Wohin Identitätspolitik führen kann: Zwischen Vorhölle und Tollhaus.


Es scheint ja so, dass ich mit jenem Jakobinervergleich, der den Bruch eines langjährigen Mitdiskutanten nicht nur mit mir sondern praktisch der ganzen hier kommentierenden Gemeinde auslöste tiefer und besser traf als mir das selbst damals bewusst war. Zumindest, wenn ich das hier lese:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/brendan-oneill/2015/02/identity-politics-has-created-an-army-of-vicious-narcissists/

"I think the more we’ve made the personal political, the more we define our social and political outlook with reference to what’s in our underpants or what colour our skin is, the more we experience every criticism of our beliefs as an attack on our very personhood, our souls, our right to exist."

Unterschreibe ich voll.

Grade gelesen, passt dazu, denke ich:

"Whiteness theory and the politics of “difference”

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe—self-described post-Marxists—first articulated the theoretical framework for identity politics in their 1985 book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Laclau and Mouffe’s (extremely) abstract theory divorces every form of oppression not only from society generally, but also from each other. As they put it, society is a field “criss-crossed with antagonisms” in which each form of oppression exists as an entirely autonomous system.

According to this schema, social class is just another form of oppression, separate from all others, leaving the system of exploitation equally adrift.

Furthermore, each separate system of oppression has its own unique set of beneficiaries: all whites benefit from racism, all men benefit from sexism and all heterosexuals benefit from homophobia—each in a free-floating system of “subordination.”

Not surprisingly, Laclau and Mouffe argue,

[T]he possibility of a unified discourse of the left is also erased. If the various subject positions and the diverse antagonisms and points of rupture constitute a diversity and not a diversification, it is clear they cannot be led back to a point from which they could all be embraced and explained by a single discourse.
So identity politics, the politics of “difference,” seeks to refute the unifying potential of working-class interests.

Significantly, Laclau and Mouffe insist that the state itself is autonomous, and take great pains to refute the Marxist assumption that the state consistently acts on behalf of society’s ruling class. This theory, if it were grounded in reality, would have enormous implications for the origin of white supremacy. White supremacy then could be a creation “in part, of the white working class itself,” as Roediger asserts."

http://www.isreview.org/issues/46/whiteness.shtml

Kennt jemand das angesprochene Buch von Laclau/Mouffe?