adrienmundi | Question

I don't feel qualified to speculate...

I think you are, for whatever that's worth.

IMNSHO, No; I'd need more help in understanding the question and a few of the perspectives on it.

You at home?

Post-identity politics, as in focusing on matters other than 'who one is'?

It would seem that this is what the end of discrimination should look like, no?

And what do you mean by priviledged? That only certain categories would have the luxury to be able to go beyond identity?
If so, then it would not be true post-identity, would it?

What a good answer; thanks!

Maybe simplistic or based on misunderstanding what you are asking, but...

Is the desire for post-identity politics priveleged?
Short answer: I think so.
Longer explanation: That any of us gets to focus on the issues that we do is indicative of great privilege. We don't have to spend all our time on fulfilling our subsistence-level needs, therefore, we have time to think about and work on a lot of other things. At first, I was mentally contrasting us with, say, Afghanistan or the Congo, but then the talk Barbara Ehrenreich gave at ALA popped into my head. She spoke about being shocked at how little interested/conscious the people she worked and lived with in the process of writing "Nickled and Dimed..." were of the layers of social, class, discrimination, and political issues affecting them, because they didn't have the time or energy left to even care after working their 3 jobs and still barely squeaking by, if at all.

Does it result in discrimination?
The desire for something is just that. Discrimination arises from actions. I'd say that whether or not the desire for post-identity politics results in discrimination depends on the actions following from that desire. Do post-identity politics result in discrimination? Same thing. It depends on how they are put into action.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and I agree. I guess I wasn't quite clear in what I was asking (big shocker there). The question arose out of what I perceive as minority politics infighting, specifically in group X, with members of subgroup Y insisting that their Ydom totally transforms their Xdom in much more meaningful ways than 'standard Xdom', and desiring to cling to identity labels, and harshly rebuke those who want to work towards removing them all together.

That's probably no more clear, but at least it's a different flavor of haziness.

Heh, even if, it allows various parts of the elephant to be gazed, getting a better idea of the whole.

If by and desiring to cling to identity labels, and harshly rebuke those who want to work towards removing them all together. you mean they rebuke towards removing labels from self, then that's ....um..dorky.
If you mean Y wants to retain their identity as Y, as is fighting for that themselves, then well, that's the struggle of existence.

Of course, in this, even if one breaks free of labels, what does that mean? To look upon another person (or anything, really) is to label it. The line comes with letting the label be considered the complete picture, instead of a handy macro for reference.

Flippant reply: Yes. Only those who know what you mean by "post-identity politics" can desire them. Or perhaps no - I suppose one could desire a thing without having a term for it, or having a different term for it.

Honestly, though, I'm not sure what the term "post-identity politics" refers to, or what exactly it would mean for a desire to be priveleged....

Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

dumb it down a bit for the rest of us, please?

Re: dumb it down a bit for the rest of us, please?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject