-
But plenty of people misunderstand the theory of relativity, and that doesn't stop it being a force for good overall. It's also not a criticism of the theory of relativity itself.
Yeah, but relativity is true whether you believe so or not and its effect isn't really subject to being altered. Part of the interesting thing about sociological theories is that the way in which they influence society is dependent on how they are widely understood and consequently how they shape public opinion and policy. For example the fact that there are some very intelligent American theologians sitting in their university departments elaborating on very nuanced views on the nature of christianity does not change the fact that the the common US view of god as a belligerent, judgemental beardy bloke on a cloud leads to those "christian" values causing a huge amount of misery. We can discuss the validity of the theories in an abstract sense, but we also have to deal with their effects on the ground.
So that's an argument in favour of eradicating identity politics altogether.
Is it?! That's a very strange reading of that quote, which is from an article entitled "Identity politics has veered away from its roots. It's time to bring it back". My take is that it means exactly what it says i.e., that the expression of one's lived experience adds a limited amount to the debate if it's not backed up with a sound wider analysis.
ffm-
Yeah, but relativity is true whether you believe so or not and its effect isn't really subject to being altered. Part of the interesting thing about sociological theories is that the way in which they influence society is dependent on how they are widely understood and consequently how they shape public opinion and policy. For example the fact that there are some very intelligent American theologians sitting in their university departments elaborating on very nuanced views on the nature of christianity does not change the fact that the the common US view of god as a belligerent, judgemental beardy bloke on a cloud leads to those "christian" values causing a huge amount of misery. We can discuss the validity of the theories in an abstract sense, but we also have to deal with their effects on the ground.
Absolutely. And if we were talking about religion I'd agree with you. I think our difference of opinion is really over the extent to which people misuse identity politics for bad or dishonest reasons. I say this happens in the vast rarity of cases, and only on the extremes - most people take from it what's intended, though as you'd expect, it's the extremes you hear from more often. I'd imagine you say it happens more often than not - in which case we just disagree about frequency.
So that's an argument in favour of eradicating identity politics altogether.
Is it?! That's a very strange reading of that quote, which is from an article entitled "Identity politics has veered away from its roots. It's time to bring it back". My take is that it means exactly what it says i.e., that the expression of one's lived experience adds a limited amount to the debate if it's not backed up with a sound wider analysis.
Well that's a conclusion I'd agree with - analysis tells us what's true, whereas lived experience tells us what that truth FEELS like. But I only read the quote, which said:
"A worldview that moves us closer to equality doesn’t stem from living in a certain kind of body"
And I say it's one of the two things it stems from. Without an understanding of how someone else's reality FEELS to them, you can't really have a polite conversation with them about the analysis. If you just look at cold hard facts you end up in a situation like I saw on Question Time the other day where a white public schoolboy was telling a black panellist that the UK was one of the least racist countries on earth. He was right, as far as he went, but it was a tone deaf thing to say at the time. That's why identity politics IS important - not in terms of the raw truth but in terms of knowing when to speak, and when to listen.
I'll have a read of that piece now.
ReekBlefs
I don't disagree about the existence of those people, of course. I remember reading a tweet by someone who had misunderstood a fairly nuanced idea (that white people in America could not suffer from institutional racism) so radically that they believed that it was not possible for black people to be racist - there'll always be people who misunderstand things, and often they'll have a platform. But plenty of people misunderstand the theory of relativity, and that doesn't stop it being a force for good overall. It's also not a criticism of the theory of relativity itself.
Of course, these are all generalisations. I'm mates with enough weirdos to know that members of even quite niche groups can have significantly divergent experiences. But again, this is not hard and fast, it's an offer. Think about my example before - I do my best to amplify, rather than interrupt women at work. If the woman in question doesn't need amplification, I wind my neck in. That's not the theory falling down, that's just being responsive to it. There'll never be any kind of theory that explains 100% of individuals within a group, we're all unique - it's just that we can draw broad brushstrokes given some key information.
So that's an argument in favour of eradicating identity politics altogether. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it's not a DISCUSSION of identity politics. And again it's a bit of a straw man. Identity politics doesn't replace group politics, it augments them.
I was listening to James O Brien on LBC this morning. He was arguing with a working class bloke about Brexit. And the working class bloke was wrong, and JOB was having a bit of fun with it, and interrupting him, and bashing him about a bit. From a traditional 1970s (pre identity politics) perspective, there's nothing wrong with that. Robust debate is how we get to some kind of truth, honesty is kinder than a comforting lie, etc.
But from a more modern analysis, what I was listening to was a public schoolboy with a book deal and a listenership in the millions, taking the piss out of someone who left school at sixteen, for not being educated enough. It's a much uglier thing.
I think the first approach is very useful. But I also think it's unreasonable for us to discount that second analysis in its entirety. Identity politics tell us a lot about power - less pretentiously, it tells us a lot about what our manners should be. It allows us to contextualise the debate, and that's very useful.
There must be a halfway house between those two things. Speak truth, but compassionately. Speak honestly, but with sensitivity. I really don't think it needs to be so black and white as one or the other and nothing else.