I honestly can't even get halfway through this because his arguements are built on top of easily disproven assertions. He pretends that identity politics is new, something basically invented in...
I honestly can't even get halfway through this because his arguements are built on top of easily disproven assertions. He pretends that identity politics is new, something basically invented in the 60s with Marten Luther King Jr. But to say that is to ignore identities that have existed before then: Suffragette, Abolitionist, Federalist, Loyalist, and so on. Racial and gender identity has existed long before the US was even an idea. Identities naturally form in society, and since society is where politics happens, so does identity politics.
To me, the last sentence in his introduction demonstrates how out of touch this view is.
Unless such liberal democracies can work their way back to more universal understandings of human dignity, they will doom themselves—and the world—to continuing conflict.
A universal understanding of human dignity is the exact mechanism upon which identity politics works. When people hear stories about injustice, they begin to think to themselves, "This is outrageous. There should be some kind of law against this".
At about the halfway mark the author begins to lose coherency altogether as it becomes clear that the "left" he speaks of is actually a caricature. He pretends that income inequality is not a major problem for "the left", and that they have been ignoring the opioid crisis until recently. At one point he even says "the left" wants a completely open border, a position that I have never seen a person hold to this date. I don't understand how a political science professor can have such a poor grasp of politics.
By turning a spotlight on narrower experiences of injustice, identity politics has brought about welcome changes in cultural norms and has produced concrete public policies that have helped many people. The Black Lives Matter movement has made police departments across the United States much more conscious of the way they treat minorities, even though police abuse still persists. The #MeToo movement has broadened popular understanding of sexual assault and has opened an important discussion of the inadequacies of existing criminal law in dealing with it. Its most important consequence is probably the change it has already wrought in the way that women and men interact in workplaces.
So there is nothing wrong with identity politics as such; it is a natural and inevitable response to injustice. But the tendency of identity politics to focus on cultural issues has diverted energy and attention away from serious thinking on the part of progressives about how to reverse the 30-year trend in most liberal democracies toward greater socioeconomic inequality. It is easier to argue over cultural issues than it is to change policies, easier to include female and minority authors in college curricula than to increase the incomes and expand the opportunities of women and minorities outside the ivory tower. What is more, many of the constituencies that have been the focus of recent campaigns driven by identity politics, such as female executives in Silicon Valley and female Hollywood stars, are near the top of the income distribution. Helping them achieve greater equality is a good thing, but it will do little to address the glaring disparities between the top one percent of earners and everyone else.
Why not? I put forward all sorts of crazy controversial arguments in college, and mostly defended them (somewhat successfully). EDIT: To be clear, I think the argument from the author is a solid...
Why not? I put forward all sorts of crazy controversial arguments in college, and mostly defended them (somewhat successfully).
EDIT: To be clear, I think the argument from the author is a solid one and I don't think it's terribly controversial.
I admire your courage, my friend. But I don't know how is your cultural environment, around here the departments thrive on monoculture and defend it fiercely.
I admire your courage, my friend. But I don't know how is your cultural environment, around here the departments thrive on monoculture and defend it fiercely.
Any liberal arts college should be encouraging debate and discussion that is rooted in observation and science (and a healthy dose of personal opinion as well)!
Any liberal arts college should be encouraging debate and discussion that is rooted in observation and science (and a healthy dose of personal opinion as well)!
It depends on a lot of factors, including when you went to school. I attended 2007-2011 and found my classmates and professors extremely open to debate and discussion. For some reason the average...
It depends on a lot of factors, including when you went to school. I attended 2007-2011 and found my classmates and professors extremely open to debate and discussion. For some reason the average liberal art college culture in North America seems to have rapidly changed around 2011-2013.
I do not think that's true, but haven't been to college in either of those time frames. I suspect that the narrative being fed to the media (and therefore us) has changed and any of the...
For some reason the average liberal art college culture in North America seems to have rapidly changed around 2011-2013.
I do not think that's true, but haven't been to college in either of those time frames. I suspect that the narrative being fed to the media (and therefore us) has changed and any of the very-left-wing identity politics are being carried out by a handful of misguided youth getting disproportionate attention.
Does anyone have any idea why we are still listening to Fukuyama? My sense is he had one really great idea (Neo-Liberalism is the end of history) and he was dead ass wrong. What is keeping him at...
Does anyone have any idea why we are still listening to Fukuyama? My sense is he had one really great idea (Neo-Liberalism is the end of history) and he was dead ass wrong. What is keeping him at the profile he still enjoys?
I honestly can't even get halfway through this because his arguements are built on top of easily disproven assertions. He pretends that identity politics is new, something basically invented in the 60s with Marten Luther King Jr. But to say that is to ignore identities that have existed before then: Suffragette, Abolitionist, Federalist, Loyalist, and so on. Racial and gender identity has existed long before the US was even an idea. Identities naturally form in society, and since society is where politics happens, so does identity politics.
To me, the last sentence in his introduction demonstrates how out of touch this view is.
A universal understanding of human dignity is the exact mechanism upon which identity politics works. When people hear stories about injustice, they begin to think to themselves, "This is outrageous. There should be some kind of law against this".
At about the halfway mark the author begins to lose coherency altogether as it becomes clear that the "left" he speaks of is actually a caricature. He pretends that income inequality is not a major problem for "the left", and that they have been ignoring the opioid crisis until recently. At one point he even says "the left" wants a completely open border, a position that I have never seen a person hold to this date. I don't understand how a political science professor can have such a poor grasp of politics.
Foreign Affairs has a general debate on this.
I think overall, I'm with Stacey Abrams on this one.
That’s actually pretty reasonable, but I wouldn’t dare to defend this argument at my local university.
Why not? I put forward all sorts of crazy controversial arguments in college, and mostly defended them (somewhat successfully).
EDIT: To be clear, I think the argument from the author is a solid one and I don't think it's terribly controversial.
I admire your courage, my friend. But I don't know how is your cultural environment, around here the departments thrive on monoculture and defend it fiercely.
Any liberal arts college should be encouraging debate and discussion that is rooted in observation and science (and a healthy dose of personal opinion as well)!
It depends on a lot of factors, including when you went to school. I attended 2007-2011 and found my classmates and professors extremely open to debate and discussion. For some reason the average liberal art college culture in North America seems to have rapidly changed around 2011-2013.
I do not think that's true, but haven't been to college in either of those time frames. I suspect that the narrative being fed to the media (and therefore us) has changed and any of the very-left-wing identity politics are being carried out by a handful of misguided youth getting disproportionate attention.
Does anyone have any idea why we are still listening to Fukuyama? My sense is he had one really great idea (Neo-Liberalism is the end of history) and he was dead ass wrong. What is keeping him at the profile he still enjoys?