Critical race theory and the identity left presented themselves as updated anti-racism, but underneath the jargon was a clean break with liberal individualism.
Great to reread this! One thing it got me pondering... I do have doubts that the individual is the best unit for most analyses. Group identities are incredibly important. But I don't think they are exclusively ethnic or racial, and people have many identities, some stronger and some weaker.
I think a lab-perfect liberalism might underestimate the group identity impact.
Can you relate that to specific examples such as those Yglesias gives here? If one makes social groups the unit of analysis and reducing inequality the goal, it logically follows to take steps to worsen the quality of public education for white students, for example, or to eliminate testing that reveals group disparities, and promote alternative methods for selecting/elevating students based on racial/ethnic group identity and the perception of those groups as oppressor vs. oppressed, rather than qualities specific to an individual applicant. I tend to think that these policies are a bad thing and agree with Yglesias that it doesn't actually make any individuals better off. Substituting a different group identity (other than race/ethnicity) doesn't make it any better. I don't want to assume that's what you're saying, but without reference to specific cases/issues, I really can't tell.
I'm not going for the full oppressor/oppressed setup, but more like the "what's the matter with Kansas" point that people seem to make policy decisions beyond their individual interests.
I'm a well credentialed person who aligns with "experts" and that can form my opinions more than personal incentive. But also, I'm from a rural community so I have an identity that cares for rural concerns even though they are no longer my own direct concerns. In local politics, I am in a suburb where the tension is between old-timers and new arrivals, and I side with the latter as a group on issues where I might not individually have an opinion.
An analysis that only looks at my individual interests won't understand why I support free trade in services, gun rights, or bike lanes. Those things aren't really for me, they are for the groups I identify with.
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. It seems like it's not necessarily a difference of positions as a difference of what level of human experience one is focused on. My sense is that the classical liberal focus on the individual is more at the level of where society establishes/implements institutional policies. The idea, as I understand it, is that those rules should not extend or withhold rights based on which group identity(ies) the person holds. It seems totally fine, normal, and compatible with classical liberalism for people to have their opinions/policy views shaped by their own group identities, as in the example you give.
I can’t figure out if this is soft-headed or dishonest.
Do you really think socialism is antithetical to liberalism? That would make one of you.
Do you really think that liberalism’s central tenent is “be polite.” How dreadfully naive and inadequate.
CRT challenges notions of equality because it has thus far not existed. It doesn’t argue for inequality. It suggests you have a close look at what you think is equal because it might not be.
It also challenges objectivity because absolute metaphysical objectivity doesn’t exist and taking action in the name of objectivity has been used to create many historical injustices and atrocities. This is a central tenent of liberal philosophy for a few centuries now.
It doesn’t argue against free speech. It argues that someones response to your free speech is also free speech. And it argues that some speech is inherently harmful. Again, a central part of liberal philosophy since at least John Stuart Mill and also an inherent concept in common law since at least the 16th century.
These critiques are not liberal critiques. They are conservative critiques.
CRT is far from perfect and it is possible to find weird, awkward, or incomplete ideas in just about any philosophy, theory, movement, etc. But the idea that CRT is somehow antithetical to liberalism is downright bizarre. Just because MAGA coalesce around hating it when people talk about race is no reason to attack your own. If they really are your own.
I like to call this sort of thing "Costanza politics". If traditional forms of oppression required "people of color" to be submissive to whites, the answer is to do the opposite: require whites to be submissive to them. Same for men and women, straights and gays...
Great to reread this! One thing it got me pondering... I do have doubts that the individual is the best unit for most analyses. Group identities are incredibly important. But I don't think they are exclusively ethnic or racial, and people have many identities, some stronger and some weaker.
I think a lab-perfect liberalism might underestimate the group identity impact.
Can you relate that to specific examples such as those Yglesias gives here? If one makes social groups the unit of analysis and reducing inequality the goal, it logically follows to take steps to worsen the quality of public education for white students, for example, or to eliminate testing that reveals group disparities, and promote alternative methods for selecting/elevating students based on racial/ethnic group identity and the perception of those groups as oppressor vs. oppressed, rather than qualities specific to an individual applicant. I tend to think that these policies are a bad thing and agree with Yglesias that it doesn't actually make any individuals better off. Substituting a different group identity (other than race/ethnicity) doesn't make it any better. I don't want to assume that's what you're saying, but without reference to specific cases/issues, I really can't tell.
I'm not going for the full oppressor/oppressed setup, but more like the "what's the matter with Kansas" point that people seem to make policy decisions beyond their individual interests.
I'm a well credentialed person who aligns with "experts" and that can form my opinions more than personal incentive. But also, I'm from a rural community so I have an identity that cares for rural concerns even though they are no longer my own direct concerns. In local politics, I am in a suburb where the tension is between old-timers and new arrivals, and I side with the latter as a group on issues where I might not individually have an opinion.
An analysis that only looks at my individual interests won't understand why I support free trade in services, gun rights, or bike lanes. Those things aren't really for me, they are for the groups I identify with.
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. It seems like it's not necessarily a difference of positions as a difference of what level of human experience one is focused on. My sense is that the classical liberal focus on the individual is more at the level of where society establishes/implements institutional policies. The idea, as I understand it, is that those rules should not extend or withhold rights based on which group identity(ies) the person holds. It seems totally fine, normal, and compatible with classical liberalism for people to have their opinions/policy views shaped by their own group identities, as in the example you give.
I can’t figure out if this is soft-headed or dishonest.
Do you really think socialism is antithetical to liberalism? That would make one of you.
Do you really think that liberalism’s central tenent is “be polite.” How dreadfully naive and inadequate.
CRT challenges notions of equality because it has thus far not existed. It doesn’t argue for inequality. It suggests you have a close look at what you think is equal because it might not be.
It also challenges objectivity because absolute metaphysical objectivity doesn’t exist and taking action in the name of objectivity has been used to create many historical injustices and atrocities. This is a central tenent of liberal philosophy for a few centuries now.
It doesn’t argue against free speech. It argues that someones response to your free speech is also free speech. And it argues that some speech is inherently harmful. Again, a central part of liberal philosophy since at least John Stuart Mill and also an inherent concept in common law since at least the 16th century.
These critiques are not liberal critiques. They are conservative critiques.
CRT is far from perfect and it is possible to find weird, awkward, or incomplete ideas in just about any philosophy, theory, movement, etc. But the idea that CRT is somehow antithetical to liberalism is downright bizarre. Just because MAGA coalesce around hating it when people talk about race is no reason to attack your own. If they really are your own.
Missed this article the first time around, thanks for the repost.
A microaggression is sort of like a micropenis. If you can barely perceive it, it doesn't really count.
I like to call this sort of thing "Costanza politics". If traditional forms of oppression required "people of color" to be submissive to whites, the answer is to do the opposite: require whites to be submissive to them. Same for men and women, straights and gays...