It might sound radical, but I don't believe that there is a sound basis for a system that supposes that being a member of a group gives you legitimacy to speak upon the needs of that group any more than a non-member does. De facto legitimacy risks mindless trumping of thoughtful contributions made by non-members. But really, this is the problem with tribalism in general. Whenever individuals identify themselves as part of a social group, they are eliminating certain possibilities that cannot co-exist with the definition of that social construct. For example, one issue that plagues feminism, is that no one is a women. The same goes for any social group, actually. But these issues mostly arise when definitions of the group run counter to some sort of common or accepted practice.
If you're skeptical of identitarian deference you might enjoy Bruening's previous article on the matter. http://mattbruenig.com/2013/02/26/what-does-identitarian-def.../ Personally I think identitarian deference is generally a good thing. The problem with avoiding it is that you end up listening to people who have no subjective experience with the matter. People who don't belong to an oppressed group, but still attempt to speak for them, are essentially speculating or working from hearsay rather than from the evidence of experience. This can conceal actual oppressions that are not obvious to those who don't directly deal with them, or even whitewash the struggle into something more palatable to the alien group with which the speaker identifies. This isn't really a problem. Ideas that originate outside the identitarian group still receive exposure and discussion within the group, and will be adopted and expanded upon if they are good ideas. Identitarian deference is not about who can develop "thoughtful contributions", but rather about the consent of the people to whom those ideas apply. In any case, I believe identitarian politics are only useful so far as analyzing and disarming the conflicts and oppressions that are the side-effects of capitalism. All of these conflicts come back to false consciousness instigated by class conflict.De facto legitimacy risks mindless trumping of thoughtful contributions made by non-members.
No, its the internet. We aren't dealing with rational human beings. We're dealing with internet users. What will happen is that ideas will originate outside of the group. If these ideas already agree 100% with the predetermined values of the group, they will then acknowledge the ideas as legitimate. If the ideas do not 100% match, then people in the group will cry how its unfair and oppressive and destroying the community. They will complain until either the group in general comes to the consensus that they are correct or they go off and form their own splinter group based solely on the fact that they disagree with another group that is similar in almost every respect except against one issue. In real life groups of people usually end up with at least some rational discussion, but social mechanics on the internet do not function in that manner. The vast majority of people only talk to the people in their group because they know that their opinions will not be challenged, and so when their opinions are challenged they react violently and personally offended. By and large people on the internet lose about half of their intelligence and replace it with a seething rage.This isn't really a problem. Ideas that originate outside the identitarian group still receive exposure and discussion within the group, and will be adopted and expanded upon if they are good ideas.
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I'm ready to go so far as to say that ID is always bad, but I think it's limits are apparent, and that it can often lead to abuse of the individual. Social groups are often constructed around shared experience, but outwardly defined by physical characteristics or other ones that don't necessarily map. Therefore you can just as easily have 'members' of the group speaking from hearsay. I just have a difficult time granting legitimacy for anything but knowledge and personal experience, and I think ID is a very blunt tool for legitimacy. At its worse, it might be considered stereotyping with good intentions. Verifying legitimacy beyond ID might be more difficult, but groups held to narrower definitions might be less able to do harm around the edges. I might disagree with you, not in substance, but where the root lies; I'm not sure... I see Capitalism as an expression of humans in a specific set of circumstances. I think it (and the caste system that comes with it), can (and will be) be dispelled, but I don't see Capitalism so much as the offender, as our nature is. I see Capitalism as a set of tools that were adaptive to a certain time, but I feel that time is passing. To me, more important than killing Capitalism, is what we will replace it with.In any case, I believe identitarian politics are only useful so far as analyzing and disarming the conflicts and oppressions that are the side-effects of capitalism. All of these conflicts come back to false consciousness instigated by class conflict.
I'm glad some people can extrapolate interesting and thoughtful ideas from tumblr, because for me it's just the internet equivalent of trashy tv.