes, or worse basically Uncle Toms.
I wonder how they would react to Paul Gilroy? CLR James? Or A.Sivanandan? How about Anthony Appiah? Edward Said (the author of Orientalism FFS!)? @kenanmalik? All 'POC' who have criticised identity politics. Are they white male chauvinists?
What makes criticism of identity politics difficult, especially now in the age of Trump, is its often used as a dogwhistle by those who wish to blame the gains of the 1960s liberation movements: civil rights, feminism, LGBT liberation for the rise of Trump & alt-right.
Most critics of "identity politics" often conflate two things: a narrow & essentialising way of viewing human affairs, defining & viewing them solely by identity and social justice movements combating specific forms of oppression against particular groups.
BLM protesting police brutality is not "identity politics". Women using #MeToo to raise awareness about sexual harassment & the multiple forms of sexual oppression they face is not "identity politics". This is actually a politics of liberation and democracy than separatism.
A. Sivanandan wrote "Any struggles of the oppressed, be it blacks or women, which are only for themselves and then not for the least of them, the most deprived, the most exploited of them, are inevitably self-serving and narrow and unable to enlarge the human condition…(1/2)
The question for is: what is it in the black experience, in the experience of the oppressed and the exploited, that gives one the imagination to see other oppressions and the will to fight for a better society for all, a more equal, just free society, a socialist society?"(2/2)
It is necessary, dare I say possible, to oppose racial & gender based oppression AND class exploitation. Conversations around race, gender & class should be both/and not either/or. Too often this important conversation is shut down by those who don't want their bias challenged
So no, not all politics is identity politics and not all politics *has* to be identity politics. Universalism doesn't have to be a cover for majoritarianism and solidarity doesn't have to be defined in ethnic & religious terms.
What we need is to articulate a universalist politics that is multi-dimensional, that goes beyond black and white, yet takes the specific struggles of marginalised groups seriously. Because as Fanon argued you get into the universal through the particular.
The personal is meaningless without understanding the political and you enrich ones understanding of the universal by the struggles of the particular. Any struggles of race, gender and class must be attached to a holisitc analysis of international political economy.
In other words, we need a difficult politics. Much easier said than done. But remember this comrades, both/and not either/or.
