the basement is flooding

wv wrote:

The recognition of intersectionality put an end to simple identity politics

I don’t agree with that as put but a lot of it is nuance. First of all, I see absolutely nothing wrong with “identity politics” and I think it’s a mistake to deride or dismiss it. In order to have real intersectionality you have to have different points converging, not a washing out of differences. It’s not intersectionality otherwise. Given that the BASIS of interestionality is identity politics…people are positioned in a society a certain way (race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.) and their understanding and experiences and interests come from that.

In fact the snippet you give virtually says as much: “the priority of feminist efforts should not be breaking the glass ceiling—but advocating for poor women, for whom ‘the basement is flooding.'” Yeah. Exactly. And. That’s identity seen through the lens of class. Then of course not all poor women are socially positioned the same: black women and white women often (not always but often) have different worlds they come from. Failing to acknowledge that would get us nowhere. Acknowledging it is using the awareness of identities to construct interestionality.

Actually to me, the thing to get over is the antagonism AGAINST identity issues in the name of some homogenenous dedication to one unifying perspective. So to me identity politics is not the issue, it’s the leftists who are resistant to those things that are the issue. They’re too abstract for me: “We must all unify under the X flag.” Says reason. When applied a certain way. But what people see and know first is their lived experience as that is defined by identity positioning (by positioning I mean we are assigned the positions of race, class, gender, we don’t invent them). So to me, we don’t need one defining flag, we gotta have lots of different flags on the same side. IE. we have to have separate and distinct identity-interests to have a convergence of them.

wv wrote:

Did you read the whole article? Because i think its saying what you just said. The snippet is misleading in that regard, i think.

No I just read the snippet.

If that makes me a hasty response snippet reader, so be it.

Or better. I will read the whole article this evening. But only if I get redemption points.

wv wrote:

Did you read the whole article? Because i think its saying what you just said. The snippet is misleading in that regard, i think.

One reason I didn’t read the article initially was this:

This site can’t provide a secure connection
http://www.resilience.org uses an unsupported protocol.

Chrome wouldn’t pull it up.

So I went around that and you’re right, the snippet is misleading and the article is not making the mistake I thought I found in the snippet. From the article:

The insight that identities of gender, class, race, sexuality, nationality, etc., are mutually determining gave rise to a new concept: intersectionality. Some feared that acknowledging interconnecting identities and forms of oppression would prove divisive, but what began as splintering gave birth to a new form of politics: solidarity politics. Solidarity politics can unite people across movements and within movements, and offers the foundational framework for any successful global citizens movement. Indeed, this dynamic already is engaging various social movements on the ground and inspiring the development of new, solidarity economy practices and institutions.