i don't want people to "listen to me" because of who i am. my identity is only relevant insofar as it explains my interest in matters of oppression and my accumulated knowledge, informs my experiences and opinions, and illuminates the stakes i have in a conversation. it does not inherently grant me comprehension of a situation or phenomenon, and it does not automatically mean i'm right, even on topics that concern me. i don't want to be taken at face value; i want people to consider my argument and agree with it if it makes sense, not because of any type of innate authority. "you only listen to the people of color you agree with" is a very funny sentence, when you think about it. because that is, indeed, how opinions and beliefs work: people ingest information, analyze it, then decide if they agree with it. if they don't, they discard it. and there are good and bad reasons to discard someone else's position, obviously; but the point remains that this is how conclusions are drawn. liberal "identity politics" discourse (which is really representation politics, but this is a whole other topic) refuses to acknowledge that last point, but it has to: its logic crumbles when confronted with two people who share an identity but hold diverging political stances.
we are all epistemologically deficient when it comes to understanding how others experience structural barriers. women, for example, possess knowledge of simple facts relevant to their life as women that men unarguably cannot experience. this does not mean that men cannot access any knowledge about women's experiences or draw correct conclusions re:sexism. it simply means that they are methodologically limited in accessing one kind of knowledge: experiential knowledge, or what is colloquially referred to as "lived experience".
but the use of lived experience as the only analytical point of reference in political matters individualizes and essentializes the reality of oppression, which should instead be understood as systemic. what identity politics should do is give us epistemic access to otherwise private and personal experiences that are necessary in order to shape one's positions - people's lived experiences can contain invaluable and illuminating insight into particular manifestations of systemic inequality and axes of power. but, while lived experience can give one unique epistemic access in certain domains, it doesn't necessarily dictate the terms of structural oppression or make anyone of any oppressed group morally infallible.
the abuse of identity politics is harmful first and foremost to marginalized people: it puts them on a moral pedestal and expects them to be irreproachable while acting like only "privileged" individuals can hurt other people. our analysis should draw on marginalized voices to explain why some people are systematically subject to violence and economic subordination, but lived experience alone doesn't give us information on the character of every individual marginalized person, the morality of their actions, or the validity of their claims. creating a virtuous/vicious category to parallel oppressed/oppressor is profoundly condescending and dehumanizing. it also obscures the dynamics of power that also exists within and between oppressed communities.
recognizing the humanity in another human being (recognizing them as an equal!) includes acknowledging their capacity to act cruelly or immorally, and their potential to be wrong and make mistakes and draw incorrect conclusions.
janainaart
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
areudirty
discoholicmusic
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
