Critique of "Cultures" and "Peoples"

[NoGodsNoMasters]

One cannot discount the role that the ideas of "cultures" and "peoples" have played in history. Whether or not they truly exist does not deny that fact that the belief in them has real consequences.

I have been a socialist for some time but am somewhat new to more radical leftist thinking. I am familiar with the critiques of race, scientific and otherwise, but I am interested in the role of "culture" or "a people" from a communist perspective.

I am sure that there is a diversity of opinion on this so everyone sound off.

[Issaiah1332]

One cannot discount the role that the ideas of "cultures" and "peoples" have played in history. Whether or not they truly exist does not deny that fact that the belief in them has real consequences.

I have been a socialist for some time but am somewhat new to more radical leftist thinking. I am familiar with the critiques of race, scientific and otherwise, but I am interested in the role of "culture" or "a people" from a communist perspective.

I am sure that there is a diversity of opinion on this so everyone sound off.

Well...I think that culture is a valuable part of of humanity and of identity. But there are various variables of culture, such as religion, that can often be used as a means of oppression, or as an excuse to wage war. When culture conflicts with others' well being, I am against it...otherwise I consider it a signifigant role in individuality .

[Black Dagger]

One cannot discount the role that the ideas of "cultures" and "peoples" have played in history. Whether or not they truly exist does not deny that fact that the belief in them has real consequences.Sure we can! :)

Of course i cannot deny the influence essentialist notions like 'culture' (specifically, national culture) and 'people' have had on human societies - anymore more than i can deny the influence class has had on human societies; but that does not mean that the concept of an essential culture is any less reactionary than class- it's role is negative.

Constructs like a national 'culture' are reductionist, and both homogenise and essentialise people (in that they suggest an essential essence exists in and belongs to all members of a group). Moreover those within a society who do no conform to this 'essence' or essential identity are stigmatised (constructs of 'culture' are used to suppress heterogeneous voices in a society)- and members of alternate 'cultures' are other-ised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other), both of which flow into (that is, justify) and produce social oppression.

Moreover, in class society 'culture' tends to be used by the ruling class to naturalise reactionary social phenomena (such as hierarchy) framed in the language of so-called 'cultural values'.

Rather than appealing to this sort of gross-essentialism revolutionaries need to debunk conceptions of other communities as monolithic 'cultural' entities, and recognise the fragmented, multiple and mobile nature of all identities (shout out to Iwabuchi!).

In short, we have to ask 'what process rather than essences are involved in present experieces of cultural identity' - so that we can understand the part that constructions of 'culture' play in relations of power - like between classes.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

Well put!

So in denying the essentialism of cultures and peoples are you denying essentialism generally, in that you consider all identities malleable, fluid, and constructed? Or are you denying the specific essentialist concepts of peoples and cultures while allowing that essential natures of some type may exist?

[NoGodsNoMasters]

Well...I think that culture is a valuable part of of humanity and of identity. But there are various variables of culture, such as religion, that can often be used as a means of oppression, or as an excuse to wage war. When culture conflicts with others' well being, I am against it...otherwise I consider it a signifigant role in individuality .

In this case then it would seem to be the case that each revolutionary movement and resulting system of government would need, for lack of a better word, a unique flavor. A method of implementation that was most agreeable to those involved.

[Black Dagger]

Well put!
Thanks :)



So in denying the essentialism of cultures and peoples are you denying essentialism generally

Yes (for similar reasons as stated in my first post) - essentialism is a reductive form of thinking that produces stereotypes, and has been used historically by ruling classes to justify oppression, imperialism etc.

That said, there are instances were essentialist identities have been used by oppressed groups because it was politically expedient to do so - such as the Black Power or Women's Liberation movement. These movements were nevertheless progressive for the period despite relying on essentialist constructions of 'Blackness' and 'Womanhood' (both have since being critiqued thoroughly by post-colonial and post-structuralist feminists).



in that you consider all identities malleable, fluid, and constructed?

Yes.


Or are you denying the specific essentialist concepts of peoples and cultures while allowing that essential natures of some type may exist?

What i'm saying is that all essentialist claims are inherently fallacious; as they necessarily discount the heterogeneity of peoples/societies by homogenising them - in reality what constitutes a 'cultural identity' (or that of an individual) is in a constant state of flux (historically speaking) being constructed and re-constructed via discourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse) over time.

So yes, I'm rejecting the notion that there exists in specific people or groups an essential 'essence' that remains unchanged over time - or that an essential nature of any type exists as opposed to that which is discursively constituted.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

Yes (for similar reasons as stated in my first post) - essentialism is a reductive form of thinking that produces stereotypes, and has been used historically by ruling classes to justify oppression, imperialism etc.

That said, there are instances were essentialist identities have been used by oppressed groups because it was politically expedient to do so - such as the Black Power or Women's Liberation movement. These movements were nevertheless progressive for the period despite relying on essentialist constructions of 'Blackness' and 'Womanhood' (both have since being critiqued thoroughly by post-colonial and post-structuralist feminists).

You say that essentialist identities used by oppressed groups were politically expedient for the period. So should we not now encourage such useful fictions provided they have an appropriate aim of liberation rather than oppression?

It seems to me that arguments from essentialism seem to be more in line with a person's "common sense". Perhaps these fictions should continue to be employed in order to motivate and rally the oppressed.

I have not read any of the critiques you mention. Do you have any references or links to arguments against essentialist notion of womanhood by feminist thinkers? I would very much like to read them.

