The question, basically, revolves around the use of identity politics and anti-oppression theory as common currency within a lot of feminist circles. While these theories have been part of the backbone, in many ways, of the third-wave, I also feel that they have created a rather essentialist discourse, which is crudely summarized as follows:

"Speaking as an African-American woman, oppression is such and such..."

"Well, speaking as an African-American, Jewish woman who also has a disability, I have more oppressions than you do; therefore my experience of oppression is more valid."

In other words, identity politics have created, in some cases, a bizarre, stilted discourse which essentializes identities to such an extent that it seems that (some) people are almost wearing their identities like badges in order to gain a kind of authenticity when speaking about oppression and feminist issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
I agree. It can be taken to to the nth degree, and becomes ridiculous.
At the same time, you can't escape your 'baggage', whether cultural, social, economic, gender, etc, etc. There's no easy way out of this.

---

quote:

---

I think the problem with identity politics is for individuals to argue over whose bag is heavier, when what we should be doing is to ask for help carrying our own baggage and at the same time try to help others carrying theirs.

---

I'm a feminist, have been one for going on 20 years, so I'll tell you what my reaction is to your post.

The world we live in is a sexist, racist, homophobic, classist, Eurocentric, ableist world (there are other ways people are marginalized that are too numerous to list here).

This is reality.

Those of us who are marginalized by society, and yes, some feminist and anti-racist/anti-oppression activists do place oppressions within a hierarchy, some don't. That particular argument is not interesting to me.

The argument of essentialism vs post-structuralism is ongoing, however, essentialism is not quite what you have described it to be. It's not essentialist to say "Sexism exists, therefore most women will experience some kind of sexism in their lives at some point". That's social constructionist.

It's essentialist to say "Sexism serves a role in society, which is working okay most of the time for most people, therefore sexism is inherrent and we just have to put up with it" or "Some races are biologically inferior/superior and that's the way it is".

(Hot damn, I knew that sociology degree would come in handy some day)

The reason that people of colour, women of colour, queers, and other populations have formed groups and coalitions based on identity is that our issues are not addressed when we join lefty / progressive organizations. We're told that our issues are not central.

In fact, I have a theory, and you're not going to like it. My theory is that if white guys can grab the leadership of an issue, they do. So if the issue is class, poverty, anti-war, anti-globalization, SSM and other GLBTQ issues, the environment, who do we see at the heads of organizations? White men. If women want to talk about, for example, how poverty affects women of colour, or how poverty affects immigrants of colour much worse than other groups, who exactly will prioritize these issues within such movements? The guys have not ever done it. Fuck, I would love it if men, and white men in particular took more initiative around these issues. It's not happened historically, and there's no reason for any of us to expect it to happen. The one exception to this group that I know of for sure is OCAP.

So what do we do? Sit around and cry that the white boys don't include us? Hell no! We form our own organizations, get our own funding, concentrate on our own communities, and then get accused of practicing identity politics.

No matter how heavy someone else's baggage might look, she probably won't take kindly to your gallivanting off with her suitcases if you don't ask first. And she'll definitely criticize the way you carry it.

Oh, and she probably won't respond kindly if you tell her her luggage isn't as heavy as she thinks it is, or that it would be lighter if she'd carry it a different way. They're her bags, dammit -- she knows 'em better than you do

Personally, I try to pack light -- try never to pack bags I can't carry ...

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

While I strongly believe that all equality-seeking people should work together to address the interrelated forms of discrimination that privilege and oppress each of us in different ways, I'm very skeptical of calls for "unity" (which, at least in feminist and racial justice struggles in Canada, seemed much more common 15 years ago than today). It always seemed that "unity" meant for "diverse" -- i.e. marginalized -- movement types to get in line behind the priorities of the movement leaders (e.g., straight white working-class men, privileged heterosexist white women, heterosexist black men, or whoever). Often, these were people who were only disadvantaged by *one* form of discrimination -- not coincidentally, that was the form of discrimination they thought was most important.

I've never met a feminist of colour who thought that women's issues should or could be resolved first and racism left for another day. Or a lesbian or gay African who thought that racism should or could be resolved first and homophobia left for another day. I *have*, however, met privileged straight white women who felt that lesbians and women of colour should put pregnancy discrimination at the top of their priority list, straight black men who thought equal rights for women, lesbians and gays weren't important to the struggle for racial justice, and straight black women who didn't think homophobia was important enough to address.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
My theory is that if white guys can grab the leadership of an issue, they do. So if the issue is class, poverty, anti-war, anti-globalization, SSM and other GLBTQ issues, the environment, who do we see at the heads of organizations? White men.

---

Agreed. In the same way, why is the new executive director of the largest US-based gay and lesbian lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, a white man named Joe Solmonese? It used to be a woman named Cheryl Jacques, but she was forced to "resign" because she was "controversial" and top Republicans didn't want to deal with her. (Fancy that!)

