Identity Politics Lecture 6 PDF

IDENTITY POLITICS Lecture 6 The rise of identity politics Identity politics can be defined as a style of politics that seeks to counter group marginalization by embracing a positive and assertive sense of collective identity (Heywood, 2019) One of the prominent features of modern poli...

IDENTITY POLITICS Lecture 6 The rise of identity politics Identity politics can be defined as a style of politics that seeks to counter group marginalization by embracing a positive and assertive sense of collective identity (Heywood, 2019) One of the prominent features of modern politics has been a growing recognition of the significance of cultural differences within society, often portrayed as ‘identity politics’ or the ‘politics of difference’. Identity politics is an orientation towards social or political theorizing which seeks to challenge and overthrow oppression by reshaping a group’s identity through what amounts to a process of politico-cultural self-assertion. This reflects two core beliefs; the first is that group marginalization operates through stereotypes and values developed by dominant groups that structure how marginalized groups see themselves and are seen by others. These typically inculcate a sense of inferiority, even shame. The second belief is that subordination can be challenged by reshaping identity to give the group concerned a sense of pride and self-respect (for instance, ‘black is beautiful’ or ‘gay pride’).  In seeking to reclaim a ‘pure’ or ‘authentic’ sense of identity, identity politics expresses defiance against marginalization and disadvantage, and serves as a source of liberation. This is what gives identity politics its typically combative character and imbues it with psycho-emotional force The foundations for identity politics were laid by the postcolonial theories that emerged from the collapse of the European empires in the early post 1945 period. The significance of postcolonialism was that it sought to challenge and overturn the cultural dimension of imperial rule by establishing the legitimacy of non- Western – and sometimes anti-Western – political ideas and traditions. For example, Franz Fanon (1926–61) developed a theory of imperialism that gave particular emphasis to the psychological dimension of colonial subjugation. For Fanon (1968), decolonization is not merely a political process, but one through which a new ‘species’ of man is created. He argued that only the cathartic/ purging experience of violence is powerful enough to bring about this psycho-political regeneration.  Edward Said developed a critique of Eurocentrism (a culturally biased worldview, mindset, or rhetorical orientation that centers European, or White, ways of knowing as sole, central, or superior to all others) through his notion of ‘orientalism.” Orientalism highlights the extent to which Western cultural and political hegemony over the rest of the world, but over the Orient in particular, had been maintained through elaborate stereotypical fictions that belittled and demeaned non- Western people and culture. Examples of this would include notions such as the ‘mysterious East’, ‘inscrutable Chinese’ and ‘lustful Turks’. However, manifestations of identity politics are varied and diverse. This is because identity can be shaped around many principles. The most important of these are; - Race and Ethnicity, - Cultural diversity - Gender and Identity - Religion and Politics Race and ethnicity Racial and ethnic divisions are a significant feature of many modern societies. There is nothing new, however, in the link between race and politics. The first explicitly racialist political theories were developed in the nineteenth century against the background of European imperialism. Works such as Gobineau’s Essay on the Inequality of Human Races (Gobineau, 1970) and H. S. Chamberlain’s The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century ( 1913) attempted to provide a pseudoscientific (bogus, sham) justification for the dominance of the ‘white’ races of Europe and North America over the ‘black’, ‘brown’ and ‘yellow’ peoples of Africa and Asia. Anti-Semitic political parties and movements emerged in countries such as Germany, Austria and Russia in the late nineteenth century. The most grotesque twentieth-century manifestation of such racialism was found in German Nazism, which, through the so- called ‘Final Solution’, attempted to carry out the extermination of European Jewry. Apartheid (Afrikaans for ‘apartness’) in South Africa consisted of the strict segregation of whites and non-whites between the election of the Nationalist Party in 1948 and the establishment of a non-racial democracy under the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994.  