The Politics of Academia-Identity Politics

[Aestheticbend]

Identity politics is a fashionable methodology among academicians in contemporary universities, but the methodology's self refuting nature and adherence to an absurd form of essentialism makes it something that needs to end.

The basis of contemporary identity politics is in the idea that "the group" that a person belongs to in society necessarily constitutes their identity and perspective and thus their values. To begin with these theories posit that no objective theory exists because theory has to exist for some particular group and thus objectivity in theory is impossible. But, this assertion about theories is in itself expected to be taken objectively, so how does the person who makes this statement transcend their identity and give an objective analysis of theories. Thus, the entire discipline is based upon a performative contradiction. Also, because of the belief that group identity constitutes values there can be no concensus among a society as there is no neutral framework from which all individuals can flourish. Thus, we need to affirm difference and push for descriptive equality as a means to prevent oppression. However, this is blatently wrong, if a culture or groups politics and values cannot fit into a framework of non-aggression than those values are criminal and should not be facilitated for their own sake. There can be a common basis in society that allows for cultural, racial or gendered practises without giving special rights to the status quo or the minority. Assimiliation and multiculturalism are both forms of value imposition. Values need to be judged by their use and their ability to faciliate full flourishing of human beings, not simply because they reflect a different and thus an authentic identity.

I am just curious if anyone else in this forum feels the same way as I do about identity politics and thus loathes them and wishes that the people in the academy will realize the self refuting premises that such an ideology is based upon.

[ShaiGar]

You mean cliques?

[prometheus]

Sounds like a doctrine cooked up to teach / encourage conformity. IOW, complete, total statist bullshit, designed to kill the individual and strengthen the collective.

[rocksteady]

Sounds like a doctrine cooked up to teach / encourage conformity. IOW, complete, total statist bullshit, designed to kill the individual and strengthen the collective.
I believe this includes the INTJ's "group", just throwing it out there.

also, I believe this thread could do with some examples, it's very difficult to try and figure out what the original poster is trying to say in that paragraph, it's not very clear.

[The Many]

Identity politics is a fashionable methodology among academicians in contemporary universities, but the methodology's self refuting nature and adherence to an absurd form of essentialism makes it something that needs to end.

The basis of contemporary identity politics is in the idea that "the group" that a person belongs to in society necessarily constitutes their identity and perspective and thus their values. To begin with these theories posit that no objective theory exists because theory has to exist for some particular group and thus objectivity in theory is impossible. But, this assertion about theories is in itself expected to be taken objectively, so how does the person who makes this statement transcend their identity and give an objective analysis of theories. Thus, the entire discipline is based upon a performative contradiction. Also, because of the belief that group identity constitutes values there can be no concensus among a society as there is no neutral framework from which all individuals can flourish. Thus, we need to affirm difference and push for descriptive equality as a means to prevent oppression. However, this is blatently wrong, if a culture or groups politics and values cannot fit into a framework of non-aggression than those values are criminal and should not be facilitated for their own sake. There can be a common basis in society that allows for cultural, racial or gendered practises without giving special rights to the status quo or the minority. Assimiliation and multiculturalism are both forms of value imposition. Values need to be judged by their use and their ability to faciliate full flourishing of human beings, not simply because they reflect a different and thus an authentic identity.

I am just curious if anyone else in this forum feels the same way as I do about identity politics and thus loathes them and wishes that the people in the academy will realize the self refuting premises that such an ideology is based upon.

Ones identity, that is to say, ones conscious representation of oneself, is of course entirely subjective. It does far from necessarily have anything to do with social groups, but merely with ones representation of oneself. Of course, group theory applies for many but this theory is falsified in that I personally know a self-admitted solipsist - and naturally there can be no such group as "solipsists", since only one solipsist could possibly exist. I also know people who would under Marxist definition would be working class, but consider themselves liberal and refute the class system. The only real "group" we can consider to exist is human, the rest are mere ideas dependent upon subjective perceptions and subjective perceptions alone. I mean, I valued logic and independence way before I took a test which stated I was an INTJ.

[rocksteady]

I mean, I valued logic and independence way before I took a test which stated I was an INTJ.

there is the sticky question, were you born with it? If so, then group theory has a chance if based on genetic personality types.

[The Many]

there is the sticky question, were you born with it? If so, then group theory has a chance if based on genetic personality types.

Actually it doesn't, since this kind of identity theory (queer theory, marxist class theory etc) essentially says you adapt the values after consciously identifying with a group. Being labelled an INTJ after having valued these things would thus disprove the theory, since I valued them before having seen them grouped.

Of course, I don't believe in genetic personality types either (at least not to some extent, but my ideas here are to be discussed in another topic when I can present them together), nor do I believe in the MBTI cognitive functions. If you ask me the 16 types are little more than broad generalizations of various behaviours - very useful for someone as socially inept as to score, for instance, INTJ or INTP, but purely theoretically it is quite unfounded. Many (no pun intended...) even identify themselves with their types and thus build their identities through the type, which is far from a good thing. But this is getting quite off topic now.

[rocksteady]

do you have some other specific belief about personality? I find that it's easy to dismiss MBTI, but hard to refute. But I also haven't done a whole lot of physch reading as of yet.

rocksteady added, 2 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

Many (no pun intended...) even identify themselves with their types and thus build their identities through the type.

I valued logic and independence way before I took a test which stated I was an INTJ.

