Thursday, February 23rd 2006
The Nihilism of Identity Politics
“Freedom is the freedom to say two and two make four.”
-George Orwell
“My opinion cannot be changed by your arguments because my circumstances have dictated an ideological platform that is common only to people in my circumstances.”
This, minus all the bloated jargon is the core of Identity Politics, the single most illogical movement to grace modern thought; not surprisingly, it is the new darling child of the academic left.
This philosophy is used to justify radical leftist perspectives, but only if they’re held by women, queers, or people of color; those people are apparently born to be postmodern leftists and cannot possibly understand the analytical language and mathematics of Classical Liberalism that guide us to such silly thoughts as “universalism” and “civil society”.
The problem with arguing with people who have such an obviously absurd position is that its very difficult to come up with a measured response. The tendency, at least for me, is either to be crippled by confusion at the illogic, or to fly into a rage and lose the high ground.
The best response to someone who counters a rational argument with an identity one is to reduce the question to something simple, something relatively uncontroversial but that will prove the point.
For instance, that two and two make four.
Then ask your identity politician if anyone’s identity (gender, race, sexual orientation) can legitimately change this result? If he says no, you can press on the point and show how the entire point of good politics is to use analytical tools such as mathematics to predict results that we can both share, even if our original perspectives are different. This is a place to explain both the strengths and limitations of rational thought, but a clear demonstration that limited commonality exists.
If he says yes, you know what you have on your hands. A nihilist . And make sure to tell him that he is a nihilist, and that identity politics is a poor cover for believing in nothing at all, or simply avoiding the difficulty of actually putting together an analytical argument to forward opinion.
“…entire point of good politics is to use analytical tools such as mathematics to predict results that we can both share”
Don’t quite true. I’d say, and I’m sure you’d agree, that the entire point of good *political SCIENCE* is to use analytical tools such as mathematics *(and other social science techniques)* to predict results that we can *all* share.
The point of “good politics”, I say, is to do good for and by the people.
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 10:40 am
Don’t quite true? Ok, see, that’s what happens when you post while in class.
“Not quite true.” Right. Back to getting my learn on.
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 10:46 am
A refinement of the idea could be that political science encompasses the politics that can be disputed in common, without resorting to arguments of secular faith (those articles held above analysis and reproach, they are not always limited to religion).
Comment by mickeyk — 2/23/2006 @ 10:58 am
I think that’s a good refinement. And certainly the ideal!
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 11:05 am
Political science has plenty of arguments of faith, religious or otherwise.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/23/2006 @ 12:57 pm
I don’t think that political scientists making arguments in faith in quite the way you might mean. Certainly, there are things we assume, take for granted (on faith), and such, but as a discipline, we do strive to be as objective and descriptive as possible, grounding our theories and answers to life’s pesky little questions in rational arguments.
A good political scientist would never make an argument of faith, such as “Well, of course people are rational, because I believe that it is so.” That would completely defeat the purpose of the scientific aspect of political science.
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 3:11 pm
Not sure what you’re trying to argue. If someone takes something as true, they won’t say “because I believe that it is so”.
Some common articles of faith:
All people are equal.
People have rights which cannot be taken away from them.
Governments should do what is best for those being governed.
Government by the people is the optimal form of government.
People believe in those very strongly, much more than they know of evidence to support those beliefs. And these are taken as the foundations to build theories on.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/23/2006 @ 4:04 pm
That is true, that liberalism itself has a short list of givens. The best way to put it is that only a people who are willing and capable of setting up their own government for the purposes of a peaceful and relatively egalitarian society will find use in the system.
From that point on the claims are testable.
The ultimate question is whether this is what humanity naturally wants. As we have seen in current events, it may not be universally true, but it is interesting to observe how universal Liberal thought is among comfortable and educated people (democratic revolutions almost always happen where a middle class grows where there is none)
Random Musing:
Perhaps Liberalism is a combination of basic assumptions and basic preconditions?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/23/2006 @ 5:39 pm
Very interesting thought Mickey. And a well-laid out post, by the way. I would agree, that people might start out with those articles of faith to begin a new government, but that isn’t what political science is about. Like Mickey states so well, it’s about testing claims and theories to find out how best to accurately describe our world. In that sense, “faith” is not that useful.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 4:24 pm
“In that sense, “faith” is not that useful”. - Archangel
Try telling that to George Washington who distilled faith ( of God) into his troops in those biter winter colds that the revolution was worth the struggle. According to history this ‘faith’ deployment worked to the patriot’s advantage. So I cannot state ( or agree) a universal truth claim that “faith is useless”. However, I know some far-lefties in my country that claim George Washington was a piece of %$&$ and that Mao is the one we all should drop to our knees and bow in reverence. Although, this is also implies faith, a faith in Mao’s ideals which were in fact a westerners’ ideals by a man named Marx. A universal claim could be stated as such: Faith is useless, according to the nihilist, but faith is used to the advantage of groups and individuals throughout history and therefore is not a function of uselessness.
Comment by what — 2/25/2006 @ 7:42 pm
I hope that is a joke, I really do, because otherwise “What,” you seriously just wasted your time.
I was referring to “faith” and its uses to political science, not in general. And certainly not in a “universal truth claim.” You’ve got to be joking though, so I’ll take it as a joke. Ha ha.
Comment by Archangel — 2/26/2006 @ 1:07 am
Don’t worry your little head-off there. George was testing and employing his political scientific knowledge.
So it was in context of your statement. The only question remains now is if you in fact understand what you are talking about? I could be a mental aberration. However, why would you think what I said was out of context? This should ‘now’ be your main concern, Mr. depressed Angel. Your mental intelligence and mental stability is now ‘what’ is in question as we here see that you cannot fathom what is in fact being discussed on this BCR forum.
Comment by what — 2/26/2006 @ 1:27 am
You’re absolutely right. About everything. I’m a mental wreck. Ah, but you knew that already.
There is nothing in the world. Nothingness, that is all. Oh, and matter. And anti-matter. But that’s it.Nothingness.
Comment by Archangel — 2/26/2006 @ 1:45 am
What you lack in grace, “what”, you make up in subtlety.
Faith is useful to promote whatever plan is in the faithful mind. It stands to reason that this could be a good or bad cause. The problem is that a faith based approach to truth cannot be communicated to another person without that person accepting the argument in whole. Faith arguments are always circular in the end, “I believe in Athena, because I believe in Athena…”
Empirical reasoning allows us to create a common ground to verify each others ideas and make challenged on common rules. This is how reasoned political discourse is possible. In that sense, faith is not useful to good politics.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/26/2006 @ 8:45 am
I see you’re a nihilist Mickey. “Faith is not useful…” Goodness.
Comment by Archangel — 2/26/2006 @ 10:08 am
“I see you’re a nihilist Mickey. “Faith is not useful…” Goodness”. - Archangel
lol. Good call.
Comment by what — 2/26/2006 @ 12:50 pm
To: Mickey Klein,
I do not get your point. Are you saying ‘Empirical reasoning’ always equals good and that faith can equal only bad or good. Somehow that could be applied to a circular argument.
Comment by what — 2/26/2006 @ 12:52 pm
Empirical arguments take the form of challenge/response. For instance, if we made opposite predictions about an economic outcome, we would both refer to common data and mathematical methods for judgement.
With a faith based argument, the only thing that matters is that the person who believes the thought believes the thought. If we both made faith based economic predictions, both of us would be right because it would be impossible for either of us to argue to each other’s faiths (to look at common data would be to suggest the opinion is less than divine).
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/26/2006 @ 1:04 pm
However, academic that observation appears, it still did not directly address my question.
If the interpreters address the data then they can use that data for good or bad. Therefore the good or bad observation as I pointed out you implied is quite right-on. Is this true or not true? Why? You made an initial comparison that I pointed out. I said wait – look at what you implied: Good ‘Empirical’; doesn’t equal Good or bad ‘faith’. Do you see why I said circular argument? The end result is what matters not the process. What one does with that empirical evidence is what a stake, not just the process of finding that evidence.
The end result for an empirical research is an ‘Agreement’, which, can be used for good or bad purposes. Therefore the comparison to faith and empirical is equal to the relative of good and bad. Therefore one cannot be better than the other.
Is there such a thing as ‘ faith’ in the Constitution of the United States of America?
I heard this phrase said many times.
Is there such a thing as ‘ empirical evidence’ in the Constitution of the United States of America?
I never heard this phrase at anytime.
Is there a difference between these two statements?
If so what is the cultural relevance?
