<< BTW, I don't think that questions of race, gender, sexuality, disability,
etc. must take the form of 'identity politics' though they can, for better
or worse (it all depends on the context). In my view, one of the major
reasons why race, gender, etc. become matters of 'identity politics' is
that such questions and struggles have _not_ been effectively addressed,
with tangible results, _within_ the labor movement and the left. If they
had been, there would have been a much less need to have women's
organizations, black organizations, etc.
>>
I agree with this. Further, I still think much of the left uses the 'excuse' that issues of race and gender and sexuality fall under identity politics to avoid the arduous task of synthesizing issues of race AND gender and sexulity AND class -- in other words, man y people 'accused' of identity politics have moved beyond that point to synthesize issues of difference with issues of class, but (it seems to me from discussion on lists and at conferences, etc) that many people interested in traditional marxian issues such as surplus value have not begun to do the same thing. So, f'rinstance, in every iaffe session I went to at the easterns, there were synthesis articles presented on gender and class, race and gender, etc. The marxist sessions offer no such allurements.
maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com