[lbo-talk] Taibbi (was Re: Fwd: Antioch College Closing!)

Jeffrey Fisher jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
Sat Jun 16 10:14:02 PDT 2007


On 6/16/07, bitch at pulpculture.org <bitch at pulpculture.org> wrote:
>
>
> axshully, i'm reading a fantubulous book by Kimberly Springer about the
> rise and fall of black feminist movements, Living for the Revolution: 1968
> - 1980. In it, she is exploring this very identity politics -- how it
> formed part of the very internal struggles that erupted *within* black
> feminist organizations themselves when they debated who would be allowed
> to
> join (did they have to agree that they were of African descent? Would they
> allow Puerto Rican women who were asking to be included? Were they, in
> this
> case The Combahee Collective's most powerful voice Barbara Smith, actually
> excluding questions of elitism within the collective when they ignored
> class and other issues?

this is what i thought was helpful about doug's post earlier: that there are meaningful ways in which ignoring class is really not possible, even if you're not saying the word. you're soaking in it. and stuff.

<snip>


>
>
> Anyway, all of these groups in the book - and she focuses explicitly on
> what she calls militant black feminists b/c she's interested in black
> socialist feminist history -- emerged, only to quickly find that they
> faced
> their own issues that would make collective identify formation difficult.
> Reading it, it makes you realize that *all* politicized groups are
> involved in collective identity formation -- in so far as one *becomes* an
> activist engaged in struggle.

this is exactly -- or very close to -- what i've been thinking reading this thread. class identity isn't given. it's formed.

<ducking>

Identity Politics? It was the label women, people of color (e.g., the
> Combahee Collective) applied to their politics in 1976. Was it a bad
> thing?
> For Springer, no. It didn't divide the movement, it was part of the
> process
> of defining what it was.

doesn't that mean yes to the question of division? and isn't this discussion a great example of division as part of the process of defining movements and the ways that it leads to paralysis, burn-out, and all those other things? or am i making too much of the kinds of arguments on this list?

Did it lead to their demise? Not according to
> Springer. More often, it was just plain ol' burn out and the conservative
> backlash.
>
> So, I really have no idea what anyone means here by identity politics, but
> if it means attentiveness to the notion that, when one tries to say "we're
> all human" or "we're all women" or "we're all working class" "or we're all
> in this together", it can't hurt to ask, "Who is this we you're talking
> about?"

again, exactly what i've been wondering about. "identity politics," in my admittedly limited experience, is usually a derogatory term used by leftists who want identity determined by class, which is a sort of Thomist-Marxist Transcendental. but again, maybe i'm being too reductive or missing something here. it's certainly true that there's a lot disagreement about what class politics is or ought to be. i complain to my liberal friends that they talk about economics like it's the weather -- it's either raining or it's sunny, and you can't control it. you just get to decide whether or not you do your cookout that day. don't many leftists have a bad habit of doing the same thing with class?

j

-- http://brainmortgage.blogspot.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list