At least Jacques was a lesbian. Solmonese is straight.

Not that there's no nice, well-meaning straights out there... but why must we accept a straight white man as the executive director of the largest gay and lesbian lobby group in in the States? Just because we want to get Republicans — who hate us, anyway — to ignore us more efficiently?

Wouldn't that be a little like getting Barry Manilow to head up the NAACP?

I mean, is it just *me*, or what?!

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

I think the problem with identity politics is for individuals to argue over whose bag is heavier, when what we should be doing is to ask for help carrying our own baggage and at the same time try to help others carrying theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EFA:
That's a neat way to think of it. In the past, I've been very hard on the Voice Appropriation Police.

---

quote:

---

Not that there's no nice, well-meaning straights out there... but why must we accept a straight white man as the executive director of the largest gay and lesbian lobby group in in the States? Just because we want to get Republicans — who hate us, anyway — to ignore us more efficiently?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Not that there's no nice, well-meaning straights out there...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:
EFA, you yourself have done this. Do you want me to find the post where you said that the mad have a harder time than the gay?

---

RP, I've been busted! That's not actually a voice appropriation issue, though. I said the insane have been treated worse than the gays. I didn't say that only the insane can discuss the insane. An example of the Voice Appropriation Police would be those who felt Blacks were harmed somehow by Paul Simon's album (sorry, can't remember the name).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:
Oh, I get it. Some of your best friends are straight, too, I guess.

---

quote:

---

The argument of essentialism vs post-structuralism is ongoing, however, essentialism is not quite what you have described it to be. It's not essentialist to say "Sexism exists, therefore most women will experience some kind of sexism in their lives at some point". That's social constructionist.

It's essentialist to say "Sexism serves a role in society, which is working okay most of the time for most people, therefore sexism is inherrent and we just have to put up with it" or "Some races are biologically inferior/superior and that's the way it is".

---

I know that there are "separatist" groupings among all the political movements that marginalized peoples have started, but I think they are seldom the majority, or at least I suspect that most people don't want to be working at that level of abstraction -- they have much more practical and immediate human concerns.

Being silenced every time you try to speak, or having your experience denied, or being told to wait your turn interminably -- those tend to become really intense practical and immediate human concerns over time. Boy.

Actually, I think that essentialism, as I understand it, is more obviously a cultural hangover of a class-ridden past -- it was very much a tool of the ruling classes who needed everyone to know his/her place in a society of more and more highly elaborated categories. I think that most of us, still, have internalized a tendency to think in essentialist ways and really have a hard time fighting that temptation off.

There's some logic in fighting fire with fire, and when marginalized members of any movement decide that they are going to start their own caucus, that's what they are doing. And for the time being, that seems a really necessary strategy, at least some of the time.

It can be really tiring, though. All of us, I think, have a deep heart's longing to bust up the bleeding categories -- especially to be able to turn to someone very different from us (in some way) and see in that person's eyes a recognition of us, an appreciation of us, that we can trust.

Caucuses and autonomous movements are essential - but at a certain point people who face multiple oppressions often realise they have to go beyond groups that deal only with one segment of the working class. Yes, I know calls for "unity" have been used to stifle legitimate grievances and keep the old boys (or the smart young men) in power. We've seen that again in the backroom manoeuvres against the Carol Wall campaign at the CLC congress - but we also observed her surprising success.

On a much smaller scale, it took our tenants' association a lot of work and effort to respond to the multiple problems faced by the "new" residents in the neighbourhood. Beforehand it was basically pure-laine QuébécoisEs and a few people of Italian and Portuguese origin - the "old" immigration in Villeray. New tenants face problems such as the threat of security certificates as well as the older ones.

It bothers me, eg, that it will be the most civil white men among us who immediately go quiet when issues arise in the feminism or anti-racism forums. At least some of them, I know, are politically sensitive and sophisticated, but the message they seem to be getting is that they should be quiet and listen, and that's it. Trouble is, as we know, people who are told to be quiet all the time will eventually just ... go away.

Your point is completely taken. For example, this is why I choose my paid work and my volunteer work with those ideas in mind. My paid work has been with a like-minded feminist AR/AO organization, and my volunteer work has been with Chinese-Canadian advocacy groups, as well as with a local progressive arts festival.

quote:

---

but at a certain point people who face multiple oppressions often realise they have to go beyond groups that deal only with one segment of the working class.

---

I can't remember (or find) where I posted this before, but I'll repeat it here: Discrimination is a lot more obvious when you're getting the short end of the stick. As a result, to take myself as an example, as a straight, professional black woman, I have been hurt by racism and sexism but been privileged by class inequality and heterosexism. Since most people care most immediately about injustice that's happening to them, we all have a more incisive analysis of the issues that slap us down every day, and give less thought (and passion) to the issues that "don't affect us", i.e. forms of discrimination that happen to privilege us.

Thus I acknowledge that my analysis of sexism and racism (and their interaction) is more acute and progressive than my analysis of heterosexism and class injustice. Of course I can -- and should, and try to -- sharpen my analysis by listening to others who've thought about it more. That's exactly what many of us babblers do on these boards and in our real lives.

But, frankly, it's arrogant, not to mention self-serving, for a white person to teach a person of colour that s/he ought to be less sensitive about racism, and prioritize the white person's issues instead. Likewise, it would be unbelievably arrogant for a straight person to teach a lesbian, gay, bi or trans person not to be so sensitive about heterosexism, and to get with the straight person's political program.

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

They seem to latch on to anti-essentialism, and paint themselves as the great gender/race/sexuality/ability liberators, and suddenly everything under the sun that threatens their status, privilege, or power becomes "essentialist," and the rabble is told they're undermining their own freedom. The very term "identity politics" is a way of trivializing the lives and experiences of people who are not straight white able men.

quote:

---

I might be calling this wrong, but I've noticed a pattern when white men look into feminsim, and discover the essentialist/anti-essentialist debate.

They seem to latch on to anti-essentialism, and paint themselves as the great gender/race/sexuality/ability liberators, and suddenly everything under the sun that threatens their status, privilege, or power becomes "essentialist," and the rabble is told they're undermining their own freedom. The very term "identity politics" is a way of trivializing the lives and experiences of people who are not straight white able men.

---

quote:

---

Actually, debates about essentialism (though they were far more nuanced, and certainly didn't discount the need to fight racism or sexism) ran rife in the women's movement in earlier decades (among women, I mean), and were usually a point of division between "radical feminists" and "socialist feminists".

---

So, figured I should flesh out the context for me starting this thread in the first place, lest I be considered a troll/jerk/sexist, or worse:

Here's the context for me starting this thread in the first place: I've been involved in activist politics all my life, raised by a feminist and done all kinds of social justice work. In my defence, I didn't just happen upon the word "essentialist" the other day and say, "hey! Here's an awesome idea...let's call things essentialist today, just to get a rise out of some pesky feminists! That'll be keen."

I wanted to begin this thread, first of all, to get resposes from people like Puzzlic, Lagatta, Bigcitygal, Heph, and Skdadl (and the rest, but these were the responses that stuck in my mind as particularly thoughtful, and getting at the heart of what I wanted to discuss). I'm genuinely puzzled by this, because, well, I'm not sold on the way a lot of people have expressed their notions of identity politics, and because I'm one of quite a number of people (and, please note, we're not all straight white dudes) who are concerned with these ideas.

Here's the thing: it is a matter of fact that oppression exists in our society, and that it is institutionally practiced, laterally practiced, and interpersonally practiced. It is clear, however you want to measure these things, that the halls of power are generally filled with white dudes in business suits, and that penitentiaries have tremendous over-representation of...well...not of white guys in business suits, that's for sure.

The civil rights movement has made great strides, but we still live in a society which privileges different groups of people based on all kinds of arbitrary qualities (race, sex, political affiliation, and so on). This is a statistically valid assertion to make; to wit, it is a matter of fact that oppression exists here, and around the world.

Ok, I dig it. I'm there. Even if I don't have any direct experience of oppression (well, except anti-semitism and that political beliefs one, but you know...), I have come far enough to appreciate that many people do, and that this is far from an equal society. I have studied a lot of feminist and queer theory, and have done a lot of anti-violence work in my relatively short life.

In my experience, however, the people I have seen espousing identity politics the most, who have championed this cause, have been almost exclusively white women. And these women, in a lot of cases, have...well...collected oppressions. I can think of examples of people who, upon discovering anti-oppression theory and identity politics, all of a sudden are 1/12 First Nations, identify as having a disability, and are suddenly realizing their own innate queerness, sublimated for so many years. And now, they have all of this oppression, because they have all of these great new identities...

Now, I can imagine that me writing this will invoke the following reaction: "who the hell do you think you are, telling people how they can and can't identify, you bastard? Where do you get off marginalizing these identities? You don't know if they are valid, and you damn sure don't know about oppression if you're writing like this!"

This is a reasonable response. I wish I could express my doubts more eloquently, but basically...it seems to me that, for whatever just purposes the framework around "identity politics" was conceived, it has been appropriated and used, in certain cases, in a basic and almost absurd way. I have been at or heard of too many instances where bringing up identity has been used to silence discussion, or destroy debate. It becomes the trump card, because the fact is, nobody can argue with oppression. If I say "hey, I think that you're arguing with me and treating me this way because I'm Jewish, and I feel oppressed by the words you're using" because I'm losing an argument, it kills the discussion. You can either say "that's absurd" or you feel like maybe you have been saying anti-semitic things. Either way, I can just say "well, you can't tell me that my experience of oppression isn't valid, you don't understand", and game over. I mean, this is kind of what the whole Maccabe thing was about, from what I understand.

Now, again, this is the sort of statement that's bound to upset people, and I want to make it perfectly clear: OFTEN, PEOPLE DO SAY OFFENSIVE THINGS. PEOPLE SAY RACIST AND SEXIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC AND PREJUDICED AND AGEIST AND ABLEIST THINGS. OFTEN, PEOPLE ARE MAGINALIZED AND SHUT-OUT OF CONVERSATIONS. OFTEN, WHITE PEOPLE TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE. OFTEN, MEN TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE. OFTEN PEOPLE WITH POWER TEND TO DOMINATE, AND TRY TO CONTROL DISCUSSION OR GROUP DYNAMICS. (caps used for emphasis, not shouting)

However...anti-oppression theory, identity politics; these are frameworks. They are useful frameworks, and they are frameworks which can hopefully be used to shed light on marginalized groups and views, but they are also, sometimes, frameworks which are mis-used. And when this happens, it creates horrible group dynamics. It ends up with everybody calling everybody else oppressive. It's not constructive, and it's not thoughtful.

When I say racist things, as I'm sure I have and may say in the future, I deserve to be called on it, and I ought to own up to it and stop being racist (well, as much as I can, given being born privileged). But when people collect identities to have 'cred', it's weird and problematic. Because the thing is, some people are genuinely born with identities which are oppressed in our society; they didn't just pick 'em up in university for a few years, picking and choosing where it suits them.

The heart of it all for me is that the mis-use of a framework like this can become essentialist and can sour any valid and just reasons this framework had to exist in the first place. Essentialism is very old-school, as meades and puzzlic have pointed out; that's the very reason it's a problem when progressive anti-oppression discourse is appropriated and used for, basically, essentialist purposes.

I think essentialism is bad, but I'm not so post-structuralist that I think sex and race don't exist and we're all one big happy family sharing and laughing together. The fact is, it's complicated. Extremely complicated. A lot more complicated than saying: "in all cases, white people have power and are innately racist and can never stop being racist" or "in all cases, being a woman means understanding and feeling oppression as a woman" or "in all cases, women are more oppressed than Jews, who are more oppressed than conventionally unattractive people."

I don't like this universalist discourse, I don't like identity politics becoming like the Baptist religion (you're born a sinner, you live as a sinner, and you're always a sinner until you die), and I don't like any framework or discourse that silences intellectual debate, or which is stripped down to bare bones when it's really far more complicated.

1. I believe that you write sincerely and well, from the heart, and for that, I will always back you up.

2. I was going to ask you why you were so concerned about this issue, but as I read that long post, I remembered. I have no experience of the trendy exploitation you write of, but I have struggled with the question of how we talk to the good guys.

Thanks for that long post of explanation. It fills in some gaps and questions I had like why you started this thread.

And yes, having survived the throes of graduate school in the "post feminist" and "post identity politics" era, I can heartily reiterate that it's privileged white feminists who love these terms and want to be rid of "identity politics". Why? Sherene Razack talks about a phenomenon, exactly what puzzlic was talking about in her "I can only see and prioritize my oppression" post. Sherene calls it "The race to innocence" or "the race to the margins".

Meaning that if a certain privileged person can *possibly* *at all* claim *ANY* marginalized social position, they do so, just to claim an ideological and theoretical position of "I'm oppressed too, so I can't be racist" (that was the most common expression of the thundering stampede to the margins that I experienced).

Then, we all put our books and pens away and walk out into the real frikkin world where racism happily skips down the sidewalk of life, or slams its fist into the face of reality for poc, zipping right by the privileged white women.

Now, I realize that all this generalization is unfair, and I do not at all mean to imply all privileged white women do this, but I'm trying to cover my butt here. This is a finely nuanced, highly theoretical bunch of concepts we're talking about here.

As a light-skinned mixed race woman I experience a great deal of privilege. And I really appreciate how puzzlic thoughtfully and intelligently describe how we notice where we are oppressed and (very often) decline to notice, for any number of reasons, the ways in which we reap privilege.

Note: I don't really think of myself as a white man, though I certainly am. I generally think of myself, when I do think in terms of identity, as a canadian male of hungarian and irish descent. I do recognize that my not thinking in those terms doesn't mean I don't benefit from my white maleness.

Edited to emphasize that I am well aware of the privileges I've been born into, and that others have not. If my life and recent work has taught me nothing else, it's that but for a happy accident of birth, I would not be who and where I am now. I am also supportive of identifying barriers and racist/sexist/economic/identity oppression, and fighting to remove them one by one (or preferably all at once).

