Journal logo

On the authority of identitarian populism

a study in rhetoric

By Arsh K.SPublished 3 years ago 3 min read
Like

There has been much attrition among the discourse of the social sciences and politics regarding how the question of identity politics, and the difficulties it may cause for the functioning and coordination of institutions, not to mention genres - can be adequately addressed.

To begin with let me demarcate how I have encountered this issue; and state that it was often, unfortunately - a confrontation where I was not even afforded the courtesy of being faced with a proper name. In this day and age of hyper mediation, where all effective communications can take place behind a screen or walls - an adversary has no real need to reveal their identity to you. This is, of course, as true of mobs as it is of individuals.

Within the discourse of the university, which is afforded the advantage of retrospect, reports and previous work - these encounters and the political bodies at play have often been identified; be it by racial, gendered, political or linguistic tags.

Each, in turn, via institutional appraisals and mediations, may be addressed, and this is taking nothing away from the fact of institutional inadequacies faced by any organization.

Yet, encounters, within the circumstances defined earlier are not always between parties known to each other. Here, we see an enactment of what may resemble a testing of allegiances and authority. A kind of attritional exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of undeclared positions.

Here, in this essay, I would like to focus on one means deployed by populism in exercising its authority to a claim. I refer to the exclusivity of a bond.

A now familiar tactic of subaltern rhetoric is to posit an undeclared ground of exploitation shrouded in appeals to class, or institutional access. An explicitly political point of view yet its claim to one's allegiances is menacing for it offers hardly any terms upon which a solidarity may be built. Without this the possibility of understanding is left myopic.

In workers struggles, comparisons of working conditions, regularity of pay, health and safety, leave etc. often predominate proceedings - yet without the bond of a contract, such comparisons remain endeavours between informal parties.

There is much to be said about the kind of jobs produced in capitalist society, as well as the 'primitive accumulation' that takes place for capital to enter a new market. Families, schools, and colleges for instance all face such or derivative crises in one form or the other. At its most radical, the struggle for wages, particularly for work which is not formally recognized, may require to posit a worker's labour as already within an ambit of exploitation. This is particularly true for struggles by students within universities. The student's movement in recent years, not unlike some sections of radical feminists - are demanding wages for school/homework.

Yet the kind of solidarities which can be raised are strictly within the site, workshop, factory floor, classroom, or indeed - confrontation. It hence offers almost no scope for generalization, for capital can easily relocate. It is much easier to move money and investment than it is to move people.

In returning to the authority to which populist discourse appeals to however, particularly when it is presented as an unnamed or anonymous party - the claim often rests on the exclusive right to a tie; which in some cases may even be elevated into a sacred pact uniting a people. This may be over an institution, a literature, a language, or a place. It may also be, as stated earlier - linguistic or gendered.

The precedence that this tie takes in the face of any other bond is what the emphasis rests on and it is precisely this which undermines the possibility of mediating conflicting or divergent interests; ie of negotiation. Here, I believe the preliminary task of even a field report would be to first identitfy the parties concerned, and then register their respective demands. Without this we do not have a dialogue, and consequently a degraded scope for progress.

humanity
Like

About the Creator

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.