Class v. Identity

The class v. identity debate (Jacobin Magazine) has two aspects: factual and narrative. The factual aspect is the reality of disadvantage and discrimination that women and certain ethnic groups face - which is a fact. The narrative aspect is the manner in which this fact is conveyed in public discourse.

The factual aspect of this debate can hardly be contested, as discrimination in employment opportunities, access to housing, or due process is indeed difficult to deny. The narrative aspect forms a spectrum ranging from mostly descriptive to mostly emotive. An example of mostly descriptive narrative is a labor market study that uses quantitative methods to identify the effect of sex or ethnicity on wage disparity. An example of mostly emotive narrative is the talk about "patriarchy" "white supremacy" or "white privilege".

The actual bone of contention in the class v. identity debate is the narrative aspect, although there is a wide spread misconception that the debate is about facts. I sincerely doubt that anyone who bona fide engages in this debate disputes the facts, which as I said are difficult to deny. As I see it, the actual debate centers on the mostly emotive narratives, which the "identity people" love and "class people" hate.

Stated differently, the debate is mostly about cultural tastes not the facts, and as the old saying goes de gustibus non est disputandum. I can certainly understand the emotional appeal of narratives that fly in the face of the official ideology of democracy, equal opportunity, and meritocracy. Crying "the emperor has no clothes" can have a profoundly cathartic effect on those who do the crying.

There is, however, one aspect of these cultural tastes and preferences that can be debated - their effect on political struggle to diminish, if not altogether eliminate discrimination from economy and society. As a matter of fact, the discrimination persists mostly because it is very useful for the oligarchy as it enables the few to control through the divide and conquer tactics. Therefore, the success of the struggle against discrimination critically depends on forming a broad coalition of various social groups against well organized and financed corporate and political oligarchies.

The narratives of discrimination can be judged by the effects they have on that divide and conquer tactic. It is easy to see that the talk about "patriarchy" "white supremacy" or "white privilege" plays right into the hands of the oligarchy because it amplifies divisions among groups that should be united. That talk may sound like music to ivory tower academics who love to wallow in guilt, but ads insult to injury to those who are chronically unemployed or underemployed, work shitty jobs at the whim of their bosses, cannot afford health care, experience the effects of substance abuse and also happened to be white or male.

The talk about "patriarchy" "white supremacy" or "white privilege" is very unlikely to win any supporters from the white working or lower middle classes. In fact, it is likely to alienate them from the left-leaning politics and further push them toward those who, like Trump, appear to "call things as they are." If the left is to win those people it needs to come with its own "call things as they are" narrative of discrimination and injustice, a narrative that may not be as appealing as wallowing in guilt to the cultural studies academics but that is appealing to the proles whose support is indispensable in the political struggle for a better society.