My initial post was in reaction to people making statements like 'white me will do x', when it's a certainty that many (and I hope most) of us won't.

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

I can think of examples of people who, upon discovering anti-oppression theory and identity politics, all of a sudden are 1/12 First Nations, identify as having a disability, and are suddenly realizing their own innate queerness, sublimated for so many years. And now, they have all of this oppression, because they have all of these great new identities...

---

This may be. All except the 1/12th First Nations. Geneologically, you cannot be "1/12th" anything, unless one of your relatives had three parents, or one of your relatives was your relative, uh, more than once (cue banjo music).

I think the question is a good one, and I'm really glad to read the responses so far.

I think the question is a layered one. I don't think all identity politics are one. I don't think there is a single answer to the question. I don't think there is a single approach to get at the answers. I am going to try a few.

In the "identity politics" of the 80s that I was exposed to, it seems to me, there was sometimes an essentialism around what is sometimes called "epistemic privilege". That is the (I think valid) idea that people who have experienced oppression have a privileged position of knowledge about the nature of it, which puzzlic has clearly expressed. They can access a kind of knowledge that is inaccessible to those in the dominant group, namely, their personal experience. This is, I think, an important point that is often explicitly denied by some who assert that a purely "objective", rationalist, analytical approach is sufficient to inform the analysis -- unfortunately those who make such arguments are often from dominant groups, trying to deny an oppression that doesn't target them. These people are also often unconscious of how their actions and choices systematically marginalize oppressed people and replicate the patterns of oppression in ways that others have mentioned. (e.g. why are we obsessing on LGBT rights when there are so many other important issues? If we talk about racism within the movement, it only divides us. Etc.) So far, it seems to me, so good.

Where I think a wrong turn was taken was when, as I see it, some people became essentialist about epistemic privilege, so that experience was the ONLY valid way of knowing about something, and if you didn't have the right kind of experience, you didn't have any position to speak about issues of oppression. Of course, this made debate and dialogue impossible, as well, it denied the importance of empathy, without which, really, how can you have a vision of progress? But the essentialism about epistemic privilege has other problems. For one, it is rigid about identity. Taken to its extreme, the argument means we can only talk about ourselves, individually. Of course, our selves and our experience are constituted socially. But nothing about that basic tenet of social analysis implies that we can ONLY speak from our own experience. In order to get to that point, you have to posit a finite list of social categories which rigidly dominate all others, and assume that the boundaries between identities are quite clear-cut, and that about oppression, there is only one kind of knowledge. While it's true that in a racist society, for example, racialized identities are fairly clear-cut for most people, there are always marginal and less than clear cases, but also, there are ways in which, for all of us, identity can be fluid and differentiated. Our experience and social formation don't suddenly stop at a certain point. Social formation obviously has an overwhelming role in shaping us, and guides our future experiences and so on, but we do keep on experiencing. I think there has to be wiggle room at the margins for ambiguity, uncertainty, and change. Because otherwise, you foreclose the ultimate possibility of social transformation.

It's something that comes up in debates around cultural appropriation. While it is true that white people from wealthy countries (as well as Japanese people who go to India, and so on) always bring with them the interests and privilege of the society they come from, I sometimes find that in the discourse around appropriation, people don't recognize difference. Tony Blair talking about "real Islam" today, or a North Toronto new ager who buys a book on Hinduism at Banyan or Indigo, takes a class on yoga, and starts talking as though Hinduism belongs to them too and they are entitled to speak about it authoritatively or without respecting that it takes WORK to get to a certain level of knowledge, are one thing. Betsy Napper, who learned Tibetan as a young woman, spent decades studying Tibetan with monks (yes, because she had white American privilege) and now lives and works full time with Tibetans, running the breakthrough Tibetan Nun project that has for the first time taught nuns the philosophy and practices previously reserved for monks, as well as modern skills like computer training and so on, -- well Betsy is another thing. Betsy has done a lot of work to get to understanding Tibetan culture, works in solidarity with Tibetans on reasonably progressive causes, and frankly, she has earned the ability to speak authoritatively (not unquestionably) about many aspects of Tibetan history, society, and culture. Her understanding has also evolved constantly over the years, so that she's in a very different place from where she began. There are SOME things she can't speak authoritatively about, and SOME things where she simply will never have the voice of personal experience. Yet there are other things she can be very, very authoritative about. I think it's importance to recognize the difference between her and white rastas or superficial white persons prattling on about yoga or Islam, and the many shades of difference between and beyond. Because, I've also heard that NO white person can ever validly learn from, talk about another culture, etc., and the Betsys of the world are often the target of bitter anger that lumps them in with Tony Blair talking about "true Islam". I understand where the emotion for that is coming from, but as an idea, it is tremendously essentialist. It means we are trapped in our racial identities and no amount of work or personal difference is relevant. Which is, at bottom, deeply pessimistic. This critique can be as superficial as what it criticizes. Generally I've heard it from people who haven't, themselves, done the personal work of trying to understand another language and culture greatly different from their own, and so don't understand what this involves. E.g. a POC who superficially has good analysis but told me that she doesn't feel guilty casually and uninformedly talking about other cultures, because she is a person of colour! It ramifies very differently based on her social location than if it were a white person doing it, but that doesn't mean it gets a pass. This is, at root, a kind of essentialism, and therefore, a kind of pessimism about oppression. It's not about all of us sharing a fundamental respect for each other.

On the whole I am opposed to any form of determinism. I'm opposed to biological determinism in its many forms. I'm opposed to individual determinism, aka liberal individualism or voluntarism. And I'm opposed to social determinism which says that a finite number of social categories rigidly define us, dominate all other difference, and render irrelevant individual or personal difference. This, after all, is precisely how racism and other oppressions operate. Instead of universalizing this, we should aim to eradicate it (although that is a long and difficult work of historical transformation). I have personally experienced settings in which the rhetoric was of anti-oppression but in reality "power reversal" was perceived to be a victory. Speaking personally, if the objective is for other people to get off of shitting on me, why wouldn't I pack up my privilege and leave, because I can? There has to be the hope of something that works for everyone, or it isn't going to work for anyone. Speaking as a queer man, I feel acutely that while straight people are not oppressed, injured, threatened, or bashed because of homophobia/heteronormativity, they are greatly limited by it, and the work of fighting homophobia should ALSO be the work of sexual liberation for all. Speaking as someone with a complex class identity but who grew up strongly working-class identified among mostly bourgeois schoolmates, I think that class oppression causes pain, suffering and shame in those it exploits, but it also dehumanizes the exploiter. As I think Ursula Franklin said, justice is indivisible. There is no such thing as justice for some, without justice for all.

I understand that in oppressive dynamics, the oppressed are often labeled as having personal problems in a kind of blaming the victim that turns the focus away from the social dynamics. However, there are many cases where oppression doesn't exhaustively and exclusively explain the social dynamic. To assert otherwise is another case of social determinism/essentialism about identity. Clearly, there are personal differences between all of us. Oppression means that there are many barriers in the way of an oppressed person expressing their full potential. And there is a tailwind behind privileged people. But it doesn't mean that oppression alone explains everything. I've been in an anti-oppression/conflict resolution setting where individual personality was asserted as an issue in the group ALONGSIDE of and IN ADDITION to oppression, but this was shut down by the facilitators completely and utterly as a no-go area and ALL issues HAD to be dealt with in terms of a short list of social location categories. OK then -- we don't really need facilitators then, do we, since it's so crystal clear, we can just come up with a list of categories to determine our social location and feed them to a computer, which should be able to determine our problem.

I think it's this kind of rigid essentialism that can create a false impression of identity politics and anti-oppression as a whole. I think that on the whole, identity politics has moved away from the kind of essentialisms I've been talking about, although you still run across it in groups or people (privileged or oppressed) who are new to anti-oppression analysis, or who are still in a stage of expressing intense anger and pain. I think if you look at any liberation movement, feminism, gay liberation, whatever, you often find a stage (this can be a stage in social change, or personal change) where consciously or unconsciously, there is a kind of tactical essentialism. I think, for example, that gay ghettos or the Michigan separatists are examples of that. It's simply not a solution to the problems of patriarchy to separate, because it can't be done, but perhaps different degrees of separation are needed for the creation of spaces where people don't constantly experience the oppression they are resisting, where they can articulate their own identity and understanding of themselves, and so on. Such spaces retain an ongoing importance in resistance to oppression, but on the other hand, I think at a certain point, for most people, there comes a greater consciousness of their tactical utility, as opposed to a reification of them as permanent solutions.

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

When I think of essentialist feminists, I think of feminists who believe that women are inherently more peaceful/intelligent/nurturing or whatever other "feminine" stereotype you can think of. They're the women who decided to take the feminine stereotypes that sexist men had pegged on us since forever as biologically-determined, and said, "Why, yes, those things ARE biologically determined, and therefore women are BETTER suited to leadership roles, because the world will be a better place if the world is run by people with those characteristics."

I think THAT'S essentialist. And balderdash, incidentally. Deifying women is just as sexist as vilifying them. Women are human beings with foibles, faults, and virtues.

It's NOT "essentialist", however, to state that white straight men do not have the same living experiences as women, as people of colour, as gays and lesbians, or whatever combination of the above. As someone (bigcitygirl or puzzlic, I think) said, that's social reconstructionist, and it's perfectly valid. No one is saying that black lesbian feminists are inherently more intelligent and understand the issues of oppression better because of that. They're saying that it black lesbian feminists have LIVED the oppression, and therefore it might be a good idea for white straight men who run most progressive organizations to shut the fuck up once in a while and listen to them.

