Identity Politics vs Othering

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is Identity Politics a form of Othering? I just listened to a rant against "Othering", meaning pointing out that people with a particular trait (race, gender, etc) are different than you and you don't include yourself in that category. But then the same speaker went on another rant in support of Identity Politics. The conflict there is glaring to me. How can you be for Identity Politics but against Othering? How are these two concepts not opposed to one another? Don't you other whenever you push an identity politic?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the difference is that if you are in support of a given position which categorizes by a trait, it is identity politics. If you are against a given position which categorizes by a trait, it is othering.

Also, things tend to make a lot more sense if you just stop listening when someone goes on a rant about something. Usually, whatever they're saying contains no information. [/rant]

 

[laughing dog]

I think anyone who objects to misusing nouns can object to "Othering".

 

[bilby]

I think anyone who objects to misusing nouns can object to "Othering".

Indeed. Such abuse is stupiding the language, and sillying our discourse.

 

[Arctish]

Was the speaker talking about the difference between an egalitarian society and a pluralistic one?

Pluralism incorporates identity politics by protecting and promoting diversity. It's based on the recognition of differences among individuals and groups of people.

Egalitarianism erodes identity politics by not allowing differences to matter. It isn't actively opposed to diversity per se, but it either ignores or outright suppresses the factors that create diversity.

It's possible to have a society that's both pluralistic and egalitarian. It's also possible to promote pluralism but not egalitarianism, and vice versa. They both have their good points and bad points.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I am beginning to think that the term "identity politics" is one of those more recent terms that is beginning to be used so widely that it's starting to mean less and less every day. Perhaps it would be best to define it carefully.

 

[Mumbles]

I am beginning to think that the term "identity politics" is one of those more recent terms that is beginning to be used so widely that it's starting to mean less and less every day. Perhaps it would be best to define it carefully.

Well, "Identity Politics" used to mean "voting for someone based entirely on their race/gender/etc." In modern discourse, it actually tends to mean "interested in the rights and equal treatment of people who aren't cis straight Christian white men", in the US. Note that it's relatively rare to denounce Dolt 45's obvious identity politics, which often veers well into outright white supremacism and promotion of sexual assault, among other issues.

Ironically, many of the people now constantly accused of "identity politics", such as Al Sharpton, are deeply skeptical of actual, original definition, Identity Politics -"Just because we're skinfolk doesn't mean we're kinfolk." and all that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am beginning to think that the term "identity politics" is one of those more recent terms that is beginning to be used so widely that it's starting to mean less and less every day. Perhaps it would be best to define it carefully.

It is the 21st century version of "politically correct".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals, actions or ideas. It is a form of prejudice.

 

[Arctish]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

 

[Axulus]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

Huh? He would be providing information about himself as an individual, what he individually supports and what he is against, exactly opposite of identity politics.

 

[Mumbles]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

Huh? He would be providing information about himself as an individual, what he individually supports and what he is against, exactly opposite of identity politics.

Both "Democrat" and "Green" are assumed collective group identities, however, thus falling directly into JP's definition.

 

[Arctish]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

Huh? He would be providing information about himself as an individual, what he individually supports and what he is against, exactly opposite of identity politics.

"Politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities"

If you say you're a Democrat you are assuming a collective group identity and using it as a kind of shorthand to indicate your political leanings. If you want to communicate your political views without using a group identity, you'll have to explain your views at greater length.

"Hi, I'm Nicky. I'm a Democrat, and I support the Green Party platform".

"Hi, I'm Ricky. I'm a long time supporter of social and economic equality of opportunity. I believe in creating and maintaining programs that provide for the welfare of all citizens. I believe legislative intervention and regulation of the economy is necessary to fulfill the duties of the government. I think social programs, support for labor unions, affordable college tuitions, universal health care, consumer protection, and environmental protection are all very important. Lately I've come to view environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory grassroots democracy, gender equality, LGBT rights, anti-war activism and anti-racism as being vitally important to our nation so I support candidates who explicitly work toward those goals. Let me tell you how I feel about NAFTA, immigration, and Donald Trump among other things ..."

 

[Copernicus]

I think that "othering" is about the exclusion of a group from the dominant social matrix on the basis of group identity. For example, an effort to isolate African Americans as a subgroup that should be isolated and segregated from mainstream American society. The original slogan of "othering" was "separate but equal", which meant in practice "separate and unequal".

"Identity politics" is an older term that has usually been about recognizing the cohesiveness of a group within a broad coalition. So African Americans might be identified as characterized by a shared set of cultural norms that distinguish it from other groups, but it would be considered an inclusive part of a broad coalition of other groups working toward a common set of goals. I have problems with both terms in that "othering" seems to be a perfectly unnecessary word to replace concepts like "discrimination", and "identity politics" as a focus of concern can actually serve to weaken the unity of coalitions--e.g. efforts to integrate diverse groups into a cohesive social force. IMO, the civil rights movement was far stronger when it sought to promote racial integration. I think that the movement was set back somewhat with the rise of "black power" and black nationalism movements, beginning with Stokley Carmichael. To me, those movements had a lot of positive things going for them, but they also tended to split the African American community into factions and to emphasize its differences from the rest of society. So it became harder to make the case for integration, and there was even some pressure to resegregate on the grounds that integration led to a suppression of cultural values and norms within the black community.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

Huh? He would be providing information about himself as an individual, what he individually supports and what he is against, exactly opposite of identity politics.

Yeah, but there is no such thing as "identity politics". It is a strawman platform projected at the DNC.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Most often when I encounter the term, it's being slinged against the left, but it seems frankly obvious to me that the right is involved even more heavily in identity politics if the term means anything at all. I often see the term confused with another recent gem that everyone loves, "regressive left".

