Anything that involves the question(s) of Who(?) does What(?) to Whom(?) for Whose benefit(?) at the social level. — StreetlightX

If the answer to that is "everyone," I don't get how it would be identity politics.

For example, say that we're trying to figure out how to provide free health care for everyone. How is that identity politics?

A common definition of "identity politics," by the way, courtesy of Oxford, by way of Wikipedia, is "Identity politics is a political approach and analysis based on people prioritizing the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group, instead of engaging in more traditional, broad-based party politics."

So this seems like one of those silly "I can make moves to interpret anything as x" games.

Ah, but real democracy has never been tried... — Snakes Alive

I like to think of democracy as qualitative. Most of them, where they exist, are in poor health, getting worse. Some exhibit signs of pathology. What's not been tried are efforts at healthy ones.

If the answer to that is "everyone," I don't get how it would be identity politics. — Terrapin Station

Huh? I didn't cite the passage (of mine) you quoted as a question of identity politics.

And that wasn't the idea (I wasn't saying you had suggested that as a definition of identity politics)

If our answer to "who" etc. is "everyone ," then how would it amount to identity politics? (And then for clarification, I cited a common definition of "identity politics" to make it clear that an "everyone" answer wouldn't fit the definition)

We all know what it means — Saphsin

I'm not convinced. It's increasingly clear that politics is often thought of in institutional terms. And from the responses here - 'corruption, force to kill' - its understood very badly indeed.

You're free to believe that, but belief in the power of a political ideology in spite of all evidence to the contrary strikes me as deluded fanaticism.

I don't blame you for it, though – the Americans got to you. The good news is, since you aren't one of us, you don't have to believe this nonsense. I think at the end of the day, only an American really believes it anyway...we have to, it's the logic of our empire.

And that wasn't the idea. If our answer to "who" etc. is "everyone ," then how would it amount to identity politics? — Terrapin Station

:chin: I didn't say it would 'amount to identity politics'.

A local political concern that happened in my burg recently: "Should we continue to allow right turns on red traffic lights at major intersections?" Politicians decided "No." How would that amount to identity politics ?

I didn't say it would 'amount to identity politics'. — StreetlightX

Then not all politics is identity politics.

You're free to believe that, but belief in the power of a political ideology in spite of all evidence to the contrary strikes me as deluded fanaticism. — Snakes Alive

This is fair. I mean, I like to think that I believe in a roughly understood set of societal and institutional arrangements, held together by a certain ethos, mutually perpetuated, but I suppose that's what a fanatic would say. I'm OK with that. As someone somewhere said, if you're not a radical, you're not paying attention.

That's... my point.

, I was dismayed when a particularly well spoken civil rights activist made the claim that 'all politics is identity politics'. The problem wasn't that he was wrong. He was in fact quite right about that. — StreetlightX

He wasn't right. He was wrong.

Cool beans.

It's a nice change of pace when we solve something here. ;-)

Perhaps you are right about that then. I think anyone who spends a little time engaged with politics can point out a myriad of things what politics is about. Kind of like a group of elementary school students raising their hands and listing things one by one when the teacher asks what they think a word means. Well politics is about figuring out policy that works. It's about protesting against government and big business. It's about doing what you can to help your community. It's about electing the least worst politicians and holding them accountable. It's about educating the public about the truth. It's about transforming society into something better. Of course the things I've listed is contingent on my view of the world and how it works, but I find it hard to imagine that someone engaged with politics to some depth but with a different world view wouldn't also list a similar myriad of things.

I know I said otherwise in my previous post, but if I were to give a shot at that "what is politics" question, I would say it's about social structures and our acts to influence them.

Well, a democratist is no worse than anyone else, I suppose. But it seems like there's a double humiliation involved in taking this line – to shill for democracy is not only to shill for the powers (probably against your own interests), but to do so based on a vision of that state taught to you by a foreign power's (America's) propaganda.

I don't know if I could live with that!

But it seems like there's a double humiliation involved in taking this line – to shill for democracy is not only to shill for the powers (probably against your own interests), but to do so based on a vision of that state taught to you by a foreign power's (America's) propaganda. — Snakes Alive

I've studied democracy most of my adult life. Political philosophy was my way into philosophy. The notion of it is far richer than what Americans think. If anything, Americans are pretty awful at the whole thing. Europeans are somewhat better, but even then...

Also, a casual acquaintance with anywhere that isn't a democracy helps one realize quite quickly the value of even a very shitty one. It's something of a privilege not to be 'able to live' with what you speak of.

The opinions just keep getting radical-er.

If anything, Americans are pretty awful at the whole thing. — StreetlightX

Way to not stereotype.

