How about making it a rule that those who use those terms must specify and explain what exactly they mean by those terms _and_ offer examples that are not mere anecdotes? They had better explain what 'identity' is as well.
>I meant to comment on
>this item from Max Sawicky the other day:
>
>>Some time ago I asked
>>the list if anybody could cite any examples of POMO/ID
>>political activity above the level of micro-groups.
>
>which treated "pomo" and "ID" (identity, I assume, and not the Freudian
>home of the primal drives) as if they were synonymous. But our friends who
>started this thread, Brown & Butler, are no friends of identity.
Max S, Eric Alterman, etc. use 'pomo' and 'identity politics' interchangeably because doing so helps them to dismiss both as matters of culture, symbols, discourse, etc. It's much more difficult--even for left conservatives--to assert that struggles against job discrimination, sexual harassment, hate crimes, etc., all of which have unmistakable material consequences, are of no importance, merely cultural nonsense, _without_ revealing their true colors.
>But, these quibbles aside, recall this tidbit from Eric Alterman's Nation
>article the other week:
>
>> "But here's the twist. [Reformist Social-Democratic
>> Leftist Nelson] Lichtenstein is part of a perfectly
>> Rortyite reformist Campaign for a Living Wage at
>> the University of Virginia. This campaign is not
>> about ending sexism, racism, or homophobia, but
>> about getting janitorial staff a few extra bucks
>> an hour. Who are its volunteers? Primarily, says
>> Lichtenstein, faculty and graduate students from
>> the pomo literature and theory crowd.
>
>I'll bet there aren't too many folks from the econ or poli sci departments
>either.
It is understandable if the lit + theory crowd are more progressive, generally speaking, than scholars in econ + poli sci. After all, intellectual production in the econ + poli sci departments is much more tightly wedded to the interests of capital.
Yoshie