I don't think it's defined. Means everything from a dogwhistle for anything black people or feminists do politically, to a (usually liberal) focus on representation and recognition, to an approach that fetishises results (identities) over the processes that form them (race vs racialisation, for example). 90% of the time it's used, by fash and commies alike, it's as a swear word and what follows is reactionary shit.
to an approach that fetishises results (identities) over the processes that form them (race vs racialisation, for example
What does this mean?
There are some critiques of 'identity politics' from e.g. critical race theorists, queer theorists, some feminists, that are more interested in the processes that produce or stabilise certain identities than the identities themselves or political claims made in their name.
So e.g. this (I'm citing this interview a lot lately):
It’s fascinating to me that many still think of class as an identity, against which the concepts of gender or race are somehow equivalent and rivalrous political identities to that of class, and do not see all of these as referring to processes of classification whose outcomes was called ‘a class’ because, unlike a caste, who ended up there was seen as far more social rather than natural.
I think this the difference between saying 'black people should be treated equally to white people', and saying 'whiteness and blackness are historical categories defined by a hierarchical relationship', or something like that.
But these kind of distinctions aren't usually people who criticise "identity politics" have in mind, and those who make the above kind of arguments would probably be seen as doing "identity politics" by most people who use the term.
OK, kinda killed this thread... These are pretty good articles giving an idea of what's at stake, and criticising liberal versions of 'identity politics':
Yeah, this is also a good account of how "identity politics" was recuperated by the UK Labour Party: https://libcom.org/library/croissant-roses-new-labour-muslim-britain
I guess personally for me I don't see "identity politics" as a bad thing, as it's normally just used as a dismissive term to refer to people who are fighting against discrimination against part of the working class (which is of course at least as important as any attack on any other part of the working class). But I suppose where I would define it as negative is related to those individuals who are arguing for things like wanting more equal representation for women or people of colour in the ruling class, leaving the conditions of the vast majority of working class women and people of colour unchanged. For example those who supported a vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries on the basis that she was a woman, on the basis of her identity rather than on the basis of class interest.
I've noticed a form of identity politics peddled by right wing types. A lot of the British "celebrity millionaires" like to present themselves as boys from the terrace, and this is rarely questioned. They're treated like they're still common sense blokes in touch with the common man, while travelling the world in private planes and boats and only eating at thousand pound for a bowl of soup restaurants.
Also true of MP's Alan Johnson an MP for Hull is constantly trumpeting that he was once an ordinary postie and this means that he is there spokesperson. That was true even when he backed privatisation of the Post Office and the majority of current post workers were vocally against it. UKIP's new leader is doing the same, the news told he has "working class roots" (whatever they are, they didn't specify or explain why he currently isn't part of the working class) so naturally the working class are going to walk in step with him because...
Also a lot of the modern pound shop Mosely's try to show how ordinary and working class they are but it usually comes out that they're small to middleish business owners, or have several properties they rent out.
None of these are remotely working class but because they dress, talk and act like stereotypical tradesman on a night out a lot of people buy it.
Speaking of right-wing types, of course one of the odd phenomena of the rise of the far right in the US is the emergence of an identity politics around the concept of 'whiteness.' Couched in the same language, they're attempting to normalize white nationalism by making comparisons to other id-groups.
From what I gather, many of the same tactics were in play around the Brexit campaign?
It's fascism to my mind. It's been pioneered (not sure if that's the right word) by Social Justice Warriors..Google it. It's affecting universities all over the globe but one in particular refusing to play their 'pronouns' game is Prof Jordan Petersen in Toronto who is on the point of being sacked for not calling his students 'zhe' (male/female) or 'they', same. Oxford uni going through same. Is it a UN initiative?
Speaking of right-wing types, of course one of the odd phenomena of the rise of the far right in the US is the emergence of an identity politics around the concept of 'whiteness.' Couched in the same language, they're attempting to normalize white nationalism by making comparisons to other id-groups.
From what I gather, many of the same tactics were in play around the Brexit campaign?
Not exactly no. While there's plenty of racism and bigotry against dark skinned folks and their strange customs most of the anti immigration hysteria in Britain is targeted against other white Europeans.
The anti muslim rhetoric in the mainstream is fear over terrorists getting an easy time due to "liberal policing" and "human rights legislation".
Jill, did you just sign up to this site to complain about political correctness gone mad & express your ignorance about what fascism actually is? Jordan Peterson is just a transphobic old bigot who's been campaigning against a law making it illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of gender identity. Poor precious poppet is worried that not being allowed to be a bigoted asshole in the workplace is going to interfere with his freeze peach. Diddums.
Jill's post might lack credibility but there's an account out here somewhere, I think on viewpoint mag, by a person active during the genesis of occupy claiming it was made prevelant by anticommunists, liberals and black nationalist as a way of undermining the "economic determinism" of the others. That went as far as eventually banning people who weren't PoX from participating.
“SJW” is one of those words thrown around at anyone advocating a certain cause; it’s a favorite among conspiracy whackos and Right-Libertarians (people like Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux). “Identity politics” is another thing just thrown around at anyone who may promote a certain cause. Really, you can get called a “SJW” or be accused of engaging in “identity politics” if you're promoting transgender issues, are supportive of refugees, or just have left-wing views in general. Half the time it’s just bullshit like that, a way to discredit people concerned with genuine political/social issues.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about with "SJW's" and "identity politics." Is there something I'm missing?
Feminists have imparted such wisdom before, often in their critiques of Marxism. (Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist, practices what one might describe as a modern, gentler version of Marxism.) For example, in her essay “One Is Not Born a Woman,” radical lesbian feminist Monique Wittig notes that any kind of economic-based, Marxist revolution fails to acknowledge the specific experiences that differ across marginalized groups.
“Marxism has denied the members of oppressed classes the attribute of being a subject. In doing this, Marxism… has prevented all categories of oppressed peoples from constituting themselves historically, as subjects… And when an economic transformation took place… no revolutionary change took place within the new society, because the people themselves did not change.”
