Mistaken Identity, Race and Class in the Age of Trump, Asad Haider, Verso 2018
This is a short sharp and well-argued case against “Identity Politics”(ID politics) as it has evolved since the Combahee River Collective . Instead of integrating the struggle against racism into other struggles, it focuses on the individual experience of people based on their racial/gender/orientation etc. identity. He feels this is an adaption to neo-liberalism and actually an offshoot of bourgeois ideology. His stress is on collective struggle that incorporates the issues of the most oppressed.
Rosy View of Earlier Struggles
He contrasts ID politics as used today with the revolutionary struggles of earlier years. In doing so, he is a bit too charitable about earlier struggles. In the 60’s and 70’s there was also race-baiting and an earlier version of privilege politics though it is much worse now. In earlier times there was more or an emphasis on solidarity and coalitions across race etc. lines, especially by the Black Panther Party. Asad gives good examples of the horrors of ID politics and tears apart the “philosophy” of Afro-Pessimism.
Identity Politics and Neoliberalism
His argument that the current form of ID politics is set up by neoliberalism and the individualism that neoliberalism causes seems strong. The other aspect of ID politics being a form of bourgeois ideology is that it defends the interests of the new multi-cultural elite that has formed since the Civil Rights Movement. It is used to defend RC interests against threats from below.
White Skin Privilege
In the 60’s and 70’s examples of race-baiting and privilege politics also existed. Asad notes the Weathermen’s use of “white skin privilege”. They believed that racism was in the material interest of the white working class in the U.S. and therefore the fight against racism necessitated rejecting white workers as a force for change. The original use of White Skin Privilege was the opposite. Allen and Ignatiev thought that it was NOT in the interests of white workers. White Skin Privilege held the whole working class down and therefore should be rejected by white workers. This part is important and true. However, Asad seems to be too soft on these writers they also called on white workers to “repudiate” these privileges. If that meant actually giving up a material advantage , it is incorrect. If it means that they should fight to include Black workers and other People of Color in their privilege , then it is correct. It seems that Allen and Ignatiev may be ignoring the very real material sectional interests that “privileged” workers have. To ask them to give those up in effect to lower their living standards seems to be the wrong approach, especially if this is proposed on an individual basis.
Nationalism
Asad is more sympathetic to nationalist struggles in the 60s and 70’s than today. Then the whole Black community for example was oppressed and needed to advance. Advancing together made more sense, even if there were class divisions. Today, class divisions are more accentuated and the cross-class interest in inclusion has diminished in importance. The more salient issues are class issues. Though, he of course doesn’t deny the continuation of racism, he seems to demote it in importance as far as strategy. Following from this on page 22, he denies the importance of fighting against racism at all levels.” To demand inclusion in the structure of society as it is means forfeiting the possibility of structural change.” He seems to disagree with the usual Leninist approach that we must oppose oppression, no matter which class it is exercised against.
Does Race Exist?
He also seems to accept the basic premise of the Field’s book, that race is fictional though racism isn’t on page 26, he quotes Paul Gilroy “Action against racial hierarchies can proceed more effectively when it has been purged of any lingering respect for the idea of race.” Of course, race is a purely social construct, but it is socially real.
Revolutionary Universality
The other problem with Haider’s approach comes out in the last chapter where he calls for “revolutionary universality”. He fears that focusing on the oppressed as victims means preserving their victimhood. Their interests need to be protected as part of a universal program that raises all. Racism etc. needs to be confronted as part of the struggle for universal rights and gains. He notes that though slavery had a large racial component, the opponents of slavery focused on slavery, not on its racial aspect. Gains should be made as part of a revolutionary struggle rather than dispensed from above. This seems a bit ultra-left. Of course, in any struggle, Marxists want to bring to the fore the interests of the whole international working class and the only solution being socialism.
Partial Struggles
However, there will be partial struggles that break out. The question in each case is do we give them critical support of not. If we support, we will still have our critique but the key question of support or not is always on the table. It seems that Assad would reject support for those struggles that are too partial and not revolutionary enough
In his rightful rejection of the modern form of ID politics, he seems in the last chapter to fall back toward a Debsian approach to racism with a different gloss. Debs’ idea was that socialists should not make “ special appeals” to different races. The question of consolidating victimhood is an important one and one that needs to be addressed. However, besides universal advancement there are specific oppressions that particular groups are subject to. Black people have less access to good housing, education, health care, health outcomes and more deaths from police and prisons etc. The Leninist approach is that Marxists should be tribunes of the oppressed and win the working class to take up the special demands of the oppressed. It is true that as many have pointed out, universal demands will have the most impact on the specially oppressed. However, even granting these demands leaves the specially oppressed behind. Though he is not totally clear on this, Haider seems to reject the Leninist strategy for a glossed over and sometimes ultra-left Debsian strategy.
Examples of this problematic approach in the last chapter include page 107 where he says “Surely the racism implied by the banning of a Muslim accessory should be condemned and attacked. But to the extent that it is framed as the defense of the rights of Muslims, the perspective of liberal tolerance traps the Muslims it claims to defend within a victimized identity rather than joining them in a project of collective emancipation.”
This seems inherently contradictory. We support Muslim (or Black or Women’s or….) rights because we believe in equal rights for all. That is, we believe in a universal claim. Yet we need to specify why and how that claimd is not being lived up to. This means, we must call out the racism etc. involved. Part of our goal should be to win white workers to oppose racism etc. We need to explain to white workers why racism is against their interest. This means we have to win people to support particular group’s rights. We should be explicit about this explaining why whites should not just be for equality in the abstract, but instead for specific demands that will raise the oppressed. The later half of Asad’s statement above seems to contradict this .
One of the problems of his writing is that there are concrete examples of his ideas which are excellent but many of his statements are abstract and contain no concrete applications. This leads to ambiguity and seemingly contradictory conclusions. For example, in discussing the approach of the Communist Party in the 30’s, he says that white members concentrated on opposing the racism of whites while Black members focused on opposing reactionary Black Nationalism (61). On page 60, he notes that the CP campaigned against “whiteness”. He also says that “The cost of this indifference to race was that socialism was always competing for recruitment with whiteness.” This signifies support for an explicit concentration on race. This however contradicts his example on Muslims later on.
His approach is also ultra-left. He is so concerned to reject the liberal claim of rights under capitalism that he suggests the only approach to rights of oppressed groups is revolution. Of course, only revolution will fully resolve racism. However, in order to help create the working-class unity that will be needed to have a revolution, we must have a strategy for fighting racism now that has some focus on reform demands. Haider’s approach seems to leave this out, though he does support protests such as the airport protests against the deportation of Muslims. He goes after the easy target of Catherine McKinnon’s support for the outlawing of pornography as an example of what he opposes. He does not however explicitly take up reparations or Affirmative Action which are special demands for a specially oppressed group.
Overall, this book is stimulating even with some problems of analysis
For further discussion on the intersection of race and class:
