The Fallacy of Identity Logic in Liberalism

(sent to lawcourts)
 
... I think it would be more incoherent to argue "two wrongs" or to argue from idolatry.

Besides, as long as we