Comment by what — 2/26/2006 @ 1:26 pm
mickey, you’ve clearly misunderstood the premise of identity politics. let me alter your statement of that premise to reflect its reality: “Your ideas about what it’s like to be me and what I should think, say, and do are not valid. My circumstances are common only to people of a similar ethnicity or experience. You do not understand our perspective because you do not share it and never will.”
“universalism” is a silly thought. think about the words “diversity” and “universalism”. break them down. they are in opposition. you can’t have a “diverse” and a “universe” at the same time. you’re either for one or the other. problem is, diversity is a fact, kinda like 2 + 2 = 4. people are diverse, and your wanting us to be universal will never, ever change that fact. here’s a rhetorical question: what, to you, is the difference between “universalism” and “whitewashing”?
“civil society”, on the other hand, is exactly what identity politicians, as you call us, are fighting for. a society in which civil space is free and equal for all; in which public space is not dominated by a white eurocentric point of view masquerading as a universal point of view; in which all perspectives are respected and given space and no one gets confused or enraged when someone disagrees with them.
i’m really really sorry that being privileged means that you don’t get to understand what it’s like to be marginalized. however i don’t really think that’s a first-hand understanding that you really want to share. your crippling confusion and flying rage are a result of your being denied access to something, not a result of any illogic. it’s the tantrum of a spoiled brat being told “no”. you’re used to having your every perspective validated by the mainstream, but people of color, women, and queers are starting to not do that in a big way. that makes you mad. sorry, but maybe you just need a time out.
if you’d like to correct your ignorance, here are some sources of information:
http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/index.php
http://www.latinopundit.com/
http://www.negrophile.com/
http://womenofcolor.blogspot.com/
http://www.othermag.org/blog.php
http://www.ggreg.com/content.asp
Comment by claire — 2/26/2006 @ 1:35 pm
I would respond that the normative goal of politics is to secure human happiness, as humans seek happiness when they are not forced into doing other activites. This, of course, is restricted by the nitty gritty of administration.
Ultimately this is what makes me materialistic over spiritual. Materialistic goals such as property, bodily safety and freedom to associate and exchange can be regulated and measured in common argument. Spiritual goals such as freedom from sin, virtue before supernatural morality or divine leaders are only measurable to each member of the faith individually (this is what makes dogma so important, to duplicate the results).
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/26/2006 @ 2:40 pm
Very good. I cannot disagree that this is your opinion.
I just happen to have a broader perspective on what faith encompasses. I believe like many ( not all) of our founding fathers, and for that matter many other civilizations such as the Ottomans founders believed in faith which tied into all aspects of political life. But as you argue this is not all encompassing. Some people are materialistic while others are having spiritual motives. There certainly is a divide in all societies. I just like to add that one can be spiritual and be materialistic all at the same time. No other person better personifies this than Jesus accepting the bottle of expensive perfume in which Judas had a nit-fit over its ramifications in regards to what a spiritual leader is doing hogging up all the expensive material-stuff while others go without anything.
Comment by what — 2/26/2006 @ 3:37 pm
Claire:
Empirical thought is a limited tool. It can only make claims on data observed by the senses; it cannot extend to the myriad facets of human life that have yet to be described by the senses such as love and the aesthetic sense.
This thought is universal only to the extent that fellow human beings with similar senses can test the results. I tell you that this will follow that, you can follow with your own eyes.
Outside of this realm, the thought between me and you is differentiated by our respective identities. I as a white male do lead a different everyday way of life than a woman, and even after all efforts at understanding that difference will remain.
What we can share when we construct political systems is the method of logic that is common to all human beings with the senses of touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. The experimental method was developed by Europeans, but its application is to create discourse that allows debate and verification, instead of dogmatic assertion.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/26/2006 @ 8:03 pm
““civil society”, on the other hand, is exactly what identity politicians, as you call us, are fighting for. a society in which civil space is free and equal for all; in which public space is not dominated by a white eurocentric point of view masquerading as a universal point of view; in which all perspectives are respected and given space and no one gets confused or enraged when someone disagrees with them.”
I must say I’m always impressed by the way in which people who think like Claire respect and give space to, say, pro-life protesters, Republicans, supporters of the war in Iraq, and religious conservatives, and never, ever, get confused or enraged in the course of their disagreements with them.
Comment by Stefano — 3/2/2006 @ 10:57 am