(Working draft)
This is a “primer for a primer” on identity politics:
This is a “primer for a primer” on identity politics:
In the following, I’ll present the main ideas found in the complex secondary literature review on the entire body of work on identity politics (race, class, gender, sexuality, philosophy, poststructuralism) covered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy primer. This post is not a replacement for reading the original primer!
The Stanford primer was revised in 2016 and unfortunately does not give an adequate account of writings since then on especially disability and transgender theory.
The Stanford primer was revised in 2016 and unfortunately does not give an adequate account of writings since then on especially disability and transgender theory.
Some of the ideas below will already be familiar to the reader, but I have decided to be comprehensive in my approach, as relatively recent developments are related to earlier thinking.
Reading strategy. I would say that the key strategy in reading the primer is to recognize the complexity of the subject of identity politics, expressed in persistent contradictions about it that run throughout the primer. Primarily, there is a recognition of the existence of identity, coupled with the critique that identity is constructed by hegemonic society. Thus any emphasis on identity is simultaneously (i) a means of articulating minority viewpoints and a fulcrum for resisting the majority, and (ii) the maintenance of the hegemonic system in which power asymmetry led to the inequality that necessitates the articulation of different identities. This points to (iii) the need for supplements or alternatives to identity, e.g. the creation of an anti-hegemonic coalition of identities, or a turn to embodiment. All three threads need to be kept in play if identity is to be understood in its full complexity. This is the conceptual background to my work in The Means and End of Difference.
Arguments for identity/difference
(i) What is identity?
· The basic premise, from a contemporary academic viewpoint (as opposed to a historical or popular viewpoint), is that identity exists within and is “constructed” by society. Social identity is not a reflection of biology and anatomy. “Racial” identity is a means of assigning people of different ancestry into socially-determined groups, as opposed to scientific, biological groups (Omi and Winant 1986, Alcoff 1997, 2006, Piper 1996, Ignatiev 1995).
(ii) The importance of identity:
· Identity expresses an authentic sense of self (Asante 2000).
· Identity demands respect for different life experiences (Kruks 2001).
· Identity is the foundation for empirical political action because it accurately describes the unequal conditions of different groups (Cudd 2006, Fanon 1968, McIntosh 1993, Martin 1994, Young 1990).
(iii) Strategies for the use of identity:
· Identity may be adopted strategically for political purposes (Spivak 1990).
· Identity can be articulated in relation to one another, in order to avoid creating the “essentialist” impression that these identities are naturally existing, as opposed to socially constructed (Young 2000, Nelson 2001).
· Hybrid identities should be recognized (Anzaldúa 1999).
Criticism of identity/difference
(i) Problems with identity:
· Identity is socially constructed (Haslanger 1995, 2005, Hacking 1999, Foucault 1980, Garber 1995) within an unjust system. Hence relying on majority-minority identities discursively reinforces and reproduces the power asymmetry in an unjust system (Fraser 1997, Coulthard 2014, Butler 1999, Connolly 2002), and reflects a simplified account of power (McNay 2008).
· The essentialist identity of (maternal, caring) “woman” is created by patriarchy (entire section on “Gender and Feminism). See Ruddick 1989 and Gilligan 1993 for a controversial attempt to recoup “essentialist” feminine identity.
· Identity is exclusionary when transgender identity is excluded in gay and lesbian theorizing (Stone 1991, Lugones 1994).
· LGBTQ identity alone as a means of resistance is inadequate: identity-based organizing is not immune to the multiplicity of homophobic strategies because identity allows for both resistance and oppression (Sedgwick 1990).
· Internal variation (by race, class, gender, sexuality, or within their sub-categories) within a specific group identity is ignored (Heyes 2000).
· A narrow focus on only minority racial, gender, or sexual identity distracts from systemic white perspectives and oppression (Pateman 1988, Young 1990, Di Stefano 1991, Mills 1997, Pateman and Mills 2007, hooks 1981, Mohanty 1991) as well as liberal-capitalist exploitation (Young 1990, P. Williams 1991, Brown 1995, M. Williams 1998, Farred 2000, McNay 2008).
· A focus on racial, gender, and sexual identity (as opposed to class identity) is due to the reluctance of middle-class whites in academia to examine their privileged economic position. In addition, there may be a focus on racial, gender, and sexual identity (as opposed to class identity) because whites in academia do not recognize their class oppression, displacing this onto others instead (Brown 1995).
(ii) Alternatives to identity:
· Articulating a future (Zerilli 2005, Weir 2008, Bhambra and Margee 2010, Coole and Frost 2010, Connolly 2011) is important, as opposed to identities premised on the pain of historical oppression (Brown 1995).
· Meaning, action, feeling, embodiment, affect, time, and space (Protevi 2009, 2011, Butler 2011, Heyes 2007) provide a fuller account of social inequities and existence than identity, which is restrictive (Appiah 1994) and reductive (Spelman 1988).
Arguments against universality
· Assimilation to the majority perpetuates hegemony (Young 1990, Card 2007).
· Color-blindness (not recognizing difference) disguises and perpetuates racism (Appiah and Gutmann 1996).
· Heterosexuality as a norm is oppressive: varied sexual orientations are immutable and cannot be “cured.”
· In decolonial and lesbian feminist thought, separatism is the solution (Laforest in Beiner and Norman 2001, Alfred 1999, Asante 2000, Rich 1980, Frye 1983, Wittig 1992).
Arguments for universality (within a coalition)
· Alliance and coalition formation (Heyes 2000, Young 1997, Cornell 2000) is necessary, as opposed to an exclusive focus on the difference between identities.
