Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
That’s the progressive case for abandoning liberal universalism. It’s well-intentioned. But it betrays a dangerously naive ignorance of human nature.
Institutionalizing identity-based politics as a way to redress injustice and right past wrongs legitimizes identity-based politics for everyone, not just the groups who advocates of equity deem disadvantaged. There’s no world where we can have identity-based politics for women, LGBTQ, Muslims, Indigenous, and Black citizens and not see identity-based politics for men, straights, Christians, and White citizens. That’s just the way humans operate. And yes, people have long been organizing along white, Christian, etc. identities. But the remedy to that isn’t everyone joining the struggle along identarian lines.
Universalism isn’t perfect. But it’s better than the alternative - which is the fragmentation of civic identity into a relentless zero-sum war between groups.
https://theconversation.com/how-a-ne...justice-217085 |
Ultimately, it's about access to power. A commonality of several of IDs has most of the wealth and political power. A Ruling class if you well. A bourgeoise. The rest of the folks are exploited by that ruling class, along intersectional lines will have more status in the social hierarchy as they more closely match the ruling class, however that doesn't mean that those within the working class (a proletariat if you will) can't and won't build solidarity across the various intersections of ID.
So I disagree that intersectionality has undermined the Left(TM). What's undermined the Left(TM) is the oppressive structures being replicated within in. Cis White Male Gays being the considered the baseline for Queer IDs etc. Also the Left has always had various sectional debates. Hell, go red or watch Reds. The left had the same patterns over a 100 years ago. You also can't deny the impact that NeoLiberalism and the so called Moral Majority had in crushing the New Left of the 70s