Of course the things I've listed is contingent on my view of the world and how it works, but I find it hard to imagine that someone engaged with politics to some depth but with a different world view wouldn't also list a similar myriad of things. — Saphsin

Yeah. It's one of the reasons I listed - without citing - Raymond Geuss's view of it: politics as a question of who does what to whom for whose benefit. It's worth quoting him properly:

"To think politically is to think about agency, power, and interests, and the relations among these. Who—which individuals or the bearers of which offices, positions, or roles—has control of employment
in the society, and who have lost their jobs? Will those who have lost their jobs have access to alternative modes of subsistence or not? Who will provide those alternatives, and what exactly will they be (provision of cash payments, vouchers, or jobs in the public sector by the government, or of shelter and food by charities)? Are the unemployed organised, and capable of collective action, or are they disorganised and inert, and if they are organised, what form does this organisation take? What concretely has one party done to the other: How exactly will the policeman punish me? Will he give me a warning, impose a fine, hit me with his truncheon, or take me to jail? Will he also expect a bribe? Finally, who benefits and who does not from the transaction in question? Who derives distinct positive benefits from any individual action or type of action in a given society will often be an extremely complex question." (Philosophy and Real Politics)

One of the reasons I like it too is because politics here is a 'question' and not so much an 'answer'. Geuss' answer to 'what is politics' is something like: 'take a look and see'. It's a nice, Wittgenstein inspired position.

I hope so.

Americans'll live. Probably at the expense of everyone else, but they'll live (unless of course you're a bit off-white, in which case you might be shot by a cop instead).

The big derailer of politics is war. It serves as a justification for action that bypasses politics. In fact, that sometimes serves as a reason to declare war.

Europe hasn't had to provide for its own defence, so one would expect it to be better at democracy than the US (and better than it is).

Yeah. Democracy does not do well in conditions of adversity or emergency. It functions best in stable regimes, where the sense of urgency does not override - as with war - a rich articulation of policy. Rousseau, the Frenchman, understood this quite well.

During a recent public round table discussion, I was dismayed when a particularly well spoken civil rights activist made the claim that 'all politics is identity politics'. The problem wasn't that he was wrong. He was in fact quite right about that. The problem was what the statement was meant to imply. — StreetlightX

But there are different modes of identity association. The humanitarian often associates him/herself with a humanitarian identity, where all other humanitarians (regardless of ethnicity, nationality, social class, etc.) are part of his/her identity and group. The racist, nationalist, or rich guy/gal might in turn associate with his/her particular race, country, rich frat club, etc. as being #1.

How about this idea in regard to politics and identity association:

There’s a “checks and balances of power among all people” identity association in political pursuits. Wishy-washy to some, but its what the American forefathers had in mind. As one example, tmk, the second amendment wasn’t about killing deer with machine guns but about granting the general populous the power to overthrow central governments by force were the government to become overly corrupt. BTW, since most people aren’t allowed to own fully armed Apaches, and the like, in their backyards, this potential to overthrow a corrupt government by armed force is nowadays nonexistent – regardless of how many semiautomatics one might own. Wasn’t the case some 200+ years ago.

In contrast, there’s the “winner takes all” identity association in political pursuits. Here, one is inclined to do anything so as to become the winner at the expense of all those that are other.

The first is about optimal cooperation among people that are not perfectly innocent and, hence, somewhat corrupt themselves – or at least hold the potential to so become (namely, each and every human that has ever been). The second is about screwing over all those who are deemed other – via, at best, subjugation.

As to identity, identity is about “who am I”. Some will look to their skin color and proclaim to have discovered who they are. Some will more readily associate who they are to tendencies of intention and the personas that follow suit. Both of these, however, will constitute identity affiliations.

As to identity, identity is about “who am I”. Some will look to their skin color and proclaim to have discovered who they are. Some will more readily associate who they are to tendencies of intention and the personas that follow suit. Both of these, however, will constitute identity affiliations. — javra

But all this is very limited, no? An expansive politics can well include questions like: "who could I be?". The whole question of what you call 'association' is 'backward' looking, at it were. Its anchor is in the past. I 'am' this history or body that has made me (past tense), who I am; and given this, how do I proceed? That's how I understand identity politics in the most broad sense. But politics doesn't have to be about 'association'; that a community wants better roads, or better school curriculums, is largely not a matter of 'associating' oneself with anything at all. A democratic politics might expand the question further: "who could we be?". What kind of possibilities can be made available for us, in ways that will change who 'we are', and how should we cultivate them?

One of the reasons I listed what I called distributive and participatory modes of politics as alternatives to identity politics - apart from them being quite basic aspects of politics - is that they can be articulated in the future tense in a far better way than identity politics can. Generally, societal goods are not simply goods for their own sake, but for what they enable one to do. Build that business, write that novel, till that farm, without worrying too much about 'who you are'. Similarly with participatory politics. It's one centred on 'action', and not 'identity' and 'association'. Again, this is not to 'badmouth' either, but just to indicate how much richer politics can be (and in fact is).

Identity politics seems to me a perversion of politics insofar as people form voting blocks and pressure groups on the basis of membership in identity groups rather than membership in a community. The worst of identity politics, for instance racism, is bound to arise from it.

But it also seems unethical. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of his race, gender or sexuality alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his favor for the exact same reason.

Avoid identity politics at all costs.

rather than membership in a community — NOS4A2

The community is just another identity.

A community is more bound by the land, proximity and common enterprise rather than identity.

the land, proximity and common enterprise — NOS4A2

What are these if not markers of identity?

I was under the impression that the “identity” in “identity politics” pertained to people who shared a common, mostly biological characteristic such as skin-color, gender, orientation etc.

Limiting affinity and common cause only to those who share the same skin color, but not, say, your neighbor, seems to me to be a perversion in politics.