jake williams
19th May 2009, 05:15
There seems to be a tendency, I've noticed especially on campus activist scenes but anyone near any sort of a leftist activist scene as seen it, to come up with big, formalized lists of official, legitimated categories of oppression; "Sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia" etc. etc. ad nauseum. I think a lot of people find something irksome about the process, and not simply because by nature such "listing" processes leave something out.
It's difficult to articulate. The standard Marxist objection is essentially that such a "listing" equates very different systems, and even with the standard disclaimers about "intersections and interrelationships", the mythical lesbian of colour ever the star example, the process is antithetical to a careful analysis of how the different systems actually exist and interact in society, and why. The stereotype is that this is then followed by a clenched-fist assertion that all of these are ultimately reducable to class, and the others will all whither away if we just ignore them and fight our world socialist revolution, and then occasionally there is a descent into chanting "identity politics" over and over again.
Real-world Marxists are of course usually more sophisticated than this, and even the stereotype partly exists because focusing on class can be analytically and politically useful. Further, the objection comes out of real problems with how modern "anti-oppression" activism is in some ways depoliticized and deactivized, partly in a sincere, well-intentioned attempt to broaden its scope, and partly because of a very complex and effective counterrevolution against the progressive social movements of the 60s.
This listing process occurs for real reasons - it's both morally correct and tactically useful to try to combine the efforts of people fighting homophobia, sexism, racism, capitalism, etc. I've found in my own work taking the baby steps towards some sort of "youth liberation" that past examples fighting against racism and especially sexism are often quite useful. There are real analogies that exist between different types of hierarchy and oppression and you can accomplish more where folks have already done most of the theoretical work for you, albeit in a slightly different form and context.
But I think both the almost post-modern "anti-oppression" framework, and its Marxist critique, are missing some important parts of the analysis.
First, there seems to be a pretty clear and specific distinction between "intra-societal" and "inter-societal" power - power between within societies and power between societies, respectively. At least theoretically the distinction is pretty clear, and I think, pretty obvious. But to point it out is in opposition to the tendency to try to say all oppressions are equal and equivalent. The example comes up if we compare historical black nationalism with "feminist separatism". To be blunt, it's possible to have independent black societies in a way that it isn't possible to have independnet women-only societies. I think this is evidence enough that there are analytical and tactical differences between two types of oppression. I think sexism is something that clearly exists within societies, its main location perhaps being in the most intimate human relationships. Racism and imperialism, on the other hand, can occur with a minimum of human contact.
The Marxist critique is quite comfortable seeing a distinction here, but I think takes it too far the other way in being frequently angrily reductive. I think what's very important is to make a real effort towards the type of intersectional analysis that a lot of "identity politics" proponents ostensibly advocate. This is difficult but I think it's something we ought to do. An example where this is especially relevant is quite contemporary, that is anti-racist activism in the Obama era. This has been proposed but it hasn't actually been done, as far as I know.
I'm blathering at this point, but there's a final issue that I think needs to be incorporated into all this. A theme that comes up again and again in my own theoretical work involves enculturation in young children (especially vis-a-vis gender), say between toddlerhood and puberty. There seems to be an ambient depersonalized authority that isn't totally reducible to class, or patriarchy, but I don't want to descend to blaming a natural tendency along the lines of "people just naturally create hierarchies in their social groups - even kids!". There's something very difficult and persistent though, and I think it represents another element that needs to be sorted out and fitted into these sorts of analyses.
It's difficult to articulate. The standard Marxist objection is essentially that such a "listing" equates very different systems, and even with the standard disclaimers about "intersections and interrelationships", the mythical lesbian of colour ever the star example, the process is antithetical to a careful analysis of how the different systems actually exist and interact in society, and why. The stereotype is that this is then followed by a clenched-fist assertion that all of these are ultimately reducable to class, and the others will all whither away if we just ignore them and fight our world socialist revolution, and then occasionally there is a descent into chanting "identity politics" over and over again.
Real-world Marxists are of course usually more sophisticated than this, and even the stereotype partly exists because focusing on class can be analytically and politically useful. Further, the objection comes out of real problems with how modern "anti-oppression" activism is in some ways depoliticized and deactivized, partly in a sincere, well-intentioned attempt to broaden its scope, and partly because of a very complex and effective counterrevolution against the progressive social movements of the 60s.
This listing process occurs for real reasons - it's both morally correct and tactically useful to try to combine the efforts of people fighting homophobia, sexism, racism, capitalism, etc. I've found in my own work taking the baby steps towards some sort of "youth liberation" that past examples fighting against racism and especially sexism are often quite useful. There are real analogies that exist between different types of hierarchy and oppression and you can accomplish more where folks have already done most of the theoretical work for you, albeit in a slightly different form and context.
But I think both the almost post-modern "anti-oppression" framework, and its Marxist critique, are missing some important parts of the analysis.
First, there seems to be a pretty clear and specific distinction between "intra-societal" and "inter-societal" power - power between within societies and power between societies, respectively. At least theoretically the distinction is pretty clear, and I think, pretty obvious. But to point it out is in opposition to the tendency to try to say all oppressions are equal and equivalent. The example comes up if we compare historical black nationalism with "feminist separatism". To be blunt, it's possible to have independent black societies in a way that it isn't possible to have independnet women-only societies. I think this is evidence enough that there are analytical and tactical differences between two types of oppression. I think sexism is something that clearly exists within societies, its main location perhaps being in the most intimate human relationships. Racism and imperialism, on the other hand, can occur with a minimum of human contact.
The Marxist critique is quite comfortable seeing a distinction here, but I think takes it too far the other way in being frequently angrily reductive. I think what's very important is to make a real effort towards the type of intersectional analysis that a lot of "identity politics" proponents ostensibly advocate. This is difficult but I think it's something we ought to do. An example where this is especially relevant is quite contemporary, that is anti-racist activism in the Obama era. This has been proposed but it hasn't actually been done, as far as I know.
I'm blathering at this point, but there's a final issue that I think needs to be incorporated into all this. A theme that comes up again and again in my own theoretical work involves enculturation in young children (especially vis-a-vis gender), say between toddlerhood and puberty. There seems to be an ambient depersonalized authority that isn't totally reducible to class, or patriarchy, but I don't want to descend to blaming a natural tendency along the lines of "people just naturally create hierarchies in their social groups - even kids!". There's something very difficult and persistent though, and I think it represents another element that needs to be sorted out and fitted into these sorts of analyses.