The Achilles heel of Marxism is humanity itself. The universalism of the workers’ fight against “Wall Street” or the “1%” or whatever term is currently being used to describe the capitalist bourgeoise deliberately overlooks oppressed identity groups such as women, people of color, the disabled, immigrant communities.
The person who wrote this claptrap studied at Harvard, Oxford and Rutgers.
You're right, it's all the fault of the globalist (yet simultaneously 'zionist' hint hint) NWO, who would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling conspiracy theorists (sorry, 'citizen investigators').
“SJW” is one of those words thrown around at anyone advocating a certain cause; it’s a favorite among conspiracy whackos and Right-Libertarians (people like Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux). “Identity politics” is another thing just thrown around at anyone who may promote a certain cause. Really, you can get called a “SJW” or be accused of engaging in “identity politics” if you're promoting transgender issues, are supportive of refugees, or just have left-wing views in general. Half the time it’s just bullshit like that, a way to discredit people concerned with genuine political/social issues.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about with "SJW's" and "identity politics." Is there something I'm missing?
Not wanting to play devils advocate but still, I actually think there is something to SJW. First off I do agree that it is more often than not, a blanket statement that is used to dismiss any and all criticism of hierarchical violence, particularly around struggles of race and gender. Nonetheless, how well it sticks and even how well it stings for some, has more do with throwing jabs at both the feigned humility and the projection of moral/intellectual superiority that has become a hallmark of the left. That is essentially what is at the crux of it, or at least what often gives it what little weight it does have and why it is often accompanied with accusations of hypocrisy (a favorite of the right). The latter of which is even harder to shake given our historical failure to distinguish ourselves from the left establishment and liberalism in general.
As far as North America is concerned, it isn't surprising that the strongest manifestations of the MRA's, the anti-SJW's and their alt-right ilk is happening on the most liberal campuses in Canada and the U.S. Case in point is U of T. The historic struggles of women and "POC" have long been recuperated and repackaged into a liberal and bourgeois consensus, which often excels beyond the realm of absurdity (like how not voting for Hillary was an act of privilege). As such, the rise of these uni-bred fascist are in large part a backlash to the liberal recuperation to our past struggles, and in order to fight it, we have to be willing to acknowledge that where we lost is where they begun.
On a final note, myself and most of my comrades actually do use the term SJW and do so in a derogatory fashion. But in speaking only for myself, I admittedly say it with disgust in regards to what I see as the utterly detached self righteousness of the bulk of the american left. Especially when they are so self-congratulatory in their poor understanding and practice of "ally-ship".
It is here that many take issue with what is being called "identity politics" , but notwithstanding, the criticism of its critics as mentioned above are equally as valid. A good article with some historical context on past movements recuperation into identity as struggle would be "with Allies Like These"
As far as North America is concerned, it isn't surprising that the strongest manifestations of the MRA's, the anti-SJW's and their alt-right ilk is happening on the most liberal campuses in Canada and the U.S. Case in point is U of T. The historic struggles of women and "POC" have long been recuperated and repackaged into a liberal and bourgeois consensus, which often excels beyond the realm of absurdity (like how not voting for Hillary was an act of privilege). As such, the rise of these uni-bred fascist are in large part a backlash to the liberal recuperation to our past struggles, and in order to fight it, we have to be willing to acknowledge that where we lost is where they begun.
perhaps texas is an anomaly--and i guess in many ways that wouldn't be surprising--but most of the growth in the radical right isn't happening around campuses to any notable degree anywhere else as far as i am aware.
yes, fash groups will occasionally set up shop sometimes flyering or protesting campus events, but that shouldn't really be interpreted as these groups having an actual campus base. the groups that do have an actual uni-presence rarely represent more than a half dozen people.
assuming good-faith, presumably you're using the SJW-insult in a 'give up activism' related critique? even so, i am highly sceptical about the effectiveness of using right-wing generated phrases in this manner. much like the on-going conversations about safer spaces, while we may have a critique about how they are implemented and interpreted, our concerns have nothing in common with the right wing attacks against them.
On a final note, myself and most of my comrades actually do use the term SJW and do so in a derogatory fashion.
I've got to say i don't trust you or your comrades
I know how you feel. I mean if we are to accept that Social Justice Warrior is an actual thing then surely someone opposed to social justice ( a good idea in my view) would be a social injustice warrior. Myself, it's just jargon in the way people use (or mis-use) these words and doesn't really mean anything to me- though as I've already stated, I think social justice common sense and a good idea and don't see how it can't be.
When I was in university (and involved in a particularly activisty anarchist scene) those of us of a more class-struggle bent used the term dismissively towards those who engaged in the 'oppression olympics' - which I think now is less of thing, but was certainly quite a prominent method of political analysis in that time and place.
Since then, I hadn't thought much about it until returning tho the US in this particular election year. And it's been sort of weird to see the term identity politics - a word I always associated with activist circles - co-opted both by liberals and the right.
like how not voting for Hillary was an act of privilege
Funny this should come up, an increasingly less radical friends of mine chastised me for not voting as my privilege as a straight white man meant I had the luxury of not voting as I wouldn't be so adversely affected by a Trump administration.
perhaps texas is an anomaly--and i guess in many ways that wouldn't be surprising--but most of the growth in the radical right isn't happening around campuses to any notable degree anywhere else as far as i am aware.
My apologies, when I said U of T, I meant university of Toronto. There MRA's have long set up shop and have pulled hundreds to their events, are regularly throwing up posters on campus and doxxing those that go to shut them down. ASU has had ongoing activity from the National Youth Front that had succeeded in getting a prof shut down for doing a teach in on critical race theory. And now Milo Yiannopoulos Is doing a tour of Universities and according to one report of anti-fascists, they drew hundreds and actually outnumbered the anti-fascists. And these are just a couple examples of how at universities, fascists are taking ground under the guise of liberalism.
So I'm not quite sure how it can be seen as an anomaly?
Yes, America's traditional far right has been on the move and have made more and more bloody incursions into the streets, but so far, we've been able to combat that. However, the mainstreaming of fascist ideals is on account of the alt-right, whose main proponents are some rich white boys, who are now trying to move their movement towards addressing the arena they know best, universities and the middle class.
On a final note, myself and most of my comrades actually do use the term SJW and do so in a derogatory fashion. But in speaking only for myself, I admittedly say it with disgust in regards to what I see as the utterly detached self righteousness of the bulk of the american left. Especially when they are so self-congratulatory in their poor understanding and practice of "ally-ship".
I'm only vaguely aware of "SJW" through, as I said, the conspiracy and Right-"Libertarian" usage of the word, who will dismissively label anyone with left-wing views a SJW. If it has usage elsewhere, then I'm completely unaware (I'm from the states by the way). I'm out of touch I guess, or not properly educated on something I should be (should I be?). I mean does this term have any intellectual presence or respect? Are there any respected left-wing thinkers writing about "SJW's"?
If it's just people who go about enforcing their unreasonable views of what just/appropriate behavior is, calling everyone racist or sexist, etc. when they're really not, then I could understand that. I'd still hesitate to use the expression SJW to describe them. I'd rather just call them "unreasonable" or maybe just "mistaken." Just to be clear, a SJW (in your usage) is not someone who advocates, say, for reproductive rights, or people who concern themselves with other genuine issues like this?
It is here that many take issue with what is being called "identity politics" , but notwithstanding, the criticism of its critics as mentioned above are equally as valid. A good article with some historical context on past movements recuperation into identity as struggle would be "with Allies Like These"
Identity politics seems to be a synonym for SJW for a lot of the people who dismissively apply those terms to anyone concerned with, in my view, legitimate issues. I've seen some people on the left criticize what they call identity politics just because the focus isn't on "how flawed capitalism is." I think this is the wrong approach, though, to say you can't concern yourself with social matters (race, gender, etc.) and try making progress in those areas. I don't think capitalism is necessarily the source of these problems, so focusing exclusively on that, just organizing the working class against the ruling class, isn't helping. I think it would be difficult to put one's finger on the exact sources of these various forms of oppression, but I still think they should be discussed and combated in the institutions/situations where they arise. I'd rather focus on these social issues in conjunction with organizing the working class, instead of it being just one way.
Just to be clear, a SJW (in your usage) is not someone who advocates, say, for reproductive rights, or people who concern themselves with other genuine issues like this?
I feel I need to clarify that while I may be a self-loathing anarchist, I have never used the SJW term in an argument and would never publicly interject in a debate with that term, even if I thought some pompous ass was being one. When I say I and many of my comrades use that term, I meant it face to face and over beers. Often it is in regards to holier than thou activist, careerist and patronizing "allies". Generally it's about other people we just cannot stand for a whole host of other reasons and if I'm to be honest, it's largely because we're a bunch of jaded and disgruntled motherfuckers.
I think it's more coming from where Chilli Sauce was coming from when they said
those of us of a more class-struggle bent used the term dismissively towards those who engaged in the 'oppression olympics' - which I think now is less of thing
Which for the most part is true, but made for a toxic "scene" a decade ago.
That said, it is In no way meant to describe people who are passionate about the defense and growth of such issues as reproductive rights gender equity....ect. ect. I get that fascist use it that way, but they also use other discrediting terms we use, like "liberals".
In regards to other points you raised, namely :
I still think they should be discussed and combated in the institutions/situations where they arise. I'd rather focus on these social issues in conjunction with organizing the working class, instead of it being just one way.
Absolutely. And I think that fighting the reactionary tendencies of patriarchy and white-supremacy within the class is one of the most paramount task of a revolutionary. However, we can't talk about race and gender without talking about class and vice versa. That's where privilege reductionist and class reductionist both miss the point.
You will find alot of people dismissive of "identity politics" on the left because of it liberal application. But also because there are those that are still clinging to their privileged status. However, that liberal application is definitely in need of being criticized. Largely because it is the politics of greater inclusion into the dominate order as opposed to its abolition. And it's liberal practice is one of shaming, policing and by that design, it has been one of exclusion.
That said, it is In no way meant to describe people who are passionate about the defense and growth of such issues as reproductive rights gender equity....ect. ect. I get that fascist use it that way, but they also use other discrediting terms we use, like "liberals".
Ok, but 'liberal' is a word which when we use it describes a specific bourgeois politics, isn't it? But when the far right use it they might mean to say that someone is just pro choice or something, so it's being used with a very different meaning. Whereas SJW in both cases means a feminist, or an anti racist or gay rights activist...... I just feel kind of icky with this word being used this way. If someone is a careerist or patronising, couldn't you just call them careerist or patronising?
I don't fully understand why anarchists would feel comfortable co-opting the language of the far-right to describe people who Fingers correctly identify as being feminists, LGBT activists, anti-racists etc. At the very best it seems to me to come from a smug position of superiority about our politics, which seems a little delusional to me given that we occupy a tiny, postage stamp space of political space. Goddammit, it would be nice not to totally dismiss everyone who don't have perfect politics.
As for identity politics, the only people who I hear complaining about identity politics are people who are completely secure in their own identity (white dudes usually) and are largely tone deaf to the concerns of marginalized groups. When you're in one of those marginal groups material issues which are oppressing you here and now are far more pressing that any hypothetical revolution that none of us are ever going to see. It would be advantageous to everybody if we shut up and listen to marginalized people's concerns occasionally instead of whining about identity politics and SJWs when people prefer to concentrate on their specific issues.
if we are to accept that Social Justice Warrior is an actual thing then surely someone opposed to social justice (a good idea in my view) would be a social injustice warrior.
Justice, whilst it might be be a strong instinct, is a weak theoretical basis for politics because what is considered 'just' is highly contested and varies from person to person. Survival/dominance of the fittest? Absolute equality? The outcome of the market? Appeals to 'justice' don't offer a concrete foundation for politics.
[quote=Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme,]
What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
[/quote]
potrokin
Myself, it's just jargon in the way people use (or mis-use) these words and doesn't really mean anything to me- though as I've already stated, I think social justice common sense and a good idea and don't see how it can't be.
The problem with "just jargon" is that it serves to mystify, and when the resulting confusion spreads, it only does so to the detriment of clarity and class politics.
And "common sense" is usually synonymous with the absence of factual knowledge.
eugene--thanks for the clarification; i think i better understand where you're coming from. honestly, i'd never run into SJW as a pejorative before the right wing usage, but based on yours & CS's descriptions, i must've misssd it.
i also now see where you are coming from regarding campus fascism. i'll admit to not knowing much about how things are developing in ontario. that said, i think milo's tour is more about using campus spaces in an effort to be provocative--to get attention, and less about the campus being a bastion of support. my understanding is most attendees largely consist of area fash and fellow travelers, and not really students.
campuses are target rich zones for someone like milo--dense with 'others,' antifa chapters are fairly vibrant and vocal, and the outrage he causes becomes magnified on social media. so, even if he didn't have a single supporter on campus, it would still be the best venue for his brand of self promotion.
no doubt, the figureheads--milo, damigo, spencer, heimbach, etc are college educated and would love nothing more than to have large student movements, but at this point that seems fairly unlikely. instead, i think projecting the college educated, middle class personas has less to do with fantasies of building massive campus chapters and is much more part of their larger effort to broaden their appeal by being 'just regular guys, just like you.' with some 'legitimate concerns.'
I am extremely suspicious of people who use SJW as a pejorative. You're using the terminology of the far right, of gamergate, Milo, Vox Day, Roosh, rape apologists, of Christian fundamentalists and a multitude of other semi-sentient, walking pieces of human garbage, a term used to dismiss anyone who brings up issues around sexism, racism, homophobia etc. It's also a term which is used to disparage a demographic which is overwhelmingly young women and POC, very young sometimes, has been part of the arsenal for grown assed men to harass teens. Words are powerful and often have meanings which have far wider implications than their literal meanings. The best I can say about using the language of the fash to attack the same targets as them is it is extreme laziness.
I completely agree that using terms used by the far right is at best problematic.
Also the use of the term social justice warrior is used to dismiss any kind of protest activity as: manipulation to obtain unfair advantages or pandering to such people to gain advantages from them (usually sex). If I criticise someone for using politics to advance their own personal agenda then it is from a position that they are misusing a real issue for their own benefit. The basic SJW argument is that there is no such issue to misuse it's just underhand behaviour.
Obviously they fail to see that spending hundreds or thousands to learn how to pick up women as alpha males is as dishonest as faking an interest in feminism. Again as a communist I object to the dishonesty and the misuse of a real issue. MRA objects on the grounds that that isn't the 'proper' way to 'get' a woman.
Thi MRA stuff is so toxic that aside from the basic reasons mentioned by several posters I think we do not under any circumstances want to give even the slightest impression that we have any kind of connection to these kinds of beliefs.
There was an interesting article on pick up artist stuff on cracked of all places.
If a lonely dude goes to a pickup artist meetup, he's not the loser the rest of the world calls him anymore. He's surrounded by people telling him that he's awesome, that he's desirable, that the world owes him something. He's surrounded by friends. Bad friends, friends who enable flaws and destructive behavior, but if that's all the friendship you can get, you're sure as hell going to take it. And then he'll want to defend his friends from the insults of, say, the people who forced them to cancel their meetups. Because that's further proof that it's him and his buddies against the world. It's like how the ex-neo-Nazi we interviewed didn't start hanging out with Nazis because he wanted to kill Jews -- they were just the first people he knew who invited him to chill instead of calling him a screw-up.
Thanks for posting that excerpt, jef. I think it's important to note that more than a few of the guys dipping their toes into the PA scene are probably not ideologues from the first minute.
From what I've read, a lot of men who first try out the PA scene initially view it the same as anyone who seeks out any of the metaphysical self-help gurus and groups, and is a symptom of loneliness and alienation. That said, there are significant numbers of men involved who, from the beginning, feel their privileged position is being challenged, and they are determined to reassert their 'rightful place' at the top of the patriarchal food chain.
Presumably, the others--being lonley, highly impressionable and feeling a sense of belonging for the first time in their lives--fully buy into the ideology at some point not long into their experience. I don't imagine it takes too long for them to blossom into full MRA supporters.
Much of the PA scene, especially, but also the MRA ideology to some degree does dovetail nicely with frat boy culture, so in that regard, I'll concede eugene's point about campus support for MRA has some legitimacy.
If a lonely dude goes to a pickup artist meetup, he's not the loser the rest of the world calls him anymore. He's surrounded by people telling him that he's awesome, that he's desirable, that the world owes him something. He's surrounded by friends. Bad friends, friends who enable flaws and destructive behavior, but if that's all the friendship you can get, you're sure as hell going to take it. And then he'll want to defend his friends from the insults of, say, the people who forced them to cancel their meetups. Because that's further proof that it's him and his buddies against the world. It's like how the ex-neo-Nazi we interviewed didn't start hanging out with Nazis because he wanted to kill Jews -- they were just the first people he knew who invited him to chill instead of calling him a screw-up.
Here's an example;
https://youtu.be/_n2IVF9a2IA
BTW, if you haven't seen this film then you really ought. It's extraordinary.
if we are to accept that Social Justice Warrior is an actual thing then surely someone opposed to social justice (a good idea in my view) would be a social injustice warrior.
Justice, whilst it might be be a strong instinct, is a weak theoretical basis for politics because what is considered 'just' is highly contested and varies from person to person. Survival/dominance of the fittest? Absolute equality? The outcome of the market? Appeals to 'justice' don't offer a concrete foundation for politics.
