What is the identity thesis? It’s a thesis that liberalism has failed to identify all the causes of racism/sexism etc and actively works against addressing them. Advocates of identity thesis therefore propose radically different counter solutions to those proposed by liberalism.
Advocates of the identity thesis argue that a significant amount of history should be framed through a lens of identity. Historical events, they argue, were often driven by race, sex, gender, sexual preference or religion.
The identity thesis rejects universalism. The core tenant of liberalism is that everyone are individuals who should be treated equally regardless of race/sex/class or religion. However, advocates of the identity thesis believe that in practice universal neutrality is impossible and instead policies labelled as universal and neutral actually serve members of privileged (dominant) groups. Derrick Bell argued that “a neutral perspective does not, and cannot exist”.
Underlying this view is a postmodern view of humanity that was proposed by the likes of Michel Foucault that is skeptical of progress and rejects utopian visions. This view argues that human society is and will always be based around a zero-sum game of groups competing for power. The groups in charge will always exert power in their own interest at the expense of groups without power, if not directly then through informal means.
Proponents of the identity thesis therefore argue that policies implemented in the name of universalist ideals are actually a charade and instead serve the interests of the dominate identity group: white straight Christian men. They therefore propose that we should not try to implement universalist goals. Universalist goals, they argue, are doomed to fail and in reality, simply move the exertion of power by and for the dominant group from formal policies to informal where they are less obvious to those that are repressed by them.
Instead proponents of the identity thesis advocate we must impose laws and norms that treat each person based on their identity groups. In particular those who belong to non-dominant identity groups (groups that are in the minority of have been historically repressed) should be given special privileges relative to those in the dominant groups. These special privileges should occur because the current norms and institutions continue to informally discriminate against non-dominant groups. The special privileges should also be determined by the members of non-dominant groups because advocates of the identity thesis argue that members of the dominant groups can’t truly understand what it’s like to belong to non-dominant groups (this is standpoint theory). This is because broad and continuous repression throughout ones life is only an experience faced by members of non-dominant identity groups.
The aim of this discussion is to ask if you believe in the identity thesis as described above. Or maybe you believe in parts of it but not others? If so can you elaborate which parts. In the next post I go through some of the policies and ideas that emerged from the identity thesis to provide more details.
A discussion on the positives/negatives of th identity thesis, as compared to liberalism, would also be appreciated?
Now please note that Cultural Marxism is not a part of the identity thesis. For one Marxism focuses on class as the key distinguisher of groups, not identity. Plus, more importantly, Marxism is utopian. It aims to improve society by moving everyone into part of a single group, the proletariat. The identity thesis has no such endeavors. It aims to ensure people are permanently separated into identity groups because of its pessimistic view that racism/sexism/homophobia/tolerance of religions can never be overcome, it can only be managed.
Please note, that trying to summarize the attributes of the identity theses into a couple of paragraphs for discussion on a forum is quite difficult. Please try not to dismiss everything that is written here based on the fact I haven’t discussed all the nuances. However, if there are fundamental parts of the thesis missing or fundamental parts that are mistaken, then please add your corrections.
Advocates of the identity thesis argue that a significant amount of history should be framed through a lens of identity. Historical events, they argue, were often driven by race, sex, gender, sexual preference or religion.
The identity thesis rejects universalism. The core tenant of liberalism is that everyone are individuals who should be treated equally regardless of race/sex/class or religion. However, advocates of the identity thesis believe that in practice universal neutrality is impossible and instead policies labelled as universal and neutral actually serve members of privileged (dominant) groups. Derrick Bell argued that “a neutral perspective does not, and cannot exist”.
Underlying this view is a postmodern view of humanity that was proposed by the likes of Michel Foucault that is skeptical of progress and rejects utopian visions. This view argues that human society is and will always be based around a zero-sum game of groups competing for power. The groups in charge will always exert power in their own interest at the expense of groups without power, if not directly then through informal means.
Proponents of the identity thesis therefore argue that policies implemented in the name of universalist ideals are actually a charade and instead serve the interests of the dominate identity group: white straight Christian men. They therefore propose that we should not try to implement universalist goals. Universalist goals, they argue, are doomed to fail and in reality, simply move the exertion of power by and for the dominant group from formal policies to informal where they are less obvious to those that are repressed by them.
Instead proponents of the identity thesis advocate we must impose laws and norms that treat each person based on their identity groups. In particular those who belong to non-dominant identity groups (groups that are in the minority of have been historically repressed) should be given special privileges relative to those in the dominant groups. These special privileges should occur because the current norms and institutions continue to informally discriminate against non-dominant groups. The special privileges should also be determined by the members of non-dominant groups because advocates of the identity thesis argue that members of the dominant groups can’t truly understand what it’s like to belong to non-dominant groups (this is standpoint theory). This is because broad and continuous repression throughout ones life is only an experience faced by members of non-dominant identity groups.
The aim of this discussion is to ask if you believe in the identity thesis as described above. Or maybe you believe in parts of it but not others? If so can you elaborate which parts. In the next post I go through some of the policies and ideas that emerged from the identity thesis to provide more details.
A discussion on the positives/negatives of th identity thesis, as compared to liberalism, would also be appreciated?
Now please note that Cultural Marxism is not a part of the identity thesis. For one Marxism focuses on class as the key distinguisher of groups, not identity. Plus, more importantly, Marxism is utopian. It aims to improve society by moving everyone into part of a single group, the proletariat. The identity thesis has no such endeavors. It aims to ensure people are permanently separated into identity groups because of its pessimistic view that racism/sexism/homophobia/tolerance of religions can never be overcome, it can only be managed.
Please note, that trying to summarize the attributes of the identity theses into a couple of paragraphs for discussion on a forum is quite difficult. Please try not to dismiss everything that is written here based on the fact I haven’t discussed all the nuances. However, if there are fundamental parts of the thesis missing or fundamental parts that are mistaken, then please add your corrections.