As rasmus says, this doesn't mean that white people can't talk about race issues. It means that white people have to inform themselves by LISTENING to people of colour about race issues, and then, when it's time for white people to speak out about race issues, to reflect what they have been told about other people's experiences instead of just talking about what we IMAGINE to be the experience of people of colour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
As rasmus says, this doesn't mean that white people can't talk about race issues. It means that white people have to inform themselves by LISTENING to people of colour about race issues, and then, when it's time for white people to speak out about race issues, to reflect what they have been told about other people's experiences instead of just talking about what we IMAGINE to be the experience of people of colour.

---

Michelle I could not agree more with both you and Rasmus comments. But I would also add to that statement that non-visible minorities ie religious minortities can also feel the pain of racism and need to be able to speak of their experiences as well.

I was at a anti-racism conference recently put on by the canadian race relations foundation where the new federal government anti-racism initiative was discussed.

One thing that all agreed upon was that 2 groups who are the most often targets of racism according to Stats Can were first African Canadians and second Jews. The third largest group were the lesbian gay transgender community.

IMHO it appears that we discount the voice of whites who have been subjected to racism based upon their religion because we do not see them as victims like we can see a person of colour.

edited to add:

one of the biggest problems that the I found at the conference was that the government wrote the documents using language that was fluffy. It seemed that the gov is scared to call racism actually what it is. To call racial profiling what it is, to call police crimes what they are..and so on and so on and so

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: miles ]

I really appreciate rasmus' and Michelle's last posts, as well. I only have one teensy nitpick to add to their comments:

quote:

---

by Michelle: black lesbian feminists have LIVED the oppression, and therefore it might be a good idea for white straight men who run most progressive organizations to shut the fuck up once in a while and listen to them.

---

quote:

---

by rasmus: people who have experienced oppression have a privileged position of knowledge about the nature of it, which puzzlic has clearly expressed. They can access a kind of knowledge that is inaccessible to those in the dominant group, namely, their personal experience.

---

So I'm also trying to say that, of people who are actively involved in antisubordination movements (whether those individuals are white, poc, LGBT, straight, women or men), the ones that are getting the short end of the discrimination stick on a particular issue are much more likely (though not certain) to have greater rational, objective understanding of a particular form of discrimination than a sympathetic (e.g. straight or white or male or able or Christian or whatever we're talking about) person who is privileged by that form of discrimination -- even though that person may be oppressed by other forms of discrimination. In general, politically active people who are getting the short end of the stick are better read on the topic, have likely studied antiracism/feminism/queer theory/politics quite intensively, or gained great experience of it through community organizing, advocacy etc. So it's particularly irksome to me when privileged armchair quarterbacks try to tell pocs, LGBT, feminists or whoever that they're going about their struggle all wrong, and they should do it the privileged guy's (or gal's) way.

and while I think the question of: "who is speaking?" can be an important one to ask, I also think the issue of situated knowledge and how it relates to the numerous positions a person can take when speaking about oppression is important what this means to me is being able to call your own position into question because it is easy to take that position for granted. This is something that I think bigcitygal and puzzlic (I think puzzlic oullined it again in her last post) pointed out with the idea of prioritizing ones own oppression especially if it means being a position to recognize certain kinds of experiences at the expense of others...

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

quote:

---

even though that person may be oppressed by other forms of discrimination

---

No kidding. How many examples there are of the exact opposite -- misogyny and racism in white gay groups, homophobia in anti-racist groups, and so on.

I totally agree with your point that getting the short end of the stick doesn't automatically translate into good analysis (Clarence Thomas), and I've certainly seen proof of the opposite in my own life. I don't know if there's an equivalent when talking about other forms of oppression to the marxist idea of "class consciousness" but it does seem like an articulate consciousness of your position as an oppressed person in a relationship of oppression is not a given, on the contrary, dominant ideologies have many strategies to block and subvert such consciousness.

If I were a Marxist about it, I'd say that in the best case, there is a dialectical relationship between the experience and the analysis. But only some people have access to the experience, dependent on their location in material relations which determine subjective consciousness; others can learn about it through listening. I make this point, because I've seen a lot of resistance to anti-oppression discourse coming from quarters of the traditional left, i.e. social democrats and Marxists. Ironically, I think, many Marxists take a completely undialectical approach to the issue by denying the irreducible contribution of situated experience to the understanding of the issue. A one-legged dialectic is not a dialectic.

(sorry for the flawed quoting method below)

...
Rasmus said:
How many examples there are of the exact opposite -- misogyny and racism in white gay groups, homophobia in anti-racist groups, and so on.
...

