On salient identities

I have size ten feet. This is a biological fact which I cannot change. In some contexts, it’s of utmost importance, such as in a shoe shop. In other contexts, though, it’s irrelevant.

This might sound utterly trivial. But it’s why I agree with Phil that David Goodhart’s talk of “legitimate ethnic interest” exudes “moral foulness.”

The thing is, we all have multiple identities: I’m tall, white, Oxford-educated, bald, heterosexual, male, bourgeois with a working class background, an economist, an atheist with a Methodist upbringing. And so on and on. The question is not: what are my identities? But rather: which of these identities matter? Amartya Sen has written:

A Hutu labourer from Kigali may be pressured to see himself only as a Hutu and incited to kill Tutsis, and yet he is not only a Hutu, but also a Kigalian, a Rwandan, an African, a labourer and a human being. Along with the recognition of the plurality of our identities and their diverse implications, there is a critically important need to see the role of choice in determining the cogency and relevance of particular identities which are inescapably diverse. (Identity and Violence, p4)

Even if you accept biological essentialism, the question of which of our multiple identities becomes salient is surely in large part a social construct. In Sen’s example, it took propaganda and pressure to raise the prominence of Hutu identity to genocidal importance. In the UK today, there’s a prominent identity divide between Leavers and Remainers, but this was much less significant a few years ago.

Not only does biology not suffice to determine the salience of identities, nor even does economics. For example, tall people earn more than short ones and good-looking people more than ugly ones, but politics isn’t divided along these lines. The converse is also the case; the isn’t much economic difference between the English and Scots, but there is a political difference.   

Marxists have long been aware of this. We believe the working class has distinct economic interests. But the job of getting them to see this - of building class consciousness - is a tough one. Such awareness requires industrial and political action.

Which brings me to my beef with Goodhart’s piece. No good can come from raising the salience of racial or ethnic identities. I say so for four reasons:

 - It’s not obvious that I have much common interest with (say) an unskilled 20-year-old – which of course is not to say our interests necessarily conflict. Attempts to identify us as a common group will generally involve distinguishing us from other ethnic groups. I see no upside in this, and plenty of downside.

 - If we must think in racial terms, whites are the predominant group in the UK: yes, we should ignore the bleating of some imbecile rightists. Asking a dominant group to assert its self-interest will increase inequality and domination.

 - One of the easiest ways people have of conning themselves is to come to think that their interests are morally legitimate. Slaver-owners, for example, found it very easy to persuade themselves that slavery was justified by blacks’ supposed inferiority. Inviting white people to pursue their interests almost inevitably means inviting them to believe in their moral superiority. This must of course be rejected.

 - Salience is a zero-sum game. If ethnic divisions become more salient, others thus become less so. Not least of these divisions is that between rich and poor. The politics of ethnicity thus serves, in practice, to defend and widen class inequalities. As LBJ said: “if you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket.”

My point here is so simple and obvious that I’m embarrassed to say it. We’re all different in all kinds of ways. Which of these differences matter, and by how much, is a social construct. Ideally, ethnic differences would matter no more than differences in shoe size. Any attempt to raise their significance moves us away from this ideal and is thus regressive.

Comments

[Patrick Kirk]

Its perfectly reasonable to vote against policies if the result of those policies include you being disadvantaged. Being a member of an ethnic monority exposes you to a range of risks varying from genocide to police harassment to social exclusion. So its reasonable and logical for whites in the US or for blacks in South Africa to vote against increased immigration.

[ADam Dutton]

This sort of arguement was JUST going through my head as I looked at tweets from women about trans women.

I was looking at what they were saying to each other and all I could think was how assinine it all looked. Women and trans-women face practical difficulties which can be solved which have nothing to do which what sort of privileged either has received or frankly any of the identity issues they're yelling at each other about.

So on the one hand - we can also avoid raising the significance of differences. On the other, if you want to have "all women shortlists" that becomes a practical problem in which differences between men and women and women and trans-women have to be dealt with.

