sftn:
sftn:
a major reason I haven’t been active is because I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the pervasiveness of “identitarian” politics here and elsewhere – i.e., the belief that identities are pre-discursive (I have always hated this word but I don’t have another way of explaining it right now), the kind of politics that attach a moral status to identities, the subsequent construction of identities in terms of/against/contrary to identities considered inherently morally-reprehensible … which ultimately results in the necessity and maintenance of those morally-reprehensible identities + the power relations between those identities, and so on – like, identitarian politics are completely futile and harmful
it’s so overwhelming and I don’t know where or how to begin dissolving it since it’s such an important part of how people understand politics in general
Could you elaborate? I’m confused!
I don’t blame U, this post is super dense! let me try to unravel/elaborate it a bit (scroll to the bottom for the conclusion):
first of all, when I say “pre-discursive”, I mean taken for granted – like, it is taken for granted that certain identities exist, and certain things about those identities are taken for granted, too – like, certain things are always associated with a particular identity, and no one really wants to give any thought to why that is or why those identities exist in the first place (and for good reason; I’ll explain below)
two important things to understand about identities in general is that (1) they are necessarily exclusionary, in that if there are some people who are included in a group, there must be some people excluded from that group, which means there must be a set of rules governing the parameters for inclusion/exclusion, and subsequently (2) all identities must be constructed to some degree in terms of/contrary to/against those people that they exclude – like, who is excluded from an identity is just as important to defining that identity as who is included in it, if not more important
that is: there is always a binary formed where any identity is formed, e.g., us/them
especially in the realm of political identities, this is incredibly important, since these relationships between who is included and who is excluded are always defined by some imbalanced power relation between the two – i.e., one is understood as dehumanising the other, so one identity is the dehumanising party and the other is the dehumanised party, and their respective statuses in that power relation become integral to those identities and to the way people understand those identities
as a result a moral status is attached to belonging to either identity – the dehumanising identity is understood as morally-reprehensible, and the dehumanised identity is understood as morally-good
let’s take feminism and the hegemonic man/woman binary as an example, where it is commonly understood women are the subject of feminism, and that men are the dehumanisers and women are the dehumanised, and subsequently that those who fall under “man” are inherently morally-reprehensible and those under “women” are inherently morally-good
thus, in order for the category “woman” and its members to remain understood as morally-good, it/they must continue to be dehumanised by the category “man” and its members; in order for the category “man” and its members to be morally-reprehensible, it/they must continue to dehumanise the category “woman” and its members
see the problem? the category “woman” is necessarily constructed in relation to the category “man” and thus the imbalanced power relation between them must be maintained in order for the category “woman” and its members to continue to understand itself/themselves as morally-good
simultaneous problem: pre-discursiveness, which I explained at the beginning – what is a “woman”, anyway? what is a “man”? do these identities exist outside of their relation to each other, or outside of the social context they have relevance within? is anyone really a “woman” or a “man”? does everyone really fall neatly into one of these two categories? do the members of those categories even really belong to them completely?
that is: is “woman” always dehumanised and never a dehumaniser in any way? is “man” always a dehumaniser and never dehumanised in any way? is “woman” never capable of dehumanising “man”? is “man” never dehumanised by “woman”?
conclusion: when we become invested in a particular identity, we also become invested in the power relation it is situated within and in the maintenance of its moral goodness as the dehumanised party in that power relation – we become invested in a binary that could not possibly accurately represent the people who exist within it; identitarian politics are circular! they are not about transcending power relations! they make it necessary for those power relations to continue to exist so that people can continue to understand themselves as morally-good in terms of them
My cat just farted in my face and I’m not sure how to deal with it
