- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
We don't need to make a "value" judgement on their characteristics (though we inevitably will), it's just that a person's personality is actually a relevant feature for interactions with them.
You cannot know a person's personality through generic identifiers, though. To know someone you have to engage them beyond the generic, otherwise you are filtering them through abstractions that entail things which won't be true of them. Even if that doesn't involves a value judgement (I'm not sure how it couldn't), it's still going to be epistemically inaccurate.
I disagree, when you divide people into advantaged and disadvantaged it creates friction between the groups. I'm not saying we should ignore relative advantages if they exist (because it appears that the relative disadvantages of allegedly advantaged groups are ignored). What I'm saying is that the aim of applied intersectionality is presumably to foster positive intergroup relations and the outcome is in fact the opposite.
I don't think my argument has been properly understood here; I'll try again. My point is that the ideas of (dis)advantage and (dis)privilege can be separated from the belief that identity groups call out something that actually exists. The implication is that we can talk about relative (dis)advantage between groups so long as we understand that the groups don't literally exist and that individuals are uniquely positioned socially. I'm saying that identity politics is partially correct in identifying trends, but that it overextends some of its other claims from those trends. It seems like we might not disagree that much here, but maybe I'm mistaken.
Don't get me wrong I'm simply saying that these narratives cause a major breakdown in intergroup relations and makes acts of aggression between the groups more likely.
Noted. If that's all you meant, then that was my misunderstanding.
It originally was used more to describe the white nationalist crowd because of their use of identity politics but can be applied to anyone using identity politics (Source 1).
Interesting. I'm starting to think 'identitarian' may be a leftist dog whistle to signify identity politics they don't agree with, which could explain why they don't like me using it to talk about their identity politics. :P
Thanks. It's coming along; if I remember to, I'll share it when it's done. And I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, by the way. I spend an unfortunate amount of time in liberal echo chambers, so it's refreshing.
A colleague actually introduced me to Peterson's work a while back, so I have some familiarity. I don't know many people who are aware of his work, though. He makes some valid arguments, although I don't entirely agree with him.
I'm sympathetic to your critique of identity as oppositional to a holistic view of the individual. However, I'm also cautious about how intelligence and character features are called out because they generally reference back to something outside the individual to assess and classify the person (IQ and morality, respectively). My approach is heavily informed by the philosophy of Maxwell Stirner, if you're familiar. Briefly, I think that understanding the individual through any classification is irrational and repugnant because the uniqueness of the person is obscured in that process (i.e. the relegation you mention).
I agree that the features currently called out in identitarian politics are arbitrary and that an accurate holistic view of relative (dis)advantage through that perspective is impossible. I am, however, a bit dubious of the distinction you are drawing between identity and features because the latter seems like a type of the former. I take this distinction to be non-integral to your broader observations, though, since what you really seem to be highlighting is that we are socially classified by more than the set of identities mainstream liberality calls out for emphasis.
The divisiveness of the language is probably non-essential to identitarian politics, and generally comes down to the sort of plebeian misinterpretations most philosophies are subjected to when they become popularized in practice. It is not inherent to the ideas of 'oppression' or 'privilege' that they presume the specific conditions of particular individuals. Statements like "women are oppressed" or "tall people are privileged" can be accurate so long as they are taken as general observations of trends about socially conceived groups. What identitarianism gets correct is that it points to the existence of trends in categorization processes that use broadly accepted identity concepts in such a way as to affect general distributions of social power among individuals. Where it errs, though, is that in practice it takes these homogenous family resemblances as literal representations of heterogenous practices and circumstances. It observes that 'racial minorities' and 'women' actually exist, for instance. While intersectionality is identified as important to the identitarian project, probably anticipating objections like ours, there is no coherent articulation for how the unique intersections individuals occupy can be properly accounted for through homogenous identitarian accounts. Further, the emphasis is placed upon the recognition of identity... rather than in categorical antagonism towards it.
With respect to massacres, I think strong in-group/out-group thinking is a necessary but not sufficient condition for that. I'm wary of arguments that suggest any strong connection between identitarianism and massacres or genocide simply because there are so many cases where the former has not led to the latter. It strikes me as somewhat alarmist, and it's also unnecessary given how weak identitarianism already is.
P.S. Do you know where you got the term 'identitarian' from? I'm partial to it but have encountered some resistance to its usage in academia, and am trying to figure out where and by whom it's used.
Appreciate the list; I'll check them out. I'm working on a treatise against identity politics so I'm quite interested in what others have to say on the matter, particular other critics at this point (not wanting to retread exhausted ground).
I'm especially focused on critiques about the a priori essence of identity and why it's objectionable, particularly when leveraged politically, if you've any thoughts on that at all. I wouldn't mind hearing any other thoughts you've got on the matter, though that's rather open ended.