Elsewhere, racialism has been kept alive through campaigns against immigration, organized, for example, by the British National Party (BNP) and Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) in France. Very different forms of racial or ethnic politics have, nevertheless, developed out of the struggle against colonialism in particular, and as a result of racial discrimination and disadvantage in general. Indeed, in seeking to challenge economic and social marginalization, black nationalism in the USA and elsewhere constituted the prototype for identity politics, especially through its emphasis on ‘consciousness raising’ (strategies to remodel social identity and challenge cultural inferiority by an emphasis on pride, self-worth and self-assertion..) The origins of the black consciousness movement date back to the early twentieth century and the emergence of a ‘back to Africa’ movement, inspired by activists such as Marcus Garvey. Black politics, however, gained greater prominence in the 1960s with an upsurge in both the reformist and revolutionary wings of the movement. In its reformist guise, the movement took the form of a struggle for civil rights that reached national prominence in the USA under the leadership of Martin Luther King (1929–68) and the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP).  The strategy of protest and non-violent civil disobedience was, nevertheless, rejected by the emerging Black Power movement, which supported black separatism and, under the leadership of the Black Panther Party, founded in 1966, promoted the use of physical force and armed confrontation Of more enduring significance in US politics, however, have been the Black Muslims, who advocate a separate creed based on the idea that black Americans are descended from an ancient Muslim tribe. Founded in 1930, the Black Muslims were led for over 40 years by Elijah Muhammad (1897–1975), and they counted amongst their most prominent activists in the 1960s the militant black leader Malcolm X (1925–65). Renamed the Nation of Islam, the movement continues to exert influence in the USA under the leadership of Louis Farrakhan. The international activist movement Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013, campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people in the USA and elsewhere. The organization was formed after the acquittal of a Florida police officer in the fatal shooting of an African American teenager. It operates as a decentralized network with no formal hierarchy and makes significant use of social media  The rise of ethnic consciousness has by no means occurred only in the West. Although ethnic rivalry (often portrayed as ‘tribalism’) is sometimes seen as an endemic feature of African and Asian politics, it is better understood as a phenomenon linked to colonialism. However, the divide-and-rule policies of the colonial period often bequeathed to many newly independent ‘nations’ a legacy of bitterness and resentment. In many cases, this was subsequently exacerbated by the attempts of majority ethnic groups to consolidate their dominance under the guise of ‘nation building’. Such tensions, for instance, resulted in the Biafran war in Nigeria in the 1960s, a long-running civil war in Southern Sudan, and a resort to terrorism by the predominantly Christian Tamils in Sri Lanka. The worst recent example of ethnic bloodshed, however, occurred in Rwanda in 1994, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in an uprising by militant Hutus. The spectre of ethnic rivalry and regional conflict has also been created by the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. In the former USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, for example, this led to state collapse and the creation of a series of new states. Nevertheless, these newly created states have themselves been subject to deep ethnic rivalries and tensions. This has been demonstrated by the rebellion of the Chechens in Russia, and the fragmentation of the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia into ‘ethnically pure’ Muslim, Serb and Croat areas.  Cultural diversity One of the most powerful factors underpinning the global significance of identity politics has been the increase in international migration, particularly since the 1950s, and the consequent growth in cultural diversity. As a growing number of countries have come to accept as an irreversible fact that their populations have a multi-ethnic, multi-religious or multicultural character, various attempts have been made to reconcile cultural diversity and identity- related difference with civic and political cohesion. How is political stability to be maintained in societies in which the monocultural bonds of political nationalism have been fatally undermined? Some, indeed, view this as the central political challenge of the twenty-first century. Attempts to balance diversity against cohesion are usually dubbed ‘multiculturalism.’ Multiculturalism is a broad and often ill-defined term, which may simply stress cultural differentiation that is based on race, ethnicity or language. However, multiculturalism not only recognizes the fact of cultural diversity; it also holds that such differences should be respected and publicly affirmed. Such ideas have been applied most systematically in Canada Australia, New Zealand and across much of Europe. Justifying diversity The central theme within all forms of multiculturalism is that individual identity is culturally embedded, in the sense that people largely derive their understanding of the world and their framework of moral beliefs from the culture in which they live and develop. Distinctive cultures therefore deserve to be protected or strengthened, particularly when they belong to minority or vulnerable groups. This leads to the idea of minority or multicultural rights, sometimes seen as ‘special’ rights. Will Kymlicka (1995) identified three kinds of minority rights: self-government rights, polyethnic/group-specific rights and representation rights. Self-government rights belong, Kymlicka argued, to what he called ‘national minorities’, peoples who are territorially concentrated, possess a shared language and are characterized by a ‘meaningful way of life across the full range of human activities’. Examples would include Native Americans, Inuits in Canada, Maoris in New Zealand and Aborigines in Australia. In these cases, he argued, the right to self-government should involve the devolution of political power, usually through federalism, although it may extend to the right of secession and, therefore, to sovereign independence.  