On Power and Oppression
Or, Why Identity Politics is Counter-Revolutionary
Having decided it was important to say something about Identity Politics, I have spent a long time agonizing over how exactly to go about it. In part, this is because I am frankly angry, and yet I feel that one of the major problems with the discourse on this issue is that it's so loaded with emotion and anger and hyperbole, so what use would there be in me writing another angry screed? None. I thought also of simply writing a systematic critique of both 'left' and 'right' Identity Politics, exposing the flaws and falsehoods I see in these ideologies, which at least has more merit than simply blowing off steam, but is still too reactionary to feel useful. Another reason I feel so compelled to write something is to offer a sane analysis of identity and related issues, to offer a third way, in the hope that less well-intentioned young people will get caught up in toxic movements and hateful ideologies if there is a rational and humane alternative, and this reason, finally, suggests a way to proceed. I am so angry partly because the issues involved in IP are extremely important, and I see them being co-opted for all the wrong reasons, and I see it being profoundly harmful to the disadvantaged and the oppressed in the long run. I don't disagree with the identity politicians of the left because I'm uninterested in discrimination and inequality and oppression, it's precisely because I care about these issues that I find their ideology distasteful. So instead of reacting to their version of 'leftism', I offer you a constructive view of what a 'leftist' movement which truly empowers and liberates might look like.
Leftism is a vague term to begin with, and we know that politics is too complicated to be explained in terms of 'left' and 'right' - I choose to use these words, for now, because they still have currency. For the purposes of this essay, a 'leftist' position is concerned with subordination, deprivation, and exclusion. In short, it is concerned with the welfare of human beings, particularly those who don't have enough, those who are excluded or discriminated against, those who are oppressed and controlled, and so on. We are interested in power; in how it functions and where it resides, who possesses it and with what consequences, should it be dispersed and how, etc. Ultimately, this is what the arguments and conflicts of identity politicians are about.
Power is distinct from privilege, though they are related. To my mind, this distinction is too frequently blurred or ignored in the discourse of identity politics. The 'right-wing' identity politicians (henceforth RWIP) sneer at the concepts of white privilege and male privilege, but they are perfectly reasonable. Because we live in a society that has been shaped in part by misogyny and racism, there are certain undeniable advantages to being born a white male in a society which tends to favour white males. This means that a white male is in a more privileged position than a white female of comparable circumstance, or a coloured man of comparable circumstance - he doesn't have to deal with the discrimination they do, or overcome the hurdles that they do. What it doesn't mean (and it is this interpretation that has often brought the concept into disrepute) is that a white man is ipso facto more privileged than females or POC. This is obviously false. But I don't think this interpretation is as popular as RWIP like to portray it as, in fact they often talk like this is all that white privilege means and therefore the whole concept is bunk. This is also obviously false. But it is worth pointing out, because it tells us something about the limitations of generalization, and of applying analysis of groups to individuals.
Left-wing identity politics (LWIP) supposedly has roots in intersectional feminism: a concept describing the overlap or intersection of social identities when describing oppression, eg. a black woman faces problems that neither black men nor white women do. This is also accurate and useful for revealing general truths, but it too suggests that one must focus in on individuality for a better measure of truth. In the same way that a black woman is uniquely positioned in society, so is a disabled man, or a white woman with a severe mental illness, etc. Different traits and identities intersect and therefore interact in so many ways that when you get down to it, terms like 'white man' or 'woman of colour' are inadequate descriptors in many circumstances. No two individuals are alike, nor can any one individual be defined solely by his race or gender.
It seems to me that the predominant narratives of power and oppression focus on racism and misogyny; and in these narratives, as a corollary of POC being oppressed white people as a group are identified as the oppressor, and as a corollary of women being the oppressed party men are identified as the oppressor. Obviously these are important issues, but this presentation is not entirely honest or enlightening, and there is much more to be said about power and oppression in society. The fact of white privilege does not bestow a controlling interest in society to all white people, and the same is true of male privilege. It is a factor, but it is not the primary determinant of someone's position in society.