Yes, exactly, and where do queers of colour go? Often to struggle within both the communities above, and to find community therein, or to make separate spaces. Or both.

Tape, I apologize for my part in using exclusing jargon-y language. Not helpful or accessible.

...
puzzlic said:
Again, not to say we can't come to understand forms of discrimination that privilege us -- of course we can. But if, say, a white gay man sees heterosexism where I don't perceive any, I should try very hard to understand his point of view before deciding that he's imagining discrimination where it doesn't exist. I can learn a lot that way. It might change my mind, or it might not, but I won't learn anything (about my own experiences or those of others) if I don't listen first.
...

And to that I say: yes! And I would also push it further. To become an ally to groups whose oppression you don't share and to speak up when someone says something homophobic (if you're straight), racist (if you're white), sexist (if you're a man). You see where I'm going with this.

So then, it's not always women confronting about sexism, poc confronting about racism, etc. And I already see that happening, and I would love to see more. There's a fine line between doing this and "taking over" the dialogue, but it's for sure possible.

Secondly, Mr. Magoo, I have three parents. And one and a half siblings. So there!

Thirdly, I apologize, as the originator of this thread, for a lot of the specialized terminology that the discussion requires; in my defence, I often read threads on babble where I just don't have the knowledge or understanding to participate in the discussion (gun control stuff, a lot of geo-political issues I'm not familiar with, etc.), but I do think it's cool that people are checking in and reading, if only out of curiosity.

One thing, though...I didn't get the reference to "rigorous analysis", posted right after my last post...could ya fill in the blanks for me?

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: MartinArendt ]

The Constellation of Opposition

By Jason Adams

# Introduction: The Constellation of N30

Traditionally the beginning of wisdom is to know yourself. For 'political" people I think that has to start with some sense of your own "identity" including such questions of how, as an indiviudal you are subject to "oppression" or "exploitation".
so your "politics" should be "personal" and there is, I believe a lot of validity to "idendity politics".

However, if you stop at your own individual identity, your own personal exploitaion or oppression, there is a danger of becoming narcisstic or shallow, wallowing in your own misery or "selling out" . You need to see how that ties in to others- how they too re "oppressed" "exploited" and how collectively "we" can change the situation. There is a dialectic here between the personal and the collecive.

From the class perspective individuals seeing themselves exploited as individual workers is a good start to class consciousness but can go awry (wallowing in misery, selling out.) Seeing others being exploited as workers, and resolving to work with them to challenge the exploitation takes matters to a whole new level.

Same in "identity politics" a good start is to see how you are "exploted" "oppressed" -as a woman, or gay or person of color or whatever, but hat canpaly several ways. Seeing others who share your siutaion as being oprressed/exploited too and resolving to work with them to challenge the situation creates a whole new dynamic.

Ideally, in a utopian sense, the great mass of people will coem to their own individual realization of oppression/exploitation on class. identity whatever and then come to a collective understanding of oppression/exploitation and we all resolve to work together to end all forms of oppression/exploitation.

But that is not just a theoretical discussion or utopian vision. Opression/exploitaion happens every day, all over the world, to all kinds of inviduduals or groups and invovles all kinds of confronataions and struggles or failures to confront or struggle. There are many legitimate or illegitimate quesions of priority for individuals or groups and legitimate and illegitimate quesions of composition or behavior.

For example I work with a group that is, as far as I can tell, largely straight men. Do I challenge them to take on the cause of SSM? Does it make a differecne that this is a group opposed to the war on Iraq, and the war of terror, with a large number of Muslims and people of colour, who may not be impressed by someone they may see as a privileged Christin "white" calling them opppressors and accusing them of possessing backward views, demanign they take on a cause they have difficulty relating to for all kinds of reasons, legitimate and illegitimate? Do I challenge a group of gay positive women to include aboriginals and disabled in their outreach? Do I raise challenges on behalf of identitities I do not have- eg. I'm not an aboriginal, disabled gay?

Do we retreat into some vague utopian "rainbow coalition" approach where we see everybody in the world joining hands and singing songs together, smoothing out and smothering all the real conflicts and issues? On the other eeteme do we continually battle each other over whose oppression has priority this time? In the dialectics is there a new synthesis?

And learning means coming to a shared conclusion about what it means to be human, how our (shared) human attributes can best be utilized and caused to grow and flower.

It is a pretty boring discussion which begins:

Since I am a white male, you, a black female, will never be able to understand what I have experienced and why I think as I do.

The question necessarily arises, if your listener can NEVER understand, why are you bothering to speak to him or her?

Another way of saying it is this: if we share no common humanity, and no shared morality, what argument can you make if I decide to kill you?

I think it is possible to give great credence to the fact that everyone has his, or her, personal experience. And that it can be really hard to incorporate it in one's own worldview.