Marshall McLuhan once said that,”Violence is a quest for identity.” I find "myself," or a group finds "itself," through confrontation with another. It follows, that when a person, group or people, feels that their identity is being threatened, they lash out in violence. Violence here is really all about the creation of boundaries. We act violently in order to establish some clear demarkation between ourselves and the “other.” All of this seems to have something to do with human development. Watch, for instance, how small children, as they emerge from unconscious identification with the mother, to a gradual sense of individuality, enjoying hitting and striking. It’s as if they are trying to get clear as to where the boundaries are between self and world. Identity therefore, is always a matter of finding oneself through another.
In terms of politics and history, “whiteness” is a relatively recent invention. In Europe for instance, there have been innumerable ways of talking about identity. During Roman times, there were those who enjoyed Roman citizenship, as opposed to the Barbarians. In the Christian Middle Ages, there were Christians and Infidels. In the early modern period of European exploration and colonization, there was Civilization vs. Savagery. To trace the full history of how Europeans worked out their sense of identity would take thousands of pages. The point here is that identity is always a matter of separating those who belong to the “in-group,” from those who stand outside.
Now, going back to the two articles above, identity politics in America has largely been defined racially. The term, “white,” from what I can tell, doesn’t appear in the records of Colonial America until the late 1600’s. Theodore Allen, in “The Invention of the White Race,” (I’ve only read reviews), claims that the racial subjugation of black people in the United States, can be traced back to the English subjugation of the Irish. He argues that it is here that we first find the use of racial difference (as opposed to religion, education, etc) as a means and justification for, social control. In America, this racial consciousness was the idealogical basis for those of European descent to justify the enslavement of blacks. To tell this story would also, take many pages. The point here is again to show that identity politics is, and has always been, about separating and dividing, control and power.
Mark Lilla’s article is important because he points out the fact that identity politics is fraught with danger. He writes, “Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it.” Why? Because, as McLuhan points out, the quest for identity is fundamentally violent. It’s all about creating boundaries. “Whiteness,” was an invention by people who were attempting to identifying themselves against other groups. "White" doesn’t actually exist. It's a total abstraction from reality. I find it absurd for instance, that I am considered “white” and thus, somehow responsible for everything from slavery to global warming. Good oul Patrick Moriarty didn’t leave Ireland until the 1910’s... I just don’t know how helpful these terms really are.
I agree with Douthat in his claim that Liberalism needs to move beyond Identity Politics. The various diversity movements in the United States, have accepted the invented notion of “whiteness,” originally used to subjugate different groups. Rather than intelligently realize that this term is utterly useless, they have accepted it. Rather than say, "Let's find a different way to talk about identity," they identify themselves “non-white.” Although I totally sympathize with the desire to reclaim dignity, this version of identity politics remains in the world of violence. To constantly rail at, “dead white males,” is not helpful. To make white people the enemy, is not helpful. This kind of response only creates the conditions for the eventual backlash of those who now feel as if they are being opposed, “alive white males.”
I think we need to do two things. 1) Realize that race is an invention. 2) Find some other criteria/s that unites us as a people. Rather than continue to use a construct that has a very nasty history, I think we simply need to drop it. Change the narrative.
The sad fact is that there is little to unites Americans anymore. When money dominates everything, people seek to find other ways of belonging. We break up in smaller and smaller sub-groups. I just don’t know if this is a recipe for a healthy society. Are we a people or are we just a bunch of special interest groups?
Comments
Post a Comment