Polyethnic rights are rights that help ethnic groups and religious minorities, that have developed through immigration, to express and maintain their cultural distinctiveness. They would, for instance, provide the basis for legal exemptions, such as the exemption of Jews and Muslims from animal slaughtering laws, the exemption of Sikh men from wearing motorcycle helmets, and the exemption of Muslim girls from school dress codes. Special representation rights attempt to redress the under-representation of minority or disadvantaged groups in education, and in senior positions in political and public life. Such rights, which in the USA take the form of affirmative action, imply the practice of reverse or ‘positive’ discrimination, which attempts to compensate for past discrimination or continuing cultural subordination. Their justification is not only that they ensure full and equal participation, but also that they are the only means of guaranteeing that public policy reflects the interests of all groups and peoples, and not merely those of traditionally dominant groups. However, there is neither a settled view of how multicultural societies should operate, nor of how far multiculturalism should go in positively endorsing communal diversity. There are three main models of multiculturalism: I. Liberal multiculturalism II. Pluralist multiculturalism III. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism Liberal multiculturalism is rooted in a commitment to freedom and toleration: the ability to choose one’s own moral beliefs, cultural practices and way of life, regardless of whether these are disapproved of by others. However, the liberal model of multiculturalism only provides a qualified endorsement of communal diversity, highlighting the dangers that may also be implicit in identity politics. In particular, liberals are only prepared to tolerate views, values and social practices that are themselves tolerant; that is, to those that are compatible with personal freedom and autonomy. Liberal multiculturalists may therefore be unwilling to endorse practices such as female circumcision, forced (and possibly arranged) marriages and female dress codes, however much the groups concerned may believe that these are crucial to the maintenance of their cultural identity  Pluralist multiculturalism provides firmer foundations for a theory of cultural diversity because it is based on the idea of value pluralism. Developed in particular in the writings of Isaiah Berlin, this holds that people are bound to disagree about the ultimate ends of life. As values conflict, the human predicament is inevitably characterized by moral conflict. In this view, liberal or Western beliefs, such as support for personal freedom, democracy and secularization, have no greater moral authority than rival beliefs. This form of multiculturalism also focuses more explicitly on unequal power relations in society, particularly the extent to which the dominant culture in Western societies reflects the values and interests of the majority group and so subordinates minority communities. Cultural recognition therefore counters oppression and serves to expose the corrupt and corrupting nature of Western culture, values and lifestyles, believed to be tainted by the inheritance of colonialism and racialism, or by materialism and ‘godless’ permissiveness. Such thinking has been especially controversial in relation to Muslim minorities in Western societies. Opposition to Multi-culturalism In a trend that has been most apparent in Europe since the 1990s, multiculturalism has been the target of mounting criticism, leading, in effect, to a ‘backlash against difference. In line with this, there has been a retreat from ‘official’ multiculturalism, evident, among other things, in bans on the wearing of veils by Muslim women in public places. Such bans have been introduced in France and Belgium, while at least four German states have forbidden the wearing of Muslim headscarves in schools. Hostility towards multiculturalism has been most prominently associated with resurgent populist nationalism at the heart of which typically resides a fierce attack on what are seen as the related evils of immigration and cultural diversity. Such a stance is based on essentially conservative assumptions. The chief conservative objection to multiculturalism is that shared values and a common culture are a necessary precondition for a stable and successful society. Increased cultural diversity can, therefore, only threaten national identity, perhaps leaving it fatally damaged. The basis for such thinking is the belief that human beings are drawn to others who are essentially similar to themselves, implying that a fear or distrust of strangers or foreigners is ‘natural’ and