O problema das “Políticas Identitárias” é que os defensores disso agem como se todo mundo fosse obrigado a se importar com as questões que eles se importam.
Um tal de Mike Rugnetta do Iultubiu coloca a questão de uma forma ótima pra criticar (note-se que a tradução é minha):
Se alguma obra envolve pessoas, que necessariamente possuem identidades, mesmo que sejam pessoas ficcionais, essa obra contém Políticas Identitárias.
Mas dizer que “pessoas necessariamente têm identidade” é meio sacana, e acho que é importante esclarecer como exatamente é sacana. Read More »
Part of the problem with “Identity Politics” is that its proponents treat it as if everyone had to necessarily care about the issues they like.
Mike Rugnetta of PBS Idea Channel puts it in a very easy to criticise way:
If a piece of media involves people, who necessarily possess identities, even if they’re fictional, then it has Identity Politics.
Saying that people “necessarily possess identities” is kind of weasel-wording, i’d like to go a little into how exactly it is misleading. Read More »
One thing that is not pointed out enough when discussing Political Correctness is that it allows otherwise worthless people to feel worthy through pretending to care about some moral issue.
Criticising is then not an attempt to address some issue, it is an end in itself. It is not that those people care about a given problem, it is only that they need to be outraged about something to feel they make any difference — because they actually do not.
That is the shape of vegetarianism becoming vegan — a diet becomes a moral crusade. That is the shape of feminism becoming feminazi. That is the shape of Political Correctness strangling all the mind out of society.
The tactic of posing as victim to get advantages is certainly part of it, a cruel bizarre form of reverse bullying, but i suspect the mechanical reason of the thing is even more selfish — no more than the self-pity of people who are actually correct in despising themselves!
Case in point: Some random developer-evangelist going out of her way to make absurd and clueless complaints about Crockford, someone with an arduino hobby who thinks she is someone because she is bashing the guy who wrote the book literally. She is so idiotic (in the sense of being self-centered to the point of actually ignoring the obvious) she can’t figure out “promiscuous” is a technical term.
Of course, being factually wrong in their complaints is not a problem, it is probably even better, since it removes the boring discussion and talking part and leaves us only the drama. That is why you can’t actually talk to a feminazi: Their words don’t actually mean anything, it is just like a baby crying, it is just a way to demand attention.
Pathetic. And also able to destroy the world.
The Misunderstood Award seeks to accolade those thinkers whose ideas have been so warped as to become as good as opposite to the original intent. Paraphrasing Kipling, they are witnesses to the truth they spoke being twisted by knacks to make a trap for fools. A little tragicomedy where the more someone feels identity with a given thinker, the more likely he’ll be labouring at destroying his thought. So, without much further ado, this year’s prize goes to:
Bourdieu, together with some other french sociologists in the last part of the XX century, tried to show that societies create ideas according to their own purposes. This means that the ideas are part of the process whereby the society reproduces itself, both as tools for it and as consequences of it. So for example the set of values a given group espouses helps this group to sort through and incentivize the kinds of member-behaviour that will further the groups’ objectives. In other words, ideas are not independent from the power structures that harbour them, as they incorporate the biases and privileges and asymmetries of society.
This of course takes knowledge and discourse as valuable, and focuses a lot of attention in them, mainly as a fruitful object for study. Misunderstanding arrives when this valuation of discourse is taken as proof that what someone says is so important that you should actually fight over it. Read More »