[quote=Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme,]What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
potrokin
Myself, it's just jargon in the way people use (or mis-use) these words and doesn't really mean anything to me- though as I've already stated, I think social justice common sense and a good idea and don't see how it can't be.
The problem with "just jargon" is that it serves to mystify, and when the resulting confusion spreads, it only does so to the detriment of clarity and class politics.
And "common sense" is usually synonymous with the absence of factual knowledge.[/quote]I see where you are coming from but surely you are being rather pedantic. Aren't things like dominance of the fittest and the rule of the market examples of injustice? As for common sense, can't someone reach a conclusion as to what is common sense based on factual knowledge? I'd say they can.
I still think they should be discussed and combated in the institutions/situations where they arise. I'd rather focus on these social issues in conjunction with organizing the working class, instead of it being just one way.
Absolutely. And I think that fighting the reactionary tendencies of patriarchy and white-supremacy within the class is one of the most paramount task of a revolutionary. However, we can't talk about race and gender without talking about class and vice versa. That's where privilege reductionist and class reductionist both miss the point.
Agreed.
On an unrelated note, Zeitgeisters are extremely arrogant in this regard. They don't even have a class analysis, and it seems they're also rather fond of dismissively using "SJW" and "identity politics" the way the far right does. They like placing themselves above any sort of political activity (be it class-related, improvement-oriented, or whatever), and will repeat their mantra, "everything is a consequence of the current economic system!", while proceeding, ironically, to do absolutely nothing to move toward their technocratic utopia. I believe their official transitional strategy, according to TZM Defined (this stuff is ridiculous), is "spreading the zeitgeist message" and "waiting on the collapse." I'm surprised there aren't any critiques of them (or TVP for that matter) here on libcom, considering their popularity.
Thi MRA stuff is so toxic that aside from the basic reasons mentioned by several posters I think we do not under any circumstances want to give even the slightest impression that we have any kind of connection to these kinds of beliefs.
Yes I strongly agree with this, and would urge people to remember that there is a strong anti-feminist feeling amongst a lot of people in the left which has led to a lot of fucked up behaviour, and the ignoring or covering up of that fucked up behaviour, and so I would ask people please not to use putdowns that give credence to these concepts.
It's shit. And that includes
It's shit. And that includes Class War ("class pride").
I don't think it's defined.
I don't think it's defined. Means everything from a dogwhistle for anything black people or feminists do politically, to a (usually liberal) focus on representation and recognition, to an approach that fetishises results (identities) over the processes that form them (race vs racialisation, for example). 90% of the time it's used, by fash and commies alike, it's as a swear word and what follows is reactionary shit.
^ What Joseph said
^ What Joseph said
Quote: to an approach that
What does this mean?
wojtek wrote: Quote: to an
wojtek
There are some critiques of 'identity politics' from e.g. critical race theorists, queer theorists, some feminists, that are more interested in the processes that produce or stabilise certain identities than the identities themselves or political claims made in their name.
So e.g. this (I'm citing this interview a lot lately):
I think this the difference between saying 'black people should be treated equally to white people', and saying 'whiteness and blackness are historical categories defined by a hierarchical relationship', or something like that.
But these kind of distinctions aren't usually people who criticise "identity politics" have in mind, and those who make the above kind of arguments would probably be seen as doing "identity politics" by most people who use the term.
OK, kinda killed this
OK, kinda killed this thread... These are pretty good articles giving an idea of what's at stake, and criticising liberal versions of 'identity politics':
Refusing to wait: anarchism and intersectionality
Insurrections at the intersections: feminism, intersectionality and anarchism
Yeah, this is also a good
Yeah, this is also a good account of how "identity politics" was recuperated by the UK Labour Party: https://libcom.org/library/croissant-roses-new-labour-muslim-britain
I guess personally for me I don't see "identity politics" as a bad thing, as it's normally just used as a dismissive term to refer to people who are fighting against discrimination against part of the working class (which is of course at least as important as any attack on any other part of the working class). But I suppose where I would define it as negative is related to those individuals who are arguing for things like wanting more equal representation for women or people of colour in the ruling class, leaving the conditions of the vast majority of working class women and people of colour unchanged. For example those who supported a vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries on the basis that she was a woman, on the basis of her identity rather than on the basis of class interest.
I've noticed a form of
I've noticed a form of identity politics peddled by right wing types. A lot of the British "celebrity millionaires" like to present themselves as boys from the terrace, and this is rarely questioned. They're treated like they're still common sense blokes in touch with the common man, while travelling the world in private planes and boats and only eating at thousand pound for a bowl of soup restaurants.
Also true of MP's Alan Johnson an MP for Hull is constantly trumpeting that he was once an ordinary postie and this means that he is there spokesperson. That was true even when he backed privatisation of the Post Office and the majority of current post workers were vocally against it. UKIP's new leader is doing the same, the news told he has "working class roots" (whatever they are, they didn't specify or explain why he currently isn't part of the working class) so naturally the working class are going to walk in step with him because...
Also a lot of the modern pound shop Mosely's try to show how ordinary and working class they are but it usually comes out that they're small to middleish business owners, or have several properties they rent out.
None of these are remotely working class but because they dress, talk and act like stereotypical tradesman on a night out a lot of people buy it.
Speaking of right-wing types,
Speaking of right-wing types, of course one of the odd phenomena of the rise of the far right in the US is the emergence of an identity politics around the concept of 'whiteness.' Couched in the same language, they're attempting to normalize white nationalism by making comparisons to other id-groups.
From what I gather, many of the same tactics were in play around the Brexit campaign?
It's fascism to my mind. It's
It's fascism to my mind. It's been pioneered (not sure if that's the right word) by Social Justice Warriors..Google it. It's affecting universities all over the globe but one in particular refusing to play their 'pronouns' game is Prof Jordan Petersen in Toronto who is on the point of being sacked for not calling his students 'zhe' (male/female) or 'they', same. Oxford uni going through same. Is it a UN initiative?
Maybe I've got 'identity
Maybe I've got 'identity politics' wrong!
jesuithitsquad
jesuithitsquad
Not exactly no. While there's plenty of racism and bigotry against dark skinned folks and their strange customs most of the anti immigration hysteria in Britain is targeted against other white Europeans.
The anti muslim rhetoric in the mainstream is fear over terrorists getting an easy time due to "liberal policing" and "human rights legislation".
Jill Mirran
Then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
Jill, did you just sign up to
Jill, did you just sign up to this site to complain about political correctness gone mad & express your ignorance about what fascism actually is? Jordan Peterson is just a transphobic old bigot who's been campaigning against a law making it illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of gender identity. Poor precious poppet is worried that not being allowed to be a bigoted asshole in the workplace is going to interfere with his freeze peach. Diddums.
Jill's post might lack
Jill's post might lack credibility but there's an account out here somewhere, I think on viewpoint mag, by a person active during the genesis of occupy claiming it was made prevelant by anticommunists, liberals and black nationalist as a way of undermining the "economic determinism" of the others. That went as far as eventually banning people who weren't PoX from participating.
Fleur, what the devil is
Fleur, what the devil is freeze peach?
Free speech.
Free speech.
Lol, what a fucking clot to
Lol, what a fucking clot to not see that.
Jill Mirran wrote: Maybe I've
Jill Mirran
Same Jill Mirran?
Jill Mirran
Incidentally this was a fake story, apparently made-up by the Sunday Times. Reporting on the rebuttal here.
“SJW” is one of those words
“SJW” is one of those words thrown around at anyone advocating a certain cause; it’s a favorite among conspiracy whackos and Right-Libertarians (people like Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux). “Identity politics” is another thing just thrown around at anyone who may promote a certain cause. Really, you can get called a “SJW” or be accused of engaging in “identity politics” if you're promoting transgender issues, are supportive of refugees, or just have left-wing views in general. Half the time it’s just bullshit like that, a way to discredit people concerned with genuine political/social issues.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about with "SJW's" and "identity politics." Is there something I'm missing?
Feminists have imparted such
The person who wrote this claptrap studied at Harvard, Oxford and Rutgers.
http://qz.com/664475/hillary-clinton-understands-that-a-political-revolution-is-not-one-size-fits-all/
I'd also recommend checking
I'd also recommend checking out Asad Haider's excellent article.
https://medium.com/@ahaider/passing-for-politics-559e14c813f7#.c1yu7y2jh
Craftwork thank you that's
Craftwork thank you that's the one. Excellent must read.
Jill Mirran wrote: Is it a UN
Jill Mirran
You're right, it's all the fault of the globalist (yet simultaneously 'zionist' hint hint) NWO, who would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling conspiracy theorists (sorry, 'citizen investigators').
Noah Fence wrote: Fleur, what
Noah Fence
it's what you have after whirled peas
zugzwang wrote: “SJW” is one
zugzwang
Not wanting to play devils advocate but still, I actually think there is something to SJW. First off I do agree that it is more often than not, a blanket statement that is used to dismiss any and all criticism of hierarchical violence, particularly around struggles of race and gender. Nonetheless, how well it sticks and even how well it stings for some, has more do with throwing jabs at both the feigned humility and the projection of moral/intellectual superiority that has become a hallmark of the left. That is essentially what is at the crux of it, or at least what often gives it what little weight it does have and why it is often accompanied with accusations of hypocrisy (a favorite of the right). The latter of which is even harder to shake given our historical failure to distinguish ourselves from the left establishment and liberalism in general.
As far as North America is concerned, it isn't surprising that the strongest manifestations of the MRA's, the anti-SJW's and their alt-right ilk is happening on the most liberal campuses in Canada and the U.S. Case in point is U of T. The historic struggles of women and "POC" have long been recuperated and repackaged into a liberal and bourgeois consensus, which often excels beyond the realm of absurdity (like how not voting for Hillary was an act of privilege). As such, the rise of these uni-bred fascist are in large part a backlash to the liberal recuperation to our past struggles, and in order to fight it, we have to be willing to acknowledge that where we lost is where they begun.
On a final note, myself and most of my comrades actually do use the term SJW and do so in a derogatory fashion. But in speaking only for myself, I admittedly say it with disgust in regards to what I see as the utterly detached self righteousness of the bulk of the american left. Especially when they are so self-congratulatory in their poor understanding and practice of "ally-ship".
It is here that many take issue with what is being called "identity politics" , but notwithstanding, the criticism of its critics as mentioned above are equally as valid. A good article with some historical context on past movements recuperation into identity as struggle would be "with Allies Like These"
http://linchpin.ca/?q=content/allies-these-reflections-privilege-reductionism
eugene wrote: On a final
eugene
I've got to say i don't trust you or your comrades
eugene wrote: As far as
eugene
perhaps texas is an anomaly--and i guess in many ways that wouldn't be surprising--but most of the growth in the radical right isn't happening around campuses to any notable degree anywhere else as far as i am aware.
yes, fash groups will occasionally set up shop sometimes flyering or protesting campus events, but that shouldn't really be interpreted as these groups having an actual campus base. the groups that do have an actual uni-presence rarely represent more than a half dozen people.
assuming good-faith, presumably you're using the SJW-insult in a 'give up activism' related critique? even so, i am highly sceptical about the effectiveness of using right-wing generated phrases in this manner. much like the on-going conversations about safer spaces, while we may have a critique about how they are implemented and interpreted, our concerns have nothing in common with the right wing attacks against them.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
I know how you feel. I mean if we are to accept that Social Justice Warrior is an actual thing then surely someone opposed to social justice ( a good idea in my view) would be a social injustice warrior. Myself, it's just jargon in the way people use (or mis-use) these words and doesn't really mean anything to me- though as I've already stated, I think social justice common sense and a good idea and don't see how it can't be.
