@battleforeurope Given that you ‘quote’ me in this thread as saying things I never have, attribute views to me that I don’t hold, and refuse to engage with my actual arguments, I’d normally be reluctant to respond to what appears to be written in bad faith. But here goes, anyway. 1/
@battleforeurope First, if you can show me where I write ‘the idea that the British working class is socially conservative is nonsense’ I’d be interested (and I don’t mean the headline which, as you know, authors don’t write). 2/
@battleforeurope Perhaps what I actually wrote – that ‘the reality is more complex’ – was not incendiary enough to allow you to mount your high horse? 3/
@battleforeurope You write ‘Malik himself admits that “social conservatism” today is generally framed not in terms of… opposition to “non-traditional” relationships… but in terms of… issues such as national sovereignty (see Brexit) and immigration’ as if that undermines my argument. 4/
@battleforeurope My point is that ‘social conservatism’ has been redefined by people like you to exclude issues that don’t fit your argument. And that without that redefinition your argument about social conservatism would not hold. 5/
@battleforeurope Or, to adopt your approach and language: ‘Fazi admits that those who claim the working class socially conservative have redefined the concept of social conservatism so as to allow it to fit their argument’. 6/
@battleforeurope You write that my citing the fact that a third of unskilled workers are ‘pro-immigration’ is ‘a pretty poor argument’ because two-thirds are ‘anti-immigrant’. It would certainly be a poor argument if I had suggested that a majority weren’t worried about immigration. 7/
@battleforeurope What I actually wrote was that the BSA survey reveals ‘a sizable contrarian minority’ in favour of the same or more immigration. Note ‘minority’. Again, yours is argument by insinuation and by ignoring what I actually write. 8/
@battleforeurope You write ‘In classic example of left-Pavlovian response, Malik seems unwilling to confront these uncomfortable truths’. Given that I’ve written dozens of articles exploring working class hostility to immigration, that’s another specious claim. 9/
@battleforeurope Some articles on some of those ‘uncomfortable truths’: kenanmalik.com/2017/10/05/pop… kenanmalik.com/2016/02/01/dem… kenanmalik.com/2015/09/26/on-…
kenanmalik.com/2016/06/21/bey… kenanmalik.com/2016/06/29/bri… 10/
kenanmalik.com/2016/06/21/bey… kenanmalik.com/2016/06/29/bri… 10/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘Malik’s argument gets even more contradictory from here on: to the extent, he says, that immigration is perceived as a problem – a fact he denied until a moment earlier.’ So, can you show me where I ‘deny’ that ‘immigration is perceived as a problem’? 12/
@battleforeurope A quote – an actual quote - would be good, rather than insinuation or things made up. 13/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘In other words, Malik says, immigration is not the cause but rather the symptom of working class anxieties’. What you don’t do is mention, let alone engage with, the research I cite… 14/
@battleforeurope …research which shows that that hostility to immigration is related not to the scale of immigration but to already existing lack of trust and social solidarity. Here’s one of the papers, btw: cps.ceu.edu/sites/cps.ceu.… 15/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘It’s not clear what caused this “erosion of the more intangible aspects of [workers’] lives” for Malik – probably a vague notion of “neoliberalism”.’ ‘Probably’ gives the game away – you’re interested not in what I do say, but what you think I ‘probably’ would say.16/
@battleforeurope It’s a particularly odd accusation given that, unlike you, I’ve never written a book with ‘neoliberal’ in its title. But again, you seem more interested in rhetorical assertions than serious debate. Perhaps you should read what I do write on the issue (see links above). 17/
@battleforeurope Is it your view, then, that immigrants ‘caused’ the implosion of trade unions, the erosion of the collective power of the labour movement, the destruction of communities in pit villages and in towns built round steel works or ships, the rise of the gig economy? 18/
@battleforeurope Or the greater atomisation of society, the introduction of market principles into almost every nook and cranny of social life, the fracturing of much of social infrastructure, the imposition of austerity, etc? 19/
@battleforeurope Or the severing of links by social democratic parties to their traditional working class constituencies, the way that many public institutions have insulated themselves from the wider public, and the sense of voicelessness that many sections of the working class feel? 20/
@battleforeurope Or is that, against the background of these developments, and in an age in which the primary language through which we understand social problems has shifted from that of politics and class to that of culture and identity… 21/
@battleforeurope …that migrants have become the prism through which these developments have come to be seen and that immigration has become symbolic of a world that feels out of control? 22/
@battleforeurope You write ‘Here we have yet another example of left-Pavlovian response… they equate opposition to immigration – and more in general “conservatism” – with racism’. Is it too much to ask that you provide evidence that I make any such ‘equation’? 23/