Can you do that without raising the significance of those differences? Perhaps you can - if you simply contend that it is not so much about righting injustice as fixing the basic need of parliament or the police being representative.

See the thing that has nagged me about all of the identity politics is that it all comes from academia. I can see how if you are going to have an academic discussion about culture and identity and their impacts on social justice you might need to construct ideas of "intersectionality" or come up with ideas of "privilege" and have an interesting debate. They frame the debate but they don't actually deal with the messy bits of daily life. It isn't always useful to think about terms used to talk about society at an abstract level for public policy development let alone individual lives.

Fundamentally I'm trying to say something very simple I think. Sociology is full of even more idiots than economics and it is all their fault.

[Mark]

It seems to me that identity is relevant only inasmuch as it is a proxy for advantage, or disadvantage. However, since the correlation between demographic factors and the privilege or its absence is poor, it is better to ignore the former and focus on the latter.

Should you need an example, I give you the Bank of England's recent appointment of Charlotte Hogg as Deputy Governor. The crusty old men of Threadneedle Street no doubt congratulated themselves on the expected diversity ticks that came with promoting someone who is both aged below 50 and female.

In doing so, they overlooked the fact that hers was perhaps the least diverse appointment made by the organisation for a generation, such are her economic and social advantages and her links with (Tory) politics and the financial sector.

Hogg is the granddaughter of Lord Hailsham, one of Thatcher's Cabinet Ministers and a hereditary peer. Her father is a Viscount and a former Cabinet Minister under John Major. On the maternal side, her Grandfather, Baron John Archibald Boyd-Carpenter, was himself both a Tory Treasury Minister and the offspring of a Tory MP while her mother, Baroness Sarah Hogg, headed Major's Policy Unit.

As a result of her mother's non-executive directorship of the Financial Conduct Authority and her brother's role in the strategy unit of Barclays Bank, she is reclused from significant chunks of what would otherwise be her job at the BoE.

Had the Bank hired a fiftysomething white male it might have been accused of discrimination, yet a candidate with those demographic characteristics from an economically disadvantaged background, educated somewhere other than Oxford and in a subject unrelated to PPE, might well have been better placed to challenge organisational groupthink, advocate for those whose interests are under-represented within the organisation and contribute cognitive diversity.

It's my view that the Left, on both sides of the Atlantic, took a wrong turning in the 1970s when it began favouring demographics over privilege. Yes, the traditional working class was and is in numerical decline; but there are many people who might once have been defined as middle class who lack economic and cultural advantage, whose interests are poorly represented by mainstream politicians. It is this failure that has led to the rise of populism; the solution is to discard old assumptions and advocate for these disadvantaged groups.

[Ralph Musgrave]

Lefties are a hoot. If you suggest Tibetans have a right to preserve their identity, culture, way of life, etc lefties go all dewey eyed. But if you suggest whites, or a particular white country should do the same, lefties start foaming at the mouth.

I.e. lefties are racist: the adopt different policies for some races as compared to others.

It also illustrates another leftie characteristic: about their only way of attracting attention to themselves is vandalising their own neighbourhood (i.e. their own culture)- much like, and as dumb as graffiti artists.

[ADam Dutton]

Ralph. "Lefties" don't "foam at the mouth" over the suggestion that whites protect their culture. We find the idea preposterous because white - especially anglo-american white culture is so fantastically pervasive that it is barely even considered to be white culture. It will stand for hundreds of years if society does at all. On that basis any attempts to "protect white culture" is in fact the cowardly, often aggressive, whining of cretins. If my culture is under threat I'll defend it but it is doing fine.

[ADifferentChris]

Patrick, did you even read Chris's post?

Perhaps if I rephrase you, you'll catch on:

"Its perfectly reasonable to vote against policies if the result of those policies include you being disadvantaged [sic]. Having a large shoe size exposes you to a range of risks varying from genocide to police harassment to social exclusion. So its reasonable [sic] and logical for bigfeet in YonderLand or for smallfeet in OverThere to vote against increased immigration."