unavoidable. From this perspective, multiculturalism is inherently flawed: multicultural societies are inevitably fractured and conflict-ridden societies, in which suspicion, hostility and even violence come to be accepted as facts of life. Gender and identity Feminism has traditionally been associated with – some would say defined by – the quest for gender equality, whether this means the achievement of equal rights (liberal feminism), social equality (socialist feminism) or equal personal power (radical feminism). In what may broadly be called equality feminism (a form of feminism that aspires to the goal of gender equality, whether this is defined in terms of formal rights, control of resources, or personal power) difference implies oppression or subordination; it highlights legal, political, social and other advantages that men enjoy but which are denied to women. Women, in that sense, must be liberated from difference. Such thinking is based on the belief that human nature is basically androgynous. All human beings, regardless of their sex, possess the genetic inheritance of a mother and a father and therefore embody a blend of both female and male attributes and traits. Women and men should, therefore, be judged not by their sex, but as individuals, as ‘persons’. In this view, a very clear distinction is drawn between sex and gender. As Simone de Beauvoir put it, ‘Women are made, they are not born’.  However, although most feminists have regarded the sex/gender distinction as a source of empowerment, others have attacked it. These attacks have been launched from two main directions. The first, associated with so-called difference feminism,(a form of feminism that holds that there are deep and possibly ineradicable differences between women and men, whether these are rooted in biology, culture or material experience) suggests that there are profound differences between women and men. From an ‘essentialist’ perspective, accepted by some but by no means all difference feminists, social and cultural characteristics are seen to reflect deeper biological differences. The second attack on the sex/gender distinction challenges the categories themselves. Postmodern feminists have questioned whether sex is as clear-cut a biological distinction as is usually assumed. For example, the features of ‘biological womanhood’ do not apply to many who are classified as women: some women cannot bear children, some women are not sexually attracted to men, and so on. If there is a biology–culture continuum rather than a fixed biological/cultural divide, the categories ‘female’ and ‘male’ become more or less arbitrary, and the concepts of sex and gender become hopelessly entangled. Intersectionality Since the 1990s, feminist discourse has moved beyond the campaigns and demands of the 1960s and 1970s women’s movement, with a range of new issues being addressed. However, if there is a unifying theme within contemporary feminism, it is a more radical engagement with the ‘politics of difference’. Instead of just emphasizing that women are different from men, greater attention has been given to differences between women. In so doing, contemporary feminists have tried to rectify an over-emphasis in earlier forms of feminism on the aspirations and experiences of middleclass, white women in developed societies, thereby illustrating the extent to which the contemporary women’s movement is characterized by diversity, hybridity, and a greater awareness of intersectionality (A condition of social and cultural mixing; the term derives from cross-breeding between genetically dissimilar plants or animals). This has allowed the voices of low-income women, women in the developing world, and ‘women of colour’, among others, to be heard more effectively. Black feminism has been particularly effective in this respect, challenging the tendency within conventional forms of feminism to ignore racial differences on the assumption that women endure a common oppression by virtue of their sex. Especially strong in the USA, and developed in the writings of theorists such as Bell Hooks, black feminism portrays sexism and racism as linked systems of oppression, and highlights the particular and complex range of gender, racial and economic disadvantages that confront women of colour. Gender and trans theory The emergence, during the second decade of the twenty-first century, of the trans movement (sometimes called the transgender movement) has thrown up challenging new thinking about gender. Although what is called ‘trans politics’ is not associated with a single or simple theory of gender, its defining theme is a rejection of the binary conception of gender, with a stress, instead, on gender and sexual ambiguity, sometimes based on the idea of a gender continuum. People are thus seen as neither women nor men. From the trans perspective, gender is not something attributed to individuals by society, or something that is imposed on them by cultural stereotypes. Instead, gender is fundamentally a matter of self-definition and, as such, is based on inner feelings. In this vein, Judith Butler (see p. 191) advanced a theory of gender that emphasizes the crucial role of social performance.  