When I was in university (and
When I was in university (and involved in a particularly activisty anarchist scene) those of us of a more class-struggle bent used the term dismissively towards those who engaged in the 'oppression olympics' - which I think now is less of thing, but was certainly quite a prominent method of political analysis in that time and place.
Since then, I hadn't thought much about it until returning tho the US in this particular election year. And it's been sort of weird to see the term identity politics - a word I always associated with activist circles - co-opted both by liberals and the right.
Funny this should come up, an increasingly less radical friends of mine chastised me for not voting as my privilege as a straight white man meant I had the luxury of not voting as I wouldn't be so adversely affected by a Trump administration.
jesuithitsquad
jesuithitsquad
My apologies, when I said U of T, I meant university of Toronto. There MRA's have long set up shop and have pulled hundreds to their events, are regularly throwing up posters on campus and doxxing those that go to shut them down. ASU has had ongoing activity from the National Youth Front that had succeeded in getting a prof shut down for doing a teach in on critical race theory. And now Milo Yiannopoulos Is doing a tour of Universities and according to one report of anti-fascists, they drew hundreds and actually outnumbered the anti-fascists. And these are just a couple examples of how at universities, fascists are taking ground under the guise of liberalism.
So I'm not quite sure how it can be seen as an anomaly?
Yes, America's traditional far right has been on the move and have made more and more bloody incursions into the streets, but so far, we've been able to combat that. However, the mainstreaming of fascist ideals is on account of the alt-right, whose main proponents are some rich white boys, who are now trying to move their movement towards addressing the arena they know best, universities and the middle class.
Quote: On a final note,
I'm only vaguely aware of "SJW" through, as I said, the conspiracy and Right-"Libertarian" usage of the word, who will dismissively label anyone with left-wing views a SJW. If it has usage elsewhere, then I'm completely unaware (I'm from the states by the way). I'm out of touch I guess, or not properly educated on something I should be (should I be?). I mean does this term have any intellectual presence or respect? Are there any respected left-wing thinkers writing about "SJW's"?
If it's just people who go about enforcing their unreasonable views of what just/appropriate behavior is, calling everyone racist or sexist, etc. when they're really not, then I could understand that. I'd still hesitate to use the expression SJW to describe them. I'd rather just call them "unreasonable" or maybe just "mistaken." Just to be clear, a SJW (in your usage) is not someone who advocates, say, for reproductive rights, or people who concern themselves with other genuine issues like this?
Identity politics seems to be a synonym for SJW for a lot of the people who dismissively apply those terms to anyone concerned with, in my view, legitimate issues. I've seen some people on the left criticize what they call identity politics just because the focus isn't on "how flawed capitalism is." I think this is the wrong approach, though, to say you can't concern yourself with social matters (race, gender, etc.) and try making progress in those areas. I don't think capitalism is necessarily the source of these problems, so focusing exclusively on that, just organizing the working class against the ruling class, isn't helping. I think it would be difficult to put one's finger on the exact sources of these various forms of oppression, but I still think they should be discussed and combated in the institutions/situations where they arise. I'd rather focus on these social issues in conjunction with organizing the working class, instead of it being just one way.
zugzwang wrote: Just to be
zugzwang
I feel I need to clarify that while I may be a self-loathing anarchist, I have never used the SJW term in an argument and would never publicly interject in a debate with that term, even if I thought some pompous ass was being one. When I say I and many of my comrades use that term, I meant it face to face and over beers. Often it is in regards to holier than thou activist, careerist and patronizing "allies". Generally it's about other people we just cannot stand for a whole host of other reasons and if I'm to be honest, it's largely because we're a bunch of jaded and disgruntled motherfuckers.
I think it's more coming from where Chilli Sauce was coming from when they said
Which for the most part is true, but made for a toxic "scene" a decade ago.
That said, it is In no way meant to describe people who are passionate about the defense and growth of such issues as reproductive rights gender equity....ect. ect. I get that fascist use it that way, but they also use other discrediting terms we use, like "liberals".
In regards to other points you raised, namely :
Absolutely. And I think that fighting the reactionary tendencies of patriarchy and white-supremacy within the class is one of the most paramount task of a revolutionary. However, we can't talk about race and gender without talking about class and vice versa. That's where privilege reductionist and class reductionist both miss the point.
You will find alot of people dismissive of "identity politics" on the left because of it liberal application. But also because there are those that are still clinging to their privileged status. However, that liberal application is definitely in need of being criticized. Largely because it is the politics of greater inclusion into the dominate order as opposed to its abolition. And it's liberal practice is one of shaming, policing and by that design, it has been one of exclusion.
eugene wrote: That said, it
eugene
Ok, but 'liberal' is a word which when we use it describes a specific bourgeois politics, isn't it? But when the far right use it they might mean to say that someone is just pro choice or something, so it's being used with a very different meaning. Whereas SJW in both cases means a feminist, or an anti racist or gay rights activist...... I just feel kind of icky with this word being used this way. If someone is a careerist or patronising, couldn't you just call them careerist or patronising?
I don't fully understand why
I don't fully understand why anarchists would feel comfortable co-opting the language of the far-right to describe people who Fingers correctly identify as being feminists, LGBT activists, anti-racists etc. At the very best it seems to me to come from a smug position of superiority about our politics, which seems a little delusional to me given that we occupy a tiny, postage stamp space of political space. Goddammit, it would be nice not to totally dismiss everyone who don't have perfect politics.
As for identity politics, the only people who I hear complaining about identity politics are people who are completely secure in their own identity (white dudes usually) and are largely tone deaf to the concerns of marginalized groups. When you're in one of those marginal groups material issues which are oppressing you here and now are far more pressing that any hypothetical revolution that none of us are ever going to see. It would be advantageous to everybody if we shut up and listen to marginalized people's concerns occasionally instead of whining about identity politics and SJWs when people prefer to concentrate on their specific issues.
potrokin wrote: if we are to
potrokin
Justice, whilst it might be be a strong instinct, is a weak theoretical basis for politics because what is considered 'just' is highly contested and varies from person to person. Survival/dominance of the fittest? Absolute equality? The outcome of the market? Appeals to 'justice' don't offer a concrete foundation for politics.
