
Against Identity Politics - jeffreyrogers
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=int-now&pgtype=hpg&region=br1
======
40acres
All politics is identity politics. After the revolution only rich white land
owners could vote, elections and governing were based on the wills of a single
identity: rich, white, men. Not much has changed in America since then but as
more enfranchisement came to the population it is OBVIOUS that other groups
would focus their politics on what would help them over what would help
others.

I'm sure that it's more likely that female voters would lobby for a sexual
harassment bill than men; its already been shown that Asian voters gathering
in opposition to affirmative action moves because they feel that their kids
are targeted (see NYC specialized schools, Harvard). Even throughout the 2016
election and the postmortem most news outlets focused on the "identity" of the
white, middle aged, "heartland" / rust belt voter who has been shafted by
globalization.

It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is
simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but
who are now entering the political arena and making demands.

~~~
stcredzero
_It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it
is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized
but who are now entering the political arena and making demands._

It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with
regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands _merely on
the basis of identity._ People should be treated with fairly because of merit
and the "content of their character." People should not be treated with
because of their age, their sex, who they are attracted to, or their skin
color.

What we should also recognize in 2018, is that tribalism itself is toxic.
Tribalism can also be attached to life choices, political stances, and
subculture, and those sorts of tribalism can be toxic to the same order of
magnitude as older forms, such as those based on ethnicity. Tribalistic
toxicity stemming from immutable characteristics is arguably worse, because
people are trapped on a side. This is why identity politics should be avoided
_in general_.

A politics that would be humane should be about principles and policy, not
identity.

This is also why the association of principles like Free Speech with
particular identities, even identities of choice, is also particularly
corrosive.

~~~
40acres
> It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with
> regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely
> on the basis of identity.*

I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very
limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify,
being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your
identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these
things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you
lobby for.

I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as
"identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise
usually when fair treatment is not given to _them_ specifically and so they
lobby on their own behalf.

Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up
after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police
reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also
say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian
beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals
who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all
politics is identity politics.

~~~
abnry
I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see as
prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate Men
article the Washington Post published
([https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-
men...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-
men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on)).

The problem is that these people aren't arguing for fair treatment. They are
arguing for unfair treatment, but just unfair treatment that now favors them,
and this treatment is determined by group identity (i.e. men=bad so you can
hate any man).

If that's the approach, then to me it reveals that any rhetoric about fair
treatment is just that, rhetoric, and what is really wanted is power.

~~~
40acres
> I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see
> as prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate
> Men article the Washington Post published
> ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-
> men...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men...)).

The problem with this is that when you think of identity politics you think of
the extreme end. Which is the main point of my original post. People equate
identity politics with extremism -- my argument is that identity politics is
actually at the core of all politics. You can utilize extreme rhetoric arguing
any point. But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can't help you.

~~~
stcredzero
_But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can 't help you._

If you are indeed a part of a more moderate and nuanced politics, then I think
you could help by calling out the extremists and speaking up for principles.
Where people "on your side" are showing tacit approval to extremists, you
should call them out.

If you can point out where the nuanced and more moderate politics are put
forward from your side, then also point that out. From where I am sitting, it
seems like the extreme part of "idpol" is the loudest and seemingly the most
representative part.

------
dcre
A critical take on Fukuyama's new book:

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/francis-
fukuya...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/francis-fukuyama-
postpones-the-end-of-history)

~~~
nerdponx
_Fukuyama thinks he knows what that something is, and his answer is summed up
in the title of his new book, “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the
Politics of Resentment” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux). The demand for recognition,
Fukuyama says, is the “master concept” that explains all the contemporary
dissatisfactions with the global liberal order: Vladimir Putin, Osama bin
Laden, Xi Jinping, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, gay marriage, ISIS, Brexit,
resurgent European nationalisms, anti-immigration political movements, campus
identity politics, and the election of Donald Trump. It also explains the
Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Chinese
Communism, the civil-rights movement, the women’s movement, multiculturalism,
and the thought of Luther, Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Simone de
Beauvoir. Oh, and the whole business begins with Plato’s Republic. Fukuyama
covers all of this in less than two hundred pages. How does he do it?_

 _Not well. Some of the problem comes from misunderstanding figures like
Beauvoir and Freud; some comes from reducing the work of complex writers like
Rousseau and Nietzsche to a single philosophical bullet point. A lot comes
from the astonishingly blasé assumption—which was also the astonishingly blasé
assumption of “The End of History?”—that Western thought is universal thought.
But the whole project, trying to fit Vladimir Putin into the same analytic
paradigm as Black Lives Matter and tracing them both back to Martin Luther, is
far-fetched. It’s a case of Great Booksism: history as a chain of paper dolls
cut out of books that only a tiny fraction of human beings have even heard of.
Fukuyama is a smart man, but no one could have made this argument work._

Oof, no thanks. This article alone makes me want to subscribe to the New
Yorker, if only in thanks for saving me the trouble of reading this book.