See? It's nonsense. Your original comment relied on salient, unspoken, presumed shared, prejudice.

[ADifferentChris]

Ralph, Tibetans aren't white? I see. *Scribbles note*. It's so hard keeping track of who is what these days. As you're an expert on race, can I run these past you?

Russians: white or no? Wrong side of the Iron Curtain and all, but then so was East Germany. What if they're from Vladivostok?

Spanish: white? They look a bit brown under some lights. Then again, so does my Aunt if she falls asleep on the beach.

Greeks: white? I once met a Cypriot and mistook her for a Turkish Cypriot. Damn, that was embarrasing.

Poles: white? Or off-white?

Londoners: white? Or something... else, maybe white-minded, if they're from non-white countries?

[Dennis Smith]

I’m not sure that this discussion can even get started without more clarity about ethnicity. What is it? What language game are we playing here? Is ethnicity objective or subjective? Natural or cultural? Voluntary or determined? And determined by what or whom?

Once upon a time it was relatively easy to talk about race, presented as a biological fact of nature. Then scientific analysis – not least DNA analysis – demolished the idea of distinct races within Homo sapiens that are congruent with our traditional perceptions and controversialists retreated into the marshlands of ethnicity, used to mean pretty well anything they chose.

The idea of a single white ethnicity, like a single white culture, is particularly dodgy (a naive attempt, perhaps, to avoid the R word). Are Finns ethnically identical to Greeks? ‘White British’ may sound more promising but plenty of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people would have doubts. ‘White Scottish’ would raise eyebrows among some Gaels. Ethnicity tends to dissolve when probed. Different categories are being jumbled up here, including nation, state, language and culture as well as ethnicity.

Given the ways in which cultures mingle, merge and overlap, and the ways in which their meaning is contested, we are unlikely to find any neutral, mutually acceptable way of defining them.

When not covertly racist, talk of ‘white culture’, like ‘western civilisation’, sometimes sounds like a euphemism for Christianity. Where does this leave the Jews? Or black Christians for that matter?

[Merijn Knibbe]

Nationalism has been the most salient identity policy in history

[Phil]

Thanks for the endorsement, Chris (D)! "Patrick Kirk" left the identical comment on my blog post; I deleted it as spam on the basis of the URL.

Ralph: if you read my blog post you'll find the argument(s) you're making rebutted in some detail.

[Ralph Musgrave]

ADifferentChris,

Thanks for your amazingly insightful point that whereas some countries / races are clearly white, others are kind of half way in between white and black (Negro). I think the average five year old has worked that one out.

By “white” I meant “traditionally” white, i.e. European, Russian, etc, though obviously that simple one word category has become more complex with recent large scale immigration: e.g. to London which you mention.

There again, my guess is the average five year old will have understood what I meant.

[Ralph Musgrave]

Adam,

So Sharia law, which is steadily expanding its sphere of influence in the UK is no threat to UK law? Try telling that to a Muslim woman who is seeking divorce in the UK, and wants the matter dealt with under UK law, and who is being threatened with a beating by her relatives unless she does what she’s told.

Halal meat is now dominant in hundreds of UK schools.

And what about the threats to kill or actual murders of authors and cartoonists who incur the displeasure of Muslims? Literature is pretty much the basis of any culture. That’s why Muslims target it.

Of course the total collapse of Western culture will not happen in the next ten or twenty years, but given present trends it might do at some point. Turkey is now regressing towards the 13th century. I don’t want the UK making even the slightest move in the “Turkey” direction.

[David]

Ralph...
And I hope the "average".... here we go again... 5 year old (not much doubt there) will realize that the world (you know!... where we live) will undoubtedly be consumed in the towering inferno if they listen only to your entirely "traditional" drivel.
My wife is a teacher. Yes, children are influenced often at an early age by their parents...... of course.