There are other ways in which people can be privileged. Access to better education, being born into a wealthy family who could afford to send you to a good university, these are quite important factors. Lots of people are born into poverty, and they are at an inherent disadvantage. This affects people of all races and genders. Some people are born into abusive or broken homes, and this is perhaps the greatest disadvantage of all. We know that people who are abused during childhood are far more likely to suffer from mental illness and drug addiction in later life, and account an extremely disproportionate number of prisoners. Life is complicated, and there are thousands of big and small factors which influence a persons place in society. And this is only to address disadvantage, leaving unexamined the issue of organized oppression.
So we've discussed deprivation and exclusion, but a leftist position worth its salt will also give a detailed analysis of subordination - in other words, oppression. And no such analysis would be complete without an understanding of how wealth is generated in our political economy.
We live in a society defined by a large and powerful State and an economy dominated by goliath corporations. The nature of this economy was best described by Murray Rothbard described "total neo-mercantilism" and "what is essentially a neo-fascist 'corporate state'" This neo-fascist state, which is a powerful influence on the economy, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. As such, far from being restrained by economic regulation, as even Noam Chomsky would like to believe, corporations are very often the beneficiaries of "an intricate and decisive network of subsidies, privileges, and direct and indirect grants of monopoly protection." This is important to anybody seeking to understand and fight oppression, for clearly this economic order, and the businessmen and corporations who thrive on it, the state functionaries and enforcers who benefit from it, in short, the ruling classes, are the major source of oppression in our society. "White people" don't hold the power in our society, this is a clumsy use of language; CEO's, judges, district attourneys and politicians, etc., hold the power.
In saying this, I am by no means denying that racism is still an important factor. It is true that CEO's and politicans, etc., are disprortionately white males. But by no means are the ruling classes made up of one race. More importantly, it is a minority who belong to this ruling class - as you go down the ladder of economic and legal heirarchy, you find the masses - the black and white, male female, immigrant and native masses. You find the majority of society working hard for fifty plus hours a week just to survive, and why? Because our neofascist corporate economy is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many; because the masses have been robbed over generations, decades, centuries, they have been denied their due. So still, they are at the mercy of the company that hires them. They have no capital, generally, and if they do have capital the State forbids them to use it. So they have no choice but wage labour, for fifty or sixty years until they retire or die.
But keep going down the ladder, and you'll find an even more multiethnic and diverse group of people who are the most oppressed of all. These are the disabled who are vulnerable to abuse and receiving inadequate care. The mentally ill who struggle to even perfom wage labour for subsistence, who experience great pain and little sypmathy. Then there are those struggling with drug addiction, who have been systematically demonized for a century now, who have been literally criminalized, who are treated as scum by the general population and by the police alike and who, if they are unlucky, are thrown in a cell and let out only to perform slave labour for the State. More than a million people in the US have been imprisoned for "victimless crimes" (which are not crimes), ie. drug posession. And the thirteenth ammendment, famously, inlcuded a clause which allows the State to hold slaves provided only that they're criminals; and the State, famously, can decide on a whim who to call criminals.
And this leaves the most difficult task of all before us: the task of empowering the disempowered and dismantling the ruling class. But this task becomes much, much easier once we realize that we are all suffering under the same oppression, that we are not enemies, and begin cooperating. This, most of all, is what I wish to ask of identity politicians, left and right: stop this infighting. Stop trying to cause fights amongst the oppressed matters over petty issues. Help unite people in common struggle against the leviathan State and the corporations that it is beholden to. Help us secure the welfare of the poor, the disabled, the addicted, the mentally ill. Let's have a real discussion about what needs to be done.
If you want to write articles about why white girls shouldn't have dreadlocks, or why liberal arts students need to harden up, then you are a counter-revolutionary. You may as well be an agitator for the State. You are NOT HELPING. This "Culture Wars" bullshit doesn't help anybody.