Transgender: A term denoting or relating to people who do not conform to prevailing expectations about gender, usually by crossing over or moving between gender identities. Such thinking has nevertheless been viewed as deeply problematic by traditional feminists, not least because of the importance they placed on culturally defined gender in explaining the oppression of women. However, over time, there has been a greater willingness by feminists to take on board issues raised by the trans movement, while supporters of trans politics have increasingly recognized the extent to which its thinking may be applicable to all women. Not only does this reflect widening support within feminism for a more personalised and nuanced approach to gender, but it also demonstrates a growing awareness of the parallels and overlaps that exist between sexism and transphobia. Religion and politics The impact of religion on political life had been progressively restricted by the spread of liberal culture and ideas, a process that has been particularly prominent in the industrialized West. Nevertheless, liberal secularism (the belief that religion should not intrude into secular (worldly) affairs, usually reflected in the desire to separate the state from institutionalized religion) is by no means an anti-religious tendency. Rather, it is concerned to establish a ‘proper’ sphere and role for religion. Emphasizing the importance of the public/private divide, it has sought to confine religion to a private arena, leaving public life to be organized on a strictly secular basis. However, the emergence of new, and often more assertive, forms of religiosity, the increasing impact of religious movements and, most importantly, a closer relationship between religion and politics, especially since the 1970s, has confounded the so-called ‘secularization thesis.’ This was dramatically demonstrated by the 1979 ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran, which brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power as the leader of the world’s first Islamic state. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that this was not an exclusively Islamic development, as ‘fundamentalist’ movements emerged within Christianity, particularly in the form of the so- called ‘new Christian Right’ in the USA, and within Hinduism and Sikhism in India  Although religious revivalism can be seen as a consequence of the larger upsurge in identity politics, religion has proved to be a particularly potent means of regenerating personal and social identity in modern circumstances. As modern societies are increasingly atomistic, diffuse and pluralized, there is, arguably, a greater thirst for the sense of meaning, purpose and certainty that religious consciousness appears to offer. This applies because religion provides believers with a world-view and moral vision that has higher, or indeed supreme, authority, as it stems from a supposedly divine source. Religion thus defines the very grounds of people’s being; it gives them an ultimate frame of reference, as well as a moral orientation in a world increasingly marked by moral relativism. In addition, religion generates a powerful sense of social solidarity, connecting people to one another at a ‘thick’ or deep level, as opposed to the ‘thin’ connectedness that is conventional in modern societies Islamism The link between religion and politics has been clearest in relation to Islam, where it has been reflected in an upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism, often termed ‘Islamism’. Fundamentalism in Islam does not imply a belief in the literal truth of the Koran, for this is accepted by all Muslims and, in that sense, all Muslims are fundamentalists. Instead, it means an intense and militant faith in Islamic beliefs as the overriding principles of social life and politics, as well as of personal morality. Islamic fundamentalists wish to establish the primacy of religion over politics. In practice, this means the founding of an ‘Islamic state’, a theocracy (Literally, rule by God; the principle that religious authority should prevail over political authority, usually through the domination of church over state), ruled by spiritual rather than temporal authority, and applying the Shari’a. The Shari’a (Literally, the ‘way’ or ‘path’; divine Islamic law, based on principles expressed in the Koran) lays down a code for legal and religious behaviour, including a system of punishment for most crimes, as well as rules of personal conduct for both men and women.  However, Islam should be distinguished from Islamism. Islamism refers either to a political creed based on Islamic ideas and principles, or to the political movement that has been inspired by that creed. It has three core aims. First, it promotes pan-Islamic unity, distinguishing Islamism from traditional political nationalism. Second, it seeks the purification of the Islamic world through the overthrow of ‘apostate’ leaders of Muslim states (secularized or pro-Western leaders). Third, it calls for the removal of Western, and especially US, influence from the Muslim world, and possibly a wider politico-cultural struggle against the West itself. The rise of Islamism has sometimes been interpreted as evidence of an emerging ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islam and the West, a notion that has profound implications for both global politics and for Western societies which have significant Muslim communities. Primary Source Heywood, Andrew. Politics. (5thed.) London. Red Globe Press. 2019. (Chapter 8)