Let's start with your proposition that we've been working with "the religious left." There can be little dispute that some on the non-religious/atheist political left have from time to time found themselves in coalitions with some of the "religious left." My guess is that the ratio of the religious left to those who consider themselves believers is not significantly different than the proportion of the political left to the general population or more narrowly the working class. Sounds a lot like the left talking to itself! If the political left can't learn how to talk to non-left believers, do you seriously believe it will ever learn how to talk to non-left workers? (Hint: many of those non-left believers are non-left workers.) When I speak of a dialog with believers, I am not referring to seminars with liberation theologists or Catholic Workers.
>Secondly, doesn't your definition of ecumenism above end up asking
>determined pro-choice women to maintain our own separate fight--not only
>for a legal right but also _access_ (i.e. state funding, insurance
>coverage, doctor training, actual service provisions, etc.) to
>abortion--outside the 'common ground,' since there may not be consensus on
>the need for such a fight under ecumenical tolerance for differences?
No, I don't believe that it requires that at all. Ecumenical tolerance for differences does not require that I ignore church-burnings in the name of dialog with Klansmen; nor does it say that we should bury our support of choice and the fight for access to services that make choice a reality rather than a fiction in the name of dialog with those who sincerely believe that life begins at conception and is more sacred than the right of a woman to choose. But if we demand that those pro-lifers abandon their religious conviction before we engage in a dialog that seeks to identify common interest that are the basis for common action, it is unlikely that any relationship will be possible, just as if they were to insist as a precondition that we agree that the state should have no role in assuring access to abortion and family planning services to all women without regard to ability to pay. Suppose, however, that we can agree to disagree about that for the moment and determine that there are some on both sides of that divide who can agree that affordable childcare, prenatal health services, quality preschool education, aid to education generally, access to healthcare, and a host of other "family values"-related issues are shared concerns that deserve our common attention. And suppose that in the course of work on those shared concerns both personal and political relationships developed that permitted a less emotional, accusatory, judgmental discussion that sought to expand the areas of agreement, narrow those of disagreement, and come to some accommodation on a greater range of issues that brought those believers into others struggles for social and class justice. Would that not represent an advance over what we now see?
>What I am saying is this: even if many on this list decry 'identity
>politics,' wouldn't ecumenism of this kind--which many here seem to also
>desire--in fact encourage 'identity politics' even more, in that a fight
>for substantial--not just legal--reproductive freedoms + rights can be only
>waged outside the above definition of ecumenism?
I don't think you will find in anything I have said in this discussion a single reference to "identity politics."
Let's suppose you are correct, that the fight for reproductive freedoms & rights will be waged outside the boundaries of common interests I suggest above. But if our efforts to find areas of common concern on which we can work together has a consequence of pulling a portion of the religious community that presently identifies with the most virilent and reactionary elements of the Christian Right away from their orbit, and lowers the level of irrational emotionalism and invective that so frequently characterizes the debate over choice, wouldn't that represent an advance for the struggle for reproductive freedom and choice?
>Aren't 'identity politics' and 'single issue movements' the other side of
>ecumenical politics?
Only if you insist in pigeon-holing people with whom you differ and cutting them off from any possible communication that seeks to create bridges of understanding.
>Yoshie
Let me close with an example from a different debate that could also be characterized as "identity politics." It is commonly assumed that there is little love lost between environmentalists ("privileged white suburban tree-huggers" who'd rather save an owl than a family's livelihood) and the building trades (who'd "pave over paradise" if the contract is union/prevailing wage). Contra Costa County is the area north and east of Berkeley (which includes heavily Black Richmond and an area filled with oil refineries north along the Bay, and the largely white middle-class and affluent burbs over the hills to the east). It is a county that is one of the fastest growing in terms of new homes and commercial development, including lots of high tech firms and upscale malls.
The head of the Building Trades Council there arranged for a meeting between members of some of the craft unions with activists from a number of environmental groups. They spent a considerable amount of time and effort talking about their mutual suspicions and stereotypes. Then they moved into a discussion of values they each held that were most important to them. Over the course of many hours, they discovered that (a) they each held beliefs about what the others thought, felt, and wanted that were wildly at odds with what they actually did think, feel and want, and (b) they shared many of the same values and aspirations for themselves, their families and the kind of society they wanted to live in. Over time, this led to a working relationship that produced an important breakthrough in relations with the oil industries that were the source of considerable pollution that afflicted disproportionately the African American and other poorer communities around the refineries and which at the same time posed a disproportionate risk to the health and safety of workers in the industry and those hired by contractors to perform repairs and construction work there. The result was a political movement that extracted a "Good Neighbor" Policy from the industry that required they meet higher standards of both environmental health and worker safety. The relationship matured and led the Building Trades Council to line up with environmentalists to oppose construction of several new residential developments that would have dramatically affected remaining green space in the county while putting a extra stress on already over-extended community services, including sanitation, sewage treatment and road congestion.
Did that mean there were no longer differences between them. Not at all. But it changed the terms and tenor of the debate and opened both constituencies to a process through which they could identify areas in which they could work more closely together for shared objectives. In the process both sides actually changed how they looked at both the other and the issues that had divided them. Had they maintained the traditional stance and stereotypical views that typify the attitudes of the trades and anti-development environmental forces, it is unlikely that these changes would have been possible.
That is a practical example of what I refer to when I say ecumenism. It's another way of describing a form of political work that builds unity and broadens commitments to social change rather than building walls and erecting barriers. Do you know another way to build power within the working class that could lead to a transformation of society?
In solidarity, Michael E.