I'll be frank here. I believe in an egalitarian society, even as I acknowledge that I do not live in one. I believe that government can do some good in the lives of its citizens if it's guided by those citizens and there are sufficient checks against the greed of capitalism, even as I'm a capitalist. I support universal healthcare. I support common-sense gun safety measures. I'm against most drug laws. I believe in a very strong separation between the government and religion, and I also believe in freedom to worship (or not) as one's conscience dictates.

These are just some of my beliefs, and I would say, also part of my identity. These are things that are important that I will stand for, defend, and so on. Given this, the Democrats are FAR more often in line with my views than Republicans, especially the GOP of the last 30 years or so.

So what's wrong with that? To my mind, the left is much more inclusive than the right. There are more people included within the democratic party that believe in a wider variety of things. If we look at the current GOP, it seems to me that their club is much more exclusive. You have to believe in an unfettered 2nd amendment, you have to be against abortion, you have to believe that lower taxes stimulate the economy. You have to believe that the less regulation the better. You have to believe that Christianity helped found the US and should be given preferential treatment by the government. I'm sure there's a small minority of people inside the GOP that might disagree with a tenet or two, but they're not in any position of power, or even of being vocal. Others in the GOP have terms for them, RINO and so on. So who is playing identity politics?

 

[laughing dog]

Is Identity Politics a form of Othering? I just listened to a rant against "Othering", meaning pointing out that people with a particular trait (race, gender, etc) are different than you and you don't include yourself in that category.

I am a man. When I point out that my wife is a woman and that she is different than me, and that I am not a woman, then according to the OP definition, that is a form of "Othering"? To me, that makes "Othering" just another meaningless term used to disparage people.

As for "Identity politics', no one really thought that was a real issue for centuries in the US until people whose identities did not mesh with white, anglo-saxon, protestant male starting asserting themselves.

 

[Opoponax]

Huh? He would be providing information about himself as an individual, what he individually supports and what he is against, exactly opposite of identity politics.

Yeah, but there is no such thing as "identity politics". It is a strawman platform projected at the DNC.

Well said. The most simple explanation is often the best explanation.

It was originally a term that associated the Democratic party and racial minorities, and it dripped with racist connotations. It's become such a common phrase now that it's easy to forget what it's supposed to mean.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Identity Politics is politics based on assigned and assumed collective group identities rather than based on individuals. It is a form of prejudice.

So if you tell people you are a Democrat who supports the Green Party Platform, you are expressing prejudice?

No, that would be an attempt to identify your politics through group identity rather than politics based on assigned or assumed group identity. Identity politics would be more along the lines of Republicans voting for Trump and backing all he says no matter what it is or opposing everything Obama because he is the other (be it black or be it Democrat). It would also be identity politics to demand that everybody who voted for Trump must be a racist. It would also be identity politics to say "there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hilly Clinton" or to consider black people who vote Republican to be traitors to the race, or white people who date black people to be race traitors, etc. It would also be identity politics exclude black people or women from opportunities afforded white people or men regardless of merit, and also be identity politics to provide scholarships to black people or women regardless of individual circumstance or academic merit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most often when I encounter the term, it's being slinged against the left, but it seems frankly obvious to me that the right is involved even more heavily in identity politics if the term means anything at all.

Absolutely there are many on the right who are big on identity politics. White racism is one of the biggest. "Real Americans" is another big one.

I often see the term confused with another recent gem that everyone loves, "regressive left".

Regressive left is overused, but is an important distinction. It is supposed to mean when the left turns against its own principles, becomes tribal and authoritarian, racist, against free speech, etc. Regressive is meant to contrast to Progressive. One of the big identity politics and regressive failings of the current left is to prize diversity of superficial appearance over diversity of ideas, backgrounds, etc. Perhaps the better term is "illiberal left"?

I support universal healthcare. I support common-sense gun safety measures. I'm against most drug laws. I believe in a very strong separation between the government and religion, and I also believe in freedom to worship (or not) as one's conscience dictates.

Right there with you. Thumbs up.

These are just some of my beliefs, and I would say, also part of my identity. These are things that are important that I will stand for, defend, and so on. Given this, the Democrats are FAR more often in line with my views than Republicans, especially the GOP of the last 30 years or so.

Absolutely. My fear is that this is changing.

So what's wrong with that? To my mind, the left is much more inclusive than the right. There are more people included within the democratic party that believe in a wider variety of things. If we look at the current GOP, it seems to me that their club is much more exclusive. You have to believe in an unfettered 2nd amendment, you have to be against abortion, you have to believe that lower taxes stimulate the economy. You have to believe that the less regulation the better. You have to believe that Christianity helped found the US and should be given preferential treatment by the government.

I also see that changing a little at the ground level, but tribalism keeps most Republicans firmly lockstep in that party and from questioning their assigned talking points. The polarization is as much or more about identity politics tribalism as it is about actual differences of ideas and opinions. There are many on both sides of the aisle who mindlessly repeat talking points they haven't closely examined for themselves, and won't listen to the other side, preferring to hurl insults against the other side. It becomes more about "winning" (or believing they are) and less about earnest discussion. They often go into mindless drone mode. You can see this at Trump rallies in the right. You can see this at campus "protests" in the left. Facing somebody who is trying to have a conversation they will just chant something repeatedly at them like zombies. It reminds me of devout Christians addressing atheists, afraid of considering the other point of view and seeing the other side as evil.

So who is playing identity politics?

Both parties are. That's the problem. It used to be mostly on the right. My fear is that as it infects the left deeper and deeper, and stays as strong on the right, and both are happening, we retain fewer and fewer rational independently thinking minds.