Submitted by putridcod87 in Anarchism (edited )

im not sure if i understand the difference in people into identity politics and people into intersectionalality or intersectional anti-oppression politics(/practice?). apart from the obvious recognition of multiple oppressions with the latter. and i dont get what either of these has to do with an anarchist position.

can anyone help me out?

heres a quote from the 2nd paragraph of dragonowl's 'against identity politics', then theres no real mention of intersectionality anywhere else throughout the (quite long) text.

"Intersectionality - the recognition of multiple forms or axes of oppression, with complex interacting effects - is an effective theoretical response to the problems of Identity Politics, but there have clearly been difficulties putting it into practice. In identity-linked movements, some people use intersectionality as a way to avoid the idea of principal contradiction, although occasionally in practice, people who claim to be intersectional end up treating one or two oppressions as primary. Nevertheless, the fact that not all identity-related theories or movements need to be treated as Identity Politics does not mean that the influence of Identity Politicians is trivial."

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lastfutures wrote (edited )

The text is not opposing identity politics (bad) to intersectional anti-oppression politics (good), as the former is usually present in the latter - anti-oppression is often the language used for exactly what the author is criticizing. It's just a critique of identity politics, with an addendum that not all discussions of identity contain politics or are the target of the critique (the best description of the text I've heard is that the politics in "identity politics" is the target moreso than identity per se- ie. similar to other anti-political critiques) .

If there's a critique of the piece to be made, it is that it is very traditionally post-left in that it is all critique/negation.

9

putridcod87 OP wrote (edited )

not opposing identity politics (bad) to intersectional anti-oppression politics (good), as the former is usually present in the latter...

thanks that helps that 2nd paragraph make a bit more sense.

yeah it would have been nice with a 'where can we go from here' after all the bashing.

Anarchy Bang episode 34 on identity politics sort of does the same thing, they bash it the whole episode (2hrs long) and very briefly conclude with "identity without the politics" and don't talk about how that could look or say anything more about it.

4

lastfutures wrote

I thought they talked about it in that, but I could be thinking of a different episode. I mean A! did a lot of work in that area with the indigenous stuff.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

hey everyone, i've solved the problem:

identity anti-politics

boom, i will accept my nobel prize any time now

4

3ntb1t wrote

Pure (leftist/liberal) identity politics are pointless, it is about changing the gender demographic of the rulling class or oppressed nation spawning a new nation-state mirroring the one that allienated them.

Class reductionism itself would also be irrelevant or even reactionary, how would we reduce systemic racism to class struggle, identity problems would still persist after the revolution if not addressed. Good example is how various Marxist regimes treated homosexuals.

In case of strong material privilege, cultural oppression also weakens. But material oppresion and cultural oppression usually boost each other. It's quite a fuzzy thing and Intersectionality explains it well.

4

lautreamont wrote (edited )

"Class reductionism itself would also be irrelevant or even reactionary, how would we reduce systemic racism to class struggle, identity problems would still persist after the revolution if not addressed."

Totally agree, tho the reverse is also true. i.e. ID pols reductionism is at least equally reactionary, in how it creates divides in disregard of class dynamics. Personally my take is there's a fundamental problem in both approaches where they avoid the whole angle of individual vs society, or do they even recognize the existence of the individual? It's an existential void, where people are only seen as big categories.

Like is being gay to you everything people need to know about you? Same for being a prole or a rich kid? That's unthinkable to me. I'm pretty sure that even among rich people there's people whose person goes beyond the one-dimensional.

4