------
crooked-v
I feel like I'd be more inclined to take critiques of identity politics
seriously if those critiques didn't seem to only come up in opposition to
historically mistreated minority groups.

~~~
someguydave
It must be difficult to keep track of exactly which "critiques" arise from
these third-party-opposers and which are just ideas from virtuous people.

~~~
iron0013
It's honestly not that difficult

------
robobro
i'm very left-wing, hell i'm an antifascist activist and im not a big fan of
"idpol"

This is an essay with the same name from 2015:
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-
agai...](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-
identity-politics)

and this is a politically incorrect drama about identity politics written by,
err, the unabomber: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-
Upb4Szms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-Upb4Szms)

~~~
dbrueck
That 2015 article is great, thank you. I think this part sums up the problem
in a nutshell: "[identity politicians] deny that people exist as unique
individuals at all; people are simply instances of spectres".

In my experience at least this is true: anytime I've tried to engage in a
discussion with someone who is into identity politics, I've been told that I
may say one thing, but my actual intentions are nefarious, that I'm full of
fear and hate, and that my view is meaningless since I'm a white hetero male.
There is no need to talk to me because they already know everything about me
and what a horrible (or at least very blind) person I am.

I think the Left would do well to try to minimize "idpol" if for no other
reason than strategically it's a disaster - it chases away tons of potential
allies.

~~~
yourbandsucks
One of the biggest markers of ideological blindness is when people lose their
ability to do basic arithmetic.

The United States is 65% white. How you gonna get to 51% of the vote when your
primary message to white people is "check your privilege"? Bonus points when
it's coming from a 25yo making $200k a year.

~~~
colemickens
I haven't cringed so much at a set of HN comments as I have today.

"Check your privilege" isn't a phrase that anyone seriously uses. Do you deny
that privilege exists? Do you think that the only people who talk about
privilege are non-white? Do you think that the concept of privilege makes all
white people evil, or is a message that is un-hearable to all white people?

You just showed more about your own biases than you did anything to advance
any conversation here. Then you double down further in the thread about
"Social justice warriors" being a real thing (it's literally only ever used as
a boogeyman by people with really broken, wrong thoughts about "privilege" as
an abstract concept, so thanks for confirming that I guess.)

It's not even a "primary" message. What politician advanced that message
recently? Which politically-affiliated political action group has "check your
privilege" as a mantra? And here I am, again, pushing someone for evidence
when it's painfully obvious that there's nothing there other than unsupported
biases.

~~~
yourbandsucks
A year ago I would have made this exact same comment. But here we are. All
depends on who you're exposed to, I guess.

Could you be a little more specific about what my thoughts are on privilege as
an abstract concept? I've been wanting someone to tell me about that.

~~~
colemickens
Your own comment where you brought up privilege do plenty to demonstrate how
you think about it. The fact that you compare the percentage of white people
and act like "check your privilege" is a perfect opposite of "whiteness", I
mean, maybe you have another interpretation of what you meant...

~~~
yourbandsucks
No, no, you keep going. You're doing great.

How did my childhood impact these views?

~~~
colemickens
_You_ made the comment that we can _all_ still read. _You_ could choose to
justify it. Instead, like every single conservative troll on every social
media platform ever, you've decided to just troll your way down to the bottom.
Have fun, it'll be by yourself.

~~~
yourbandsucks
Real talk: I'm a lifelong progressive who's very willing to trade my own
purity in order to WIN. You're being sanctimonious and not graceful about
being called on it.

Assume good intentions.

I've been around a lot of younger people who actually unironically say this
stuff lately. No joke. Ask others on the board working at SV-based companies
hiring out of college.

------
throwaway45423
Discussions like this one, where in some cases opinions supplant primary
facts, are not very productive. It may help some of the readers here to
consider a deeper explanation of terms, while resisting the urge to select
self-reinforcing parts.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-
politics/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/)

------
timwaagh
i think this guy has better grasp on what is happening than 99.9% of the
population. but he identifies as left wing (i think, since he talks about the
direction of the left a lot).

With these views there will be no place at all for him on the left. He will
just be picked apart by the dogs. because this is not a message they will wish
to hear. must be hard to grow old and see the side you identify with betray
its old cause and grow into something else and just not know where you belong
anymore. we all need an identity, after all.

~~~
yourbandsucks
Fukuyama was an Iraq war cheerleader and one of the icons of the neocons.

Doesn't mean he's wrong for disliking both identity politics and presumably
Trump but he's no liberal.

~~~
timwaagh
so you say the language he uses, talking about the left as if he is a part of
it is a mere rhetorical trick? could be.

i'm more interested in how he sees himself than what he is.

------
reifnir
paywall

