Notes on Ball & Dagger text, Chapter 8:  Liberation Ideologies and the Politics of Identity

INTRODUCTION TO / OVERVIEW OF LIBERATION IDEOLOGIES AND IDENTITY POLITICS

Note that these two ("liberation ideologies" and "identity politics") are not identical.  Liberation ideologies generally pertain to the release of individuals from oppression, while identity politics generally involves groups collectively, i.e., as groups / cultures.  Thus the Civil Rights Movement was generally based on an ideologies of making Blacks treated equally with whites, but it generally did not involve the preservation of Black culture.  "Black Consciousness" movements, however, were concerned directly with the latter.  Thus identity politics is not classical liberal in nature, while liberation ideologies generally are.

Five commonalities of liberation ideologies:

1. Addresses a particular audience.  This audience is usually made up of people whose status is ascribed, not self-chosen.  But this is not an absolute requirement.  Any group that feels it is being unfairly treated — a religious group, for example — could have its own liberation ideology.
        Note that the general nature of this commonality distinguishes it from a narrow, economistic Marxism, where social class is the only social fact worth paying attention to.
2. Oppression.  The group is being unfairly treated, and unfairly treated because of being a distinct group.  This unfair treatment need not be economic inequality per se;  more fundamentally it is a sense that the group's voice is not being heard, that it is being disrespected or its members not recognized.  This can be at either the individual or group level.
        We need to ask directly the question of whether oppression actually exists.  Some people believe that there is no such thing as oppression, at least within the United States — that those who call themselves oppressed are nothing but whining losers and lazy shirkers.  I certainly believe that oppression exists, but I want to note the debate about it.  Certainly the idea of oppression takes some clear thought.  Note Frye's "cage" image, saying that oppression is not any single difficulty but an entire configuration of obstacles.  Note also the "lottery mentality" that says that because we can point to a few people who overcame the obstacles, oppression does not exist.  This is a specious argument, however, since oppression is a pattern, and single exceptions do not prove or disprove anything.
3. Internalized oppression.  Internalized oppression is where the oppressed people themselves have bought into the oppression.  Women think they're not smart.  Blacks think they're not beautiful.  Academics think they're bores.  Internalized oppression generally goes along with external (institutionalized) oppression.  Note that the two reinforce each other.  This reciprocal relationship "naturalizes" the oppression, that is, makes it appear to be the way of the world (or due to the fault of the oppressed group), not a contingent and problematic practice requiring justification.
4. Consciousness-raising.  To address internalized oppression, members of the affected group must "problematize" and/or "thematize" the oppressive treatment, that is, be made conscious of their treatment and their feelings about it.
5. Liberation of the oppressor.  Most liberation movements believe that the oppressing group is also harmed by the treatment and must be liberated from it as well.  Indeed, this is virtually a requirement, since the oppressed group is generally outnumbered and thus must count on the oppressor behaving justly .  Nevertheless, despite this practical need, there remains people's belief that no one is free when others are oppressed — that it is in all our interests to remove all vestiges of oppression everywhere, because what can be directed at one group can be used as a threat to keep another group in line.  Liberty requires that we not respond to threats but only to our uncoerced agreements with each other.

There is some debate about whether oppression comes about as a result of a social system in which all are oppressed or as a result of a specific group (the oppressors) oppressing another group (the oppressed).  The reading by Marilyn Frye discusses this, coming down squarely on the latter side.  I don't agree with her, but we can discuss that later.

Note also the debate about separatism vs. integration, which is linked to (but is not identical with) the previous issue.  This issue raises the whole question of group rights (or cultural rights)  — specifically, whether they exist and if so, how they are to be respected and protected.  Marcus Garvey vs. George Washington Carver.  Steve Biko vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.  [See below in the miscellaneous notes.]

Note also the debate about the strategy and/or tactics by which a group may act.  Must it confine itself to actions that are legal within an existing (and likely unfair) political system?  If it chooses extra-legal actions, how is this different from anarchy?  In particular, how does the group deal with the breach such actions represent in relations with others who don't agree?

Note also the two conceptions of oppression, one about inequality pure and simple, the other about not living a fully human life (as in Marx's idea of alienation).  Yes, exploitation is present, but it is not the central issue.  No one is free when others are oppressed.  Transformation / rebellion, not revolution.  All of us are in Frye's cage.  (Example of the MST invading the indigenous reserve area:  oppressed vs. oppressed.)

Specific topics that we may cover:

• The nature (and existence?) of oppression
• Liberation theology
• The Civil Rights Movement
• The "Black Consciousness" movement
• Gay liberation
• Animal liberation

Potential quiz questions & thought questions:

• The chapter discusses a number of liberation ideologies, but it begins with a list of five commonalities — things that all liberation ideologies share.  Name any one of them.  If you can't recall the specific terms the book uses, give enough detail to show me you read it.
• The five commonalities of liberation ideologies would seem to apply to evangelicals and other religious conservatives like Ralph Reed.  Lay out the five commonalities as Reed might see them.

Miscellaneous lecture notes:

Raises the question, against classical liberalism's individualism, of whether people have group rights — i.e., a right to preservation of a culture (e.g., Francophones in Canada, Spanish-speakers in the United States), or, minimally, the right to be protected against others' prejudices against them for their membership in a group (e.g., the disabled), even if they themselves do not have a specific culture or seek to establish one.

Raises the question, against (economistic) Marxism, of whether class is the only form of oppression.

-----------------

The systemic nature of oppression (cage image) means it's generally legal, de jure or at least de facto.  It comes from the dominant culture, after all.  It's also hard to negotiate  — no single oppressor wants to give way.  "Massive resistance".  Note signs coming down, then going back up again [340/1].

Turn to nonviolent direct action [CPPNL:  conscientious, public, punishment accepting, nonviolent law-breaking]

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003-6 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.