The fight will be long and hard, but I really do hope that you lose.
You really should stay on the HYS twatter feeds and leave us alone.
The "snowflakes" are not for turning!

[gastro george]

@Ralph - "That’s why Muslims target it."

Where to start? As Phil's piece points out, the term "Muslims" is doing an awful amount of work there.

[aragon]

There is a report, not just an article:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/racial-self-interest-is-not-racism/

moral foulness seems like an attempt to close down debate. Just like the use of words like bigotry, racism and xenophobia.

I am secure enough in my views to not care what others think. You can ignore the issue but enough people disagree with you the issue will be addressed eventually.

The problem is the moral or lack of morals and the relativism of the political elite, who are out of touch with the people and reality.

We never wanted mass immigration and we don't want more. And this is a majority view and not just among whites.

Muslims don't share your views, to add fuel to the fire!

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675

"Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007))."

[Steven Clarke]

Is this not a reason for the decline of the social democratic left and the rise of the populist right?

When we were more ethnically homogeneous, class identity was more salient. With more diversity and cultural fragmentation, racial and cultural (conservative or cosmopolitan) identities become more salient.

Therefore, focussing on ethnicity will backfire.

[Steve]

If you encourage ethnic minorities to vote tribally, rather than for whoever they see as the best person for the job, you shouldn't be surprised if native people vote tribally too when they start feeling like a minority in their own country. Hence Trump, etc.

[aragon]

Trevor Phillips on the issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/britain-sleepwalking-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Race-and-Faith.pdf

[gastro george]

My God, Policy Exchange, FrontPage and Trevor Phillips in one post.

"When we were more ethnically homogeneous"

When was that? Before the Huguenots? Or the Normans? Angles/Saxons/Danes? Or ...?

[Phil]

aragon - I read the report as well as the article before I wrote my blog post. Eric Kaufmann is a bright guy - I'm not saying anything about David Goodhart - but the research described in that report is a classic example of question-begging. Respondents were asked to classify certain behaviours as either "racism" or "racial self-interest, which is not racism" - a distinction which is untenable even on the basis of Kaufmann & Goodhart's own definitions of "racial self-interest", let alone the standard contemporary definition of racism (as reflected in the OED). Garbage in, garbage out. Incidentally, Goodhart characterised his idiosyncratic definition of racism as "the normal definition", for no reason that I can see except that it suited him; he's since criticised me for relying on 'dictionary definitions'!

[Squirrel Nutkin]

"Halal meat is now dominant in hundreds of UK schools."

I think we'd all hate to be dominated by meat! (Probably something to do with what Enoch said about who's got the whip hand.)

Still at least now we can sack all those head teachers claiming high salaries for their leadership skills, and just let the meat rule the roost. It'll make a nice change from worrying about fluoridation polluting our precious bodily fluids.

[aragon]

Squirrel Nutkin misses several points:

* Animal Welfare - Stunning of Halal meat is not permitted.

* Employment rights - only a believer can prepare Halal Meat.

* I want eat prepared to standards and processes not imposed by religious fiat.

* The UK Government (David Cameron) refuse to label Halal meat so consumers can make their own choices about the above.

Phil.

Question-begging!
You want to play word games and assume that all racism is by definition bad.

If you won't address the real world issues, then there is no point in pursuing the issues.

Like Gastro George, you just wish to smear anyone who raises the real issues.

Apparently that includes Black and Asian Christian (Arch) Bishops, and Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism

"Renewed controversy on the subject came to the fore when Andrew Neather—a former adviser to Jack Straw, Tony Blair and David Blunkett—claimed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing mass immigration into Britain, to "change the face of Britain forever". This alleged conspiracy has become known by the sobriquet "Neathergate".

According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that "mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural". Neather went on to say that "the policy was intended—even if this wasn't its main purpose — to rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date"."

This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[72] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multiculturalism for political ends."

