-
I don't actually disagree with much of what you said there - and I agree that identity politics isn't enough on its own to get to an understanding of the truth. Those who think it is are missing something important. But I do think it's a valid part of the conversation. I don't see identity politics as being about objective truth, it's more about how we discuss questions of truth - a matter of recognising that some people face more discrimination than others, and we should recognise it - more a matter of tone if you like. And of course there'll be people who fall outside the model, but that doesn't invalidate the model, it just means the model needs some more detail. To give you an example, I DO notice that some men tend to get interrupted more than others - they tend to be neurodivergent, or nervous, or what have you, and I do my best to compensate for that too. To me what peopel tend to call identity politics is just recognition of the fact that a conversation doesn't happen in isolation, it happens in a context of power, and responding to that context in a balancing way (rather than an exploitative way) tends to result in a more productive conversation.
You are reading a single comment by @ReekBlefs and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ReekBlefs
I think that's further than I'd go and I certainly wouldn't suggest that it is done deliberately (except in a very small minority of cases). With regard to identity politics there are some standard concerns that people express about the need to balance the value of considering each person's/groups unique experience with the need to speak to a universal experience that will (hopefully) become more relevant as sources of injustice are dealt with.
My concern is, therefore, partly about the impacts of such approaches and partly about their provability. I think people adopt viewpoints/lenses/theories in this arena because they appeal to them or seem true to them based on their own experience. That's true for the bullshit "white men are the most oppressed group today" as it is for identity politics, patriarchy theory, intersectionality etc. Obviously some of those theories have a greater degree of supporting evidence than others, but I think they all fall short of the kind of bulletproof evidential support that relativity has.
The problem comes when people become invested in those models (because they resonate with them). That leads them to push them as a cast-iron "truth" and universal explanation for all possible societal phenomena. That in turn leads to confirmation bias, your example of amplifying women in meetings is a reasonable example. Have you noticed that particular men are also constantly interrupted? Their experience is not negated because it falls outside of the model, but it's not something that you address with your amplification. It also leads to reasonable criticisms of the model being dismissed either because those defending it are used to seeing completely unreasonable alt-right attacks and lump reasonable criticism in with it or because the means for dismissing criticism are inherently built into the model (which makes me really fucking suspicious). For example your article on Sam Harris essentially counters his claim to be outside tribalism by saying "well that's exactly what someone of your tribe would say". With regard to identity politics I think that brings us to your point...
...which is true, but sometimes gets flipped to be "you can't understand the theory/can't criticise the theory, because you don't know how the manifestations of that theory FEEL in real life" i.e., you lack the relevant experience. That's really concerning because it ignores the need for theories to be genuinely evidentially supported and go beyond personal experience to be broadly accepted and applicable to policy etc.