Sarah Cheverton
WVoN co-editor
This week, Dr Rowan Williams went on the record to tell racial, sexual and sexuality equality activists that it?s time for us to quit talking about the differences between us and start talking about what unites us.
You can find coverage from The Telegraph here, although I can?t help but think the headline would have been more accurate if you took out the colon and added an apostrophe?
He started off by acknowledging what such activists have achieved under the banner of ?identity politics?:
?Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last 10 or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome.
?And so minorities of various kinds and ? women began to say ?actually we need to say who we are in our terms not yours? and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.?
No problems there, but then he went on:
?We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.?
Funny, because as a feminist activist, I thought that was exactly what social justice movements already do.
?Identity politics?, as Dr Williams calls it, is not about asserting a politics of difference that demands to be recognised; it?s about demanding an even playing field.
It?s not about calling for recognition of difference; it?s about promoting inclusion on the basis of what we share.
To understand this, you first have to understand that our culture?s dominant viewpoint is that of white, wealthy, middle-aged men.
These men are disproportionately represented in government, the judiciary, business, the media and even (as one glance at Dr Rowan himself might confirm) in religion.
Identity politics is necessary ? and will continue to be ? all the time this is the case.
Because as long as this small social group dominates, it is necessary for everyone outside it to remind them ? and ourselves, and each other ? that being different from white, wealthy, middle aged men does not exclude you from membership of the human race.
My own feminist theory and practice, for example, holds that my uterus makes me different from a man, but it doesn?t exclude me from humanity.
Revolutionary, but definitely not divisive.
From this view, identity politics does not fragment society ? the domination of one social group over others does. Identity politics are not divisive. The social conditions that create these movements ? generation after generation ? are.
I wonder how Dr Williams would feel if we tossed the ball back into his own court and started talking about the divisiveness of ?identity religion??
I?m an atheist and know nothing about religion, matters of faith or how believers should organise themselves or each other. Because of this, I like to leave religion to the people I consider to be experts on the subject ? like believers and clerics.
It?s one of the reasons that while I might often share the beliefs of ?militant atheists? such as Richard Dawkins, I don?t feel the need to outlaw or attack religion, religious beliefs, or religious practices (until they start stepping on the safety or agency of others, that is).
I don?t feel qualified to make statements about anyone?s religious belief, but maybe that?s one of the reasons I?m not Archbishop of Canterbury.
And if Dr Rowan Williams really wants to understand identity politics, perhaps his first step might be to reflect on the fact that if he was a woman, he wouldn?t be Archbishop of Canterbury either.
chapter 11 bankruptcy chapter 11 bankruptcy big ten acc challenge 2011 john wayne gacy amr jack del rio fired jack del rio fired
A recent post by a defecting Googler (at his new and previous home, Microsoft) suggests that a fundamental reordering of Google's priorities has made it far less than the company it once was. A sudden comprehension of the danger posed by Facebook's ever-expanding platform caused the company to enter a sort of berserker state, focusing solely on reinventing social while neglecting or amputating anything that didn't fit into its new mission. Or so the tale goes. There have been times recently when I've felt the need to deflect a few of the slings and arrows trained on Google. This time, however, they are well-deserved. Google's big bet was based on bad instincts, jealousy, and hubris — not the curiosity, experimentation, and agility that have characterized them theretofore. Could Google+ ever have been anything but a failure?