Thanks in advance.

[Black Dagger]

It seems to me that arguments from essentialism seem to be more in line with a person's "common sense".

Is a persons 'common sense' (or what constitutes 'common sense') not also constructed via discourse (that is developed socially and not 'natural' or innate)? ;)

If essentialist thinking is a dominant feature of this society (and indeed one that overwhelmingly serves the vested interests of those in power) could not your 'intuition' that 'common sense' is in line with essentialism be simply a manifestation of this dominance? :p


So should we not now encourage such useful fictions provided they have an appropriate aim of liberation rather than oppression?

I'm not one to dictate to oppressed peoples how they should represent their own struggles - that is paternalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism) - but there are definite possibilities for liberation that move beyond essentialist identity-based politics (arguably the Black Panther Party came close to achieving this - at least in some of the official ideological works of the party) - so no, i don't think essentialist politics should be encouraged, but rather politics that are conscious of the intersections between race, sex, class etc. and that don't assume that members of particular groups share unitary interests (this point made a very long time ago by socialist feminists in regards to liberal feminism) or a common core essence or what-have-you.

Indeed, post-colonial feminist Chandra Talpade Mohanty proposes one in 'Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism' (an excellent critique of western feminism IMO) - the idea of an 'imagined community' of oppositional struggles (in the context of her book) by third world women - not a 'real' community but an 'imagined' one because it points to potential political 'alliances and collaborations across diverse boundaries'.

"And 'community’ because in spite of internal hierarchies within third world contexts, it nevertheless, suggests a significant, deep commitment to what Benedict Anderson, in referring to the idea of the nation, calls ‘horizontal comradeship’.

The idea of imagined community is useful because it leads us away from essentialist notions of third world feminist struggles. Rather, it is the way we think about race, class, and gender — the political links we choose to make among and between struggles. Thus, potentially, women of all colors (including white women) can align themselves with and participate in imagined communities."
-----------------------

I also found this (http://machines.pomona.edu/marxwiki/index.php/Imagined_community)page when i was looking for the above quote (which refers to this concept and provides an example):


On a more positive note, Anderson's concept of imagined communities has been expanded upon by feminist theorist Chandra Mohanty (http://machines.pomona.edu/marxwiki/index.php/Chandra_Mohanty). A third-world feminist imagined community relies upon political rather than biological or cultural bases for alliance. Mohanty sees the possibility of alliances and collaborations across divisive boundaries through the political links we choose to make between struggles against forms of domination that are pervasive and systematic. (Feminism Without Borders, 2003)

One good example of Mohanty's/Anderson's ideas of imagined communities put to work for progressive political purposes were the pamphlets circulated by Japanese female labor organizers in the 1920's in support of an ongoing strike at the Toyo Muslin Factory:

In order to . . . stem the raging tide of rationalizations which threatens our one million sisters throughout the country, the 3,000 sisters at Toyo Muslin have been united in strike action for 26 days. Stated another pamphlet: The victory of the factory women of Toyo Muslin, will, in the end be a victory for all proletarian women.

The emphasis on a specifically Japanese community of working women, while also invoking the idea of a transnational community of proletarian women exemplifies the ability of female labor organizers to invoke imagined communities in order to embody the liberation of an entire class of women, both nationally and transnationally, in the demands of a small group of striking women. Suddenly local feminist struggles become global.
Perhaps these fictions should continue to be employed in order to motivate and rally the oppressed.

This is debateable.

After all, essentialist constructions of identity homogenise the oppressed - asserting that group X constitutes a unitary group with one set of interests (in reality experiences of 'oppression' differ depending on class, sex etc. and these should not be trivialised) - asserting a very specific (and basically unchanging or at least inflexible) understanding of the oppression we face has a tendency to produce exclusions (a fundamental consequence of essentialist logic) - people who do not fit the prescribed essence of the group, or whose interests or experiences remain absent from the dominant expressions; of what is being presented as the interests of a particular group.

Moreover, if one accepts that identities are constructed and re-constructed via discourse, than any attempt to assert an unchanging, unitary essence or 'core' identity will be doomed to irrelevance over time.



I have not read any of the critiques you mention. Do you have any references or links to arguments against essentialist notion of womanhood by feminist thinkers? I would very much like to read them.

A critique of essentialist identity is part and parcel of the work of post-structuralist feminism, so works by post-structuralist feminists like Joan Wallach Scott (like Gender and politics of history) or Chris Weedon (like Feminist practice and post-structuralist theory or Feminism, theory and the politics of difference) will invariably cover the issue - indeed if you google these authors with other terms like 'essentialism' (or 'unified subjectivity' - post-structuralist jargon for 'essentialised identity') with 'woman', women' you might find stuff yourself.

I can dig some links up for you later if the above doesn't help.

It's all worth mentioning again that a critique of essentialist (and univeralist) 'womanhood' is not a new development - nor was it innovated by post-structuralists.

For example, Second-Wave Socialist feminists (anarchist and marxist) critiqued liberal and radical/cultural feminists on the same grounds decades before post-structuralist feminism emerged - I.E. that cultural feminist etc. slogans like 'sisterhood is global' homogenise the experiences of women - ignoring the effect of class in shaping a woman's experience under patriarchy. Similarly Indigenous feminists in oz and other places have criticised white feminists for their tendency to ignore the intersection of race and sex when making universalist claims about 'female experience' etc.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

Great post! Thanks for the information. I'm going to spend some time reading on this topic.