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-sir-john-harington
"treason doth never prosper" complete the quote "what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Social attitudes and language change.

You just don't want to address the real issues.

[aragon]

I dislike Katie Hopkins opinions/politics.
But I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the reports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269576/KATIE-HOPKINS-reports-Scandi-lib-paradise-Sweden.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4276942/Swedish-town-migrants-laugh-laws-despise.html

"I asked Mattias Karlsson, leader of the Swedish Democrats - currently leading in the polls - why other politicians refuse to acknowledge the problems right in front of their eyes.

He explained that to accept there is a problem would mean accepting nearly 80 years of liberal thinking was wrong. That multiculturalism doesn't work, that mass immigration does not lead to integration, that Sweden has made a big mistake.

A stranger came up to me in a coffee shop to say much the same thing. She had read my first report. She implored me to shout louder.
She said Sweden cannot go on pretending it is some kind of utopia. That it is on a path to fail, that her friends fear Sweden is being overwhelmed."

[Patrick Kirk]

ADifferentChris - if foot size was indeed a criterion by which discrimation takes place, then it would indeed be legitimate for people of similiar foot size to organise and vote for policies that make sure they are not disadvantages. Sort of like the NAACP in the US did for people suffering racial discrimination. And if those policies include reducing immigration, that would be perfectly legitimate.

[aragon]

Official Swedish Report disputed?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4289770/Muslim-Brotherhood-creating-parallel-society-Sweden.html

"The Muslim Brotherhood is creating a 'parallel social structure' in Sweden with the help of 'political elites' who foster a culture of silence, a damning government report has found."

http://www.msb.se/Upload/Kunskapsbank/Studier/Muslimska_Brodraskapet_i_Sverige_DNR_2107-1287.pdf

[ADifferentChris]

Patrick, it ain't. And neither does eye colour, pronunciation, hair style, music preference, skin albedo, and the rest have to be. The anti-immigration conclusion is spurious. Read Phil (*blush*).

[ADifferentChris]

Aragon, by Jove, you're right! Multiculturalism is a fail. I knew letting those Saxons over en masse was a mistake. And the way they breed with Angles, too! *Sigh*. Kick 'em out, I say. And those assorted Vikings. I blame the Romans, personally. Soft, mouth-foaming liberals. Bringing over thousands of people from God knows where - Algeria, Syria, Sarmatia. Did you know Sarmatian women breed with horses? They're destroying our culture, I say. We Trinovantes should never have allied with the Iceni. Now, we're being overwhelmed.

Wait. You are Trinovantes, aren't you? I'll check with Ralph. He's the expert.

[gastro george]

FYI, these are Muslims: https://twitter.com/_Cafe/status/839365204022525952

[Brian]

This was the best blog you've written, and they are generally very good. It has really set me thinking about my own multiple identities - and the ones I choose to present. I would like to make a few points:
1. Very few, possibly none, of my identities were not created elsewhere and assigned to me. I'm a Welsh, Catholic, male, Oxbridge-educated, middle class, heterosexual, blah blah blah. Nothing in my construction is my own. This is a rather woeful situation.
2. That part of my identity which I present at any one time and for public consumption is always, I suspect, to elicit some sort of advantage. If one realizes this is true of others, you must ask what they are after - even if benign (such as a friendly chat). Ref man of the people Farage.
3. The moment my heart turned against Theresa May was when she used the term "Citizen of Nowhere". This hurt me deeply. I'm proud of my Welsh heritage, proud of my and my family's achievements for Britain - a global people. Will Theresa May now only celebrate the parochial - that which she can control? A little like Captain Mainwaring, stuck on the home front in a Dad's Army junta. In that moment, I saw in her soul an authoritarian copper-bottomed cvnt. Fuck her and her school headmistress sensibilities.

[Patrick Kirk]

ADifferentChris - I read Phil's article beofre Chris' and posted my comment there. He just rehashes the same old "everyone who disagrees with me is disgusting" line. Naturally he deleted my comment.