@battleforeurope Or perhaps the fact that you think this is true is sufficient evidence for you? In which case, perhaps, again, you may want to want to read what I actually write on this issue: kenanmalik.com/2016/10/27/i-w… kenanmalik.com/2016/07/13/dem… kenanmalik.com/2017/03/05/gra… kenanmalik.com/2016/11/14/the… 24/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘to the extent that they acknowledge a longing for belonging and identity (not a given), they have to come up with “alternative”, more politically correct, forms of collective identity: unions, “movements”, etc. Anything but the dreaded notion of national identity.’25/
@battleforeurope So, promoting trade unions and social movements is now to be seen as ‘politically correct’? In any case, you don’t engage with the argument that there has long been both left and right critiques of individualism and notions of what constitutes a community or collective. 26/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘To consider national identity intrinsically fascistic is absurd.’ Sigh. How many times do I have ask ‘Can you provide any evidence that I have ever claimed anything of the sort’? 27/
@battleforeurope As it happens I *am* critical of many of the ways that ‘national identity’ is deployed, not because it is ‘intrinsically fascist’ but partly for the very reason you celebrate it – its cross-class character. 28/
@battleforeurope It becomes a means of obscuring the fact that the working class often has to pay the price of what is done in the ‘national interest’. George Osborne’s ‘We’re all in it together’ argument for austerity is a good example. 29/
@battleforeurope Note that I have not used the word ‘fascist’ in my previous two tweets except in repeating your phrase. 30/
@battleforeurope You write: ‘modern concepts of nat. identity are incredibly “progressive”, based as they are on transcending individual particularities – sex, race, biology, religion etc – to create cultural-political identities based on participation, equality, citizenship, representation’. 31/
@battleforeurope First, there are different conceptions of national identity from the civic to the ethnic to the religious. They all have different meanings and consequences. The first thing to do, surely, is not to lump them all into one category of ‘modern concepts of national identity’. 32/
@battleforeurope Second, even civic forms of nationalism have always had a double-edged character, on the one hand transcending particularities, on the other creating new forms of divisions, and creating a new set of ‘Others’. 33/
@battleforeurope This can be seen in contemporary discussions. For instance, in France, often seen as the epitome of civic nationalism, those of North African origin have long been seen as possessing values outside the French republican tradition and therefore not properly French. 34/
@battleforeurope It’s not just in France but throughout Europe that we can see similar arguments. I’m not suggesting that that’s your argument. What I am suggesting is that… 35/
@battleforeurope …in ignoring the significance of such trends and blandly asserting the ‘progressive nature’ of contemporary national identity, it’s you that’s ignoring some ‘uncomfortable truths’. 36/
@battleforeurope Yes, I know you mention in passing that ‘it may lead to chauvinism or aggressive nationalism’, but one phrase in a very long thread is hardly an acknowledgment of the problems that nationalism and anti-immigration rhetoric currently create. Rather the contrary. 37/
@battleforeurope It is true that today nations ‘constitute the basis for the modern democratic state’. What is not true is your elision of ‘nation’ and ‘society’. 38/
@battleforeurope Nor is it true that to be a nation requires the imposition of stricter immigration controls. Indeed, today’s international system of immigration controls is a means of externalising the borders of rich nations and diminishing the sovereignty of poor ones. 39/
@battleforeurope (Whenever I’ve raised this issue with those who see ‘sovereignty’ primarily in terms of ‘control of immigration’, it’s usually the case that, for them, such control trumps any broader sense of defending sovereignty.) 40/
@battleforeurope Not wishing to turn this thread into an essay (it’s far too long already, much longer than I intended), I’ll leave it there. What I would say is that many of those who defend a ‘postliberal’ view of immigration and nationalism often complain of being caricatured. 41/
@battleforeurope Sometimes they are, and I have defended them against such caricatures: kenanmalik.com/2016/10/27/i-w… kenanmalik.com/2019/10/26/not… 42/
@battleforeurope The trouble is, those making such complaints are themselves no slouches in caricaturing, misquoting, or making claims with no evidence, as your thread shows. 43/
@battleforeurope Simply throwing in phrases such as ‘woke left’, ‘politically correct’ and ‘Pavlovian response’ might be rhetorically useful but it does not make for a useful debate. 44/
@battleforeurope Anyway, given that this is New Year’s Eve, I expect that I will have more fun things to do than return to Twitter, but if you do respond, I will try to get back later this week, so long as it’s not more of your caricatures, non-quotes and misquotes. 45/
