Liberalism vs Social-Authoritarian Leftism – Reexamining Identity Politics

 

 

I'm continuing my series on liberalism vs social-authoritarian leftism.  I consider large swaths of the left to have become socially-authoritarian and illiberal.  I see them using social violence to force their politics, which is why I say that they're social-authoritarians.  The group that I've come to call the Social Violence Warriors are abusive and illiberal.  I feel that they've betrayed the left and betrayed America.

 

There's more than one way to be on the left.

 

Today's topic is identity politics.  I support equality and rights for everybody by everybody and respect to everybody from everybody, but I respectfully disagree with some of the leftist ideas about this issue.  So, I'll be talking about how I see a lot of leftists talking about it, why I disagree about subtle points, and what I think.

 

To What Extent Does Perspective Really Effect Opinion?

 

I hear the new left talking a lot about perspective.  Its adherents claim, first of all, that members of oppressed groups all have similar perspectives as members of the oppressed group, that members of traditionally oppressive groups have common perspectives, likewise, and, finally, that perspective significantly influences opinion.  It's certainly true that we have different perspectives and that differences among us, such as race or gender, can definitely effect those perspectives, but I think we have to be careful to avoid over-categorizing a group as having a monolithic perspective.

 

The new left claims that perspective effects opinion, but I see a lot of evidence that it does not dictate opinion.  How do they explain Sarah Palin, for example?  She's a woman.  Women are an oppressed group.  Their logic would say that Palin's female perspective would control her opinion and make her do whatever's best for women to help her sister fight free from under the heal of patriarchal oppression.  Yet, when she was mayor, Palin opposed having enough rape kits at police stations to prosecute rapists.  She has a very anti-feminist record.  I personally know a black woman who is on the side of the police on the police shootings issue. 

 

I also see plenty of fair skinned Americans supporting people of color in their struggle for freedom from oppression.  We know many who are "straight but not narrow".  There are men like me who are ready and willing to fight for women's causes.  So, even if there are monolithic perspectives that glob together according to traditionally-oppressive groups, it seems to me that perspectives don't dictate opinion.  It seems to me that morals and values are also factors in how people form their opinions.  For example, I support women's rights because I'm a social liberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), not because I'm a woman.  In fact, the notion that perspective dictates opinion seems to see humans as fundamentally selfish, but we know that we're often not.  We often do care about others.

 

But I'll go even farther and say that I doubt whether these monolithic perspectives even exist.  I'm a man, yes, but I was raised in the SF Bay Area by parents who modeled equality in the home.  I grew up in the late 70's, the 80's, and the early 90's surrounded by hippyish leftists who stood firmly against racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, religious discrimination, and any other form of prejudice or oppression.  My parents and many of their friends, though fair-skinned, participated in the civil rights movement.  In school we read books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Color Purple" and had mandatory assemblies in which we were taught about the plight of blacks, latinos/as/ex's, gays and Lesbians, women, etc.  In short, while I am fair-skinned, hetero, and male, the world I grew up in was very much a progressive, anti-prejudice, anti-oppression, and pro-diversity world.  Even the Reaganite private K through 8 I attended (which wasn't my parents' first choice, you understand), nevertheless taught us to celebrate diversity and made some efforts toward having a diverse student body. 

 

My background is very different from, say, growing up in a rural part of the deep South, being raised fundamentalist Christian, or something like that.  So it's a significant question as to whether our perspectives are shaped more by our identities or our backgrounds.

 

Rather than understanding perspective as a predictive model.  Rather than thinking of there as being one "white perspective", "male perspective", "straight perspective," and so forth.  I'd like to suggest that we think of there as being many of each of these, as we remember that that perspective may be only one part of each individual's makeup, which includes their background, the parenting they received, and their life experiences.

 

Finally, it's clear to me that we, as intelligent beings, can think for ourselves and our not bound by any perspective.  Whether our identity, our political model, our background, or our life experiences affect our opinions more, we are always able to bring reason and intelligence to bear on the issues, so we may very well come to opinions that none of our perspectives would predict.

 

In this way, we're all free.  While we all have a different, unique mixture of perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, etc., we can all contribute equally to the dialogs and discussions of our time.  So, the non-liberal idea that we "straight white men" should shut up and let others express themselves, because we have the "wrong" perspective, loses all meaning for me.  Of course, none of us knows what it's like to be someone else, but, when I realize that we are all just as qualified to contribute to the discussion, my liberalism is renewed, because only liberalism allows us to do that.  In order to participate in society, we must be free.

 

It seems to me that it's more important to make sure that oppressed groups have the same opportunity to express themselves as the rest of us, than to stifle the free expression of people outside of those groups.

 

Privilege vs Human Rights

 

I've been told that, as a white person, as a man, etc., I have certain "privileges".  Among these, or so the claim goes, are that the cops will treat me fairly, justly, and even mercifully, that the I can walk down the street at night and feel safe, that I don't particularly have to worry about being sexually assaulted (more than being victim of any other crime, I suppose).

 

All true, however I can't think of a single example of such "privilege" that could not be better expressed in terms of rights.  Among human rights are the rights to justice, fairness, and basic respect (egalitarian respect, not deferential respect).  It's everybody's human right to have our justice system treat them justly, fairly, and with basic respect.  I also think we have a basic right to mercy.

 

I have a quibble with the notion of "privilege" as opposed to the notion of human rights.  The California DMV defines driving a car as a "privilege not a right".  That's what the term privilege means to me.  If that's not what it means to you, you're either miscommunication or deliberately trying to confuse people.  So, when people tell me that it's, say, a "white privilege" to be treated fairly by the police, it makes it sound like they're endorsing a police state.  In other words, it sounds to me like they think that the police SHOULD be unfair.  I don't get the impression that that is what they intend to imply, but that's why I'm baffled by the use of the word "privilege".  It's a human RIGHT to be treated fairly by the police.

 

Now, certainly, some sort black perspective comes into play here.  (Well, I don't totally dismiss the notion of perspective, I just have the concerns about it I've already stated.)  Of course, we should take the reports of police brutality and killings seriously.  My point is merely that I think it's much clearer and more liberal to frame this failure of our civilization in terms of human rights than in terms of "white privilege".  Ditto with the right of women to equal protection under the law from assault, for another example, for gays and Lesbians to be treated with respect, or for someone with a penis and an Adam's apple to walk down the street in a dress and still be respected.

 

As a liberal, I support human rights for all.  The struggle of the oppressed, which I understand myself as supporting, is a struggle for human rights, rather than a struggle against privilege.

 

In order to participate in society, we must be free.