Isn't this contradictory? (even excusing the pun)

[The Many]

do you have some other specific belief about personality? I find that it's easy to dismiss MBTI, but hard to refute. But I also haven't done a whole lot of physch reading as of yet.

I have something written, yes, and it deserves a thread of its own. I just tend to procrastinate and forget about getting it posted (ironically enough an INTP trait, whilst I am 78% judging... goes to prove my point). Will try to get it down some day later this week though.

As to being contradictory, I probably wasn't clear enough - I don't identify myself with the INTJ description, there is more to me than four letters. It is, however, a handy description of how I usually interact with others and the world.

[rocksteady]

I have something written, yes, and it deserves a thread of its own. I just tend to procrastinate and forget about getting it posted (ironically enough an INTP trait, whilst I am 78% judging... goes to prove my point). Will try to get it down some day later this week though.

As to being contradictory, I probably wasn't clear enough - I don't identify myself with the INTJ description, there is more to me than four letters. It is, however, a handy description of how I usually interact with others and the world.

I just view the INTJ classification as general classification rules, with people retaining many differences even within their own class type. I don't think it's necessary to "not believe" in the system just because it doesn't describe you perfectly.

I would be very interested in reading whatever you have if you decide to post, I've been like a sponge on all this pysch stuff lately.

[thegnat]

I identify with or "join groups" that fit my values that I already had.

I don't say "I want to join the INTJ group or I want to be a Democrat" and then join the groups and then *adapt* their values.

First I *have* values, I research what groups reflect my values better and then I identify with that group. I may not be 100% something, but I find the group that fits me *best* and I don't change my values or personality to fit one or the other better.

Groups will never be 100% homogeneous except for groups of clones. That's what makes groups interesting. But they are made up of members who are ≥ 50% similar-minded. The other 0-50% dissimilar that a person is in that group can add great variety and can be *anything*.

I don't think groups push conformity - they're respectful of the different members in their group. They help unity and cooperation and working together in a more efficient way.

Now that being said, I think that some groups are less tolerant of dissimilarity. And I think that some groups perhaps become less tolerant of dissimilarity as time goes on and others more tolerant. And then some start pushing conformity if they become less tolerant. In my personal opinion, some churches are this way. That I'm sure didn't used to be. The people then have a choice: Conform and go away from their values (if they now don't fit) OR exit that group and join a group closer to their beliefs.

I also think that louder spoken groups push for more conformity within themselves so that they can present 1 message and 1 message only. It presents a more unified front if everyone believes the same thing. Now that is a very difficult thing to do. With lots of people, but people are quite good at persuasion and some people are more apt to be persuaded than others. I believe this is the reason the religious right, in my opinion is pushing for conformity. It is getting more active and speaking out more, so it needs a unified front.

As for people in academia pushing this - I think that is definitely not true. Our school is *very* liberal, but our political science professors are...conservative. They're trying to *challenge* your beliefs, think more about them, let you see the other side, to form your complete opinion looking at both sides rather than just one side. I had a liberal political science prof in a very conservative school. In my opinion schools push for individuality. I feel mine does at least.

[prometheus]

I believe this includes the INTJ's "group", just throwing it out there.

also, I believe this thread could do with some examples, it's very difficult to try and figure out what the original poster is trying to say in that paragraph, it's not very clear.

I was questioning why was this being taught. I agree with aesthetic that the application of this thought disproves the theory itself.

[rocksteady]

I was questioning why was this being taught. I agree with aesthetic that the application of this thought disproves the theory itself.

But no thoughts on the preceding discussion?

[prometheus]

But no thoughts on the preceding discussion?

Nope, INTJ's ability to admit not knowing what they don't know, escape parachute deployed. I'm not a psychologist nor an educator, I don't even play one on the net. I wouldn't be able to back up any argument I put forward.

[The Many]

I just view the INTJ classification as general classification rules, with people retaining many differences even within their own class type. I don't think it's necessary to "not believe" in the system just because it doesn't describe you perfectly.

I would be very interested in reading whatever you have if you decide to post, I've been like a sponge on all this pysch stuff lately.

Then we are pretty much on the same wavelength :). To me "INTJ" is only a handy description to where I may mentally be coming from, in the same way that I could say I am Swedish to describe my geographical nationality - I don't identify with either.

There is more to not believing in it than not describing just me personally though; for instance look at the difference between a well-developed ENFJ and and an under-developed ENFJ - and then try to somehow tell me they share the same personality, or even cognitive, type.

[rocksteady]

There is more to not believing in it than not describing just me personally though; for instance look at the difference between a well-developed ENFJ and and an under-developed ENFJ - and then try to somehow tell me they share the same personality, or even cognitive, type.

Hmm that is interesting, I don't know the personality types of many "real" people yet, could you describe some of their differing behaviors?

[The Many]

Hmm that is interesting, I don't know the personality types of many "real" people yet, could you describe some of their differing behaviors?

A well-developed ENFJ is for instance very nice towards everyone and accepts different opinions, whilst a less well-developed ENFJ invents moral rules and makes everyone abide them, but if that doesn't happen they will end up in a major emotional crisis. What is to say these two people share the same personality? Nothing - they don't share the same personality. And not even necessarily the same thought process; perhaps one of them uses Si (assuming these categories exist, of course - if you ask me they don't), whilst the other one doesn't.

There are really too many personality quirks out there to fit into these few, specific MBTI categories - also look at this thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I posted yesterday.