[gastro george]

"Naturally he deleted my comment."

He objected to the link from your name that points to some Pokemon shite, and asked to to re-post without it.

[gastro george]

I'm still trying to work out what my "white identity" is. Am I a stoned hippie, a gun-toting American redneck, a scally from Liverpool or a tea-drinker from Midsomer? But I guess that's my privilege, I can get to choose. Whereas "the other", blacks and Muslims, don't have that privilege (from our perspective), they're a monolith, and all lining up to oppress us.

[Phil]

aragon - David Goodhart shares the assumption that "all racism is by definition bad", which is why *he* plays word games in an unsuccessful attempt to redefine some forms of racism as not being racism.

As for the "real issues", the only issue you seem to be concerned about is reducing the number of non-White and/or non-Christian people in the UK, for no other reason than that their presence offends you. Which is of course racism.

[aragon]

Phil
Your comments say more about you than me.
All you do is call people racist. Perhaps everyone is racist but that doesn't solve your problem. But I a really indifferent to your opinion...

While in the real world.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10016/britain-terrorism

Yes Social Cohesion is just another way to frame racism (as is any comment on immigration other than support and virtue signalling)

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism-analysis-of-offences-and-attacks-in-the-uk-1998-2015/

ADifferentChris
Don't think I have forgiven the Danish and Norman French for 1066 either!

[Patrick Kirk]

gastro george - I did repost. It was deleted. The guy just doesn't like people who disagree with him. Its his blog so lets not dwell on it :-)

Phil; you seem only interested in your own almost religious viewpoint. I've lived as a member of an ethnic minority. It can be very unpleasant. Please, consider for a second of the chance that people might have experiences that mean they don't agree with you.

[gastro george]

@aragon - that would be the Henry Jackson Society that's the UK mouthpiece for the likes of neoconservative and islamophobe William Kristol, cheerleaders of the invasion of Iraq, etc. Very dispassionate and neutral.

@Patrick - "I've lived as a member of an ethnic minority. It can be very unpleasant." The solution to which is not to oppress other minorities for fear of becoming one. The end result of that, as history shows, is centuries of conflict.

[aragon]

@Gastro george

The implications of the Swedish report is that the Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in Treason. In a direct challenge to the Swedish state they wish to establish (semi-?) autonomous Muslim controlled areas within the sovereign state of Sweden.

I am not familiar with the Henry Jackson Society or William Kristol. The summary appears neutral. I am now aware of your warning and alert to any bias.

[aragon]

The Norwegians were involve in 1066 not the Danes.
All these Vikings look the same to me.

Just a correction.

[Patrick Kirk]

gastro george - I agree 100%. But that isn't really the topic. The topic is whether or not people are entitled to object to immigration if they believe it causes them harm. I think the idea of a democracy is that people vote to make their lives better and are entitled to their opinions on what does and does not do just that.

Anyway I suspect that if we were face to face, this conversation would take less than a minute before we ordered a second round of drinks so I'll stop now :-)

[gastro george]

@aragon - I have actually worked in Sweden, visit there regularly, and have friends there. I asked one of them about your link to the MSB.

So he says that the Daily Mail report is rather overblown (quelle surprise). It's true that the MB are organising and proselytising in Sweden - but of course that is what they do - it would be like asking the Jehovah's Witnesses not to do the same. But there is no parallel state, nor a threat of one. Believing anything from the Sweden Democrats is like believing Le Pen or Wouters. If you want to do that, then fine.

He did say, however, that there is a great reluctance to discuss immigration and it's (mainly financial) costs in the mainstream political class. That's not exactly a cover-up, but it is a problem. Partly it's a fear that it will play into the hands of the SDs. But partly it's not. And Sweden is a very conformist society, and there is great social pressure not to "step out of line". So essentially there is a failure of communication, and the main political parties don't know what to do about it.

That doesn't actually make "the Muslim threat" real, though.