[quote=Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme,]
What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
[/quote]
potrokin
The problem with "just jargon" is that it serves to mystify, and when the resulting confusion spreads, it only does so to the detriment of clarity and class politics.
And "common sense" is usually synonymous with the absence of factual knowledge.
eugene--thanks for the
eugene--thanks for the clarification; i think i better understand where you're coming from. honestly, i'd never run into SJW as a pejorative before the right wing usage, but based on yours & CS's descriptions, i must've misssd it.
i also now see where you are coming from regarding campus fascism. i'll admit to not knowing much about how things are developing in ontario. that said, i think milo's tour is more about using campus spaces in an effort to be provocative--to get attention, and less about the campus being a bastion of support. my understanding is most attendees largely consist of area fash and fellow travelers, and not really students.
campuses are target rich zones for someone like milo--dense with 'others,' antifa chapters are fairly vibrant and vocal, and the outrage he causes becomes magnified on social media. so, even if he didn't have a single supporter on campus, it would still be the best venue for his brand of self promotion.
no doubt, the figureheads--milo, damigo, spencer, heimbach, etc are college educated and would love nothing more than to have large student movements, but at this point that seems fairly unlikely. instead, i think projecting the college educated, middle class personas has less to do with fantasies of building massive campus chapters and is much more part of their larger effort to broaden their appeal by being 'just regular guys, just like you.' with some 'legitimate concerns.'
I am extremely suspicious of
I am extremely suspicious of people who use SJW as a pejorative. You're using the terminology of the far right, of gamergate, Milo, Vox Day, Roosh, rape apologists, of Christian fundamentalists and a multitude of other semi-sentient, walking pieces of human garbage, a term used to dismiss anyone who brings up issues around sexism, racism, homophobia etc. It's also a term which is used to disparage a demographic which is overwhelmingly young women and POC, very young sometimes, has been part of the arsenal for grown assed men to harass teens. Words are powerful and often have meanings which have far wider implications than their literal meanings. The best I can say about using the language of the fash to attack the same targets as them is it is extreme laziness.
I completely agree that using
I completely agree that using terms used by the far right is at best problematic.
Also the use of the term social justice warrior is used to dismiss any kind of protest activity as: manipulation to obtain unfair advantages or pandering to such people to gain advantages from them (usually sex). If I criticise someone for using politics to advance their own personal agenda then it is from a position that they are misusing a real issue for their own benefit. The basic SJW argument is that there is no such issue to misuse it's just underhand behaviour.
Obviously they fail to see that spending hundreds or thousands to learn how to pick up women as alpha males is as dishonest as faking an interest in feminism. Again as a communist I object to the dishonesty and the misuse of a real issue. MRA objects on the grounds that that isn't the 'proper' way to 'get' a woman.
Thi MRA stuff is so toxic that aside from the basic reasons mentioned by several posters I think we do not under any circumstances want to give even the slightest impression that we have any kind of connection to these kinds of beliefs.
There was an interesting article on pick up artist stuff on cracked of all places.
Thanks for posting that
Thanks for posting that excerpt, jef. I think it's important to note that more than a few of the guys dipping their toes into the PA scene are probably not ideologues from the first minute.
From what I've read, a lot of men who first try out the PA scene initially view it the same as anyone who seeks out any of the metaphysical self-help gurus and groups, and is a symptom of loneliness and alienation. That said, there are significant numbers of men involved who, from the beginning, feel their privileged position is being challenged, and they are determined to reassert their 'rightful place' at the top of the patriarchal food chain.
Presumably, the others--being lonley, highly impressionable and feeling a sense of belonging for the first time in their lives--fully buy into the ideology at some point not long into their experience. I don't imagine it takes too long for them to blossom into full MRA supporters.
Much of the PA scene, especially, but also the MRA ideology to some degree does dovetail nicely with frat boy culture, so in that regard, I'll concede eugene's point about campus support for MRA has some legitimacy.
Quote: If a lonely dude goes
Here's an example;
https://youtu.be/_n2IVF9a2IA
BTW, if you haven't seen this film then you really ought. It's extraordinary.
Craftwork wrote: potrokin
Craftwork
potrokin
The problem with "just jargon" is that it serves to mystify, and when the resulting confusion spreads, it only does so to the detriment of clarity and class politics.
And "common sense" is usually synonymous with the absence of factual knowledge.[/quote]I see where you are coming from but surely you are being rather pedantic. Aren't things like dominance of the fittest and the rule of the market examples of injustice? As for common sense, can't someone reach a conclusion as to what is common sense based on factual knowledge? I'd say they can.
Quote: Quote: I still think
Agreed.
On an unrelated note, Zeitgeisters are extremely arrogant in this regard. They don't even have a class analysis, and it seems they're also rather fond of dismissively using "SJW" and "identity politics" the way the far right does. They like placing themselves above any sort of political activity (be it class-related, improvement-oriented, or whatever), and will repeat their mantra, "everything is a consequence of the current economic system!", while proceeding, ironically, to do absolutely nothing to move toward their technocratic utopia. I believe their official transitional strategy, according to TZM Defined (this stuff is ridiculous), is "spreading the zeitgeist message" and "waiting on the collapse." I'm surprised there aren't any critiques of them (or TVP for that matter) here on libcom, considering their popularity.
jef costello wrote: Thi MRA
jef costello
Yes I strongly agree with this, and would urge people to remember that there is a strong anti-feminist feeling amongst a lot of people in the left which has led to a lot of fucked up behaviour, and the ignoring or covering up of that fucked up behaviour, and so I would ask people please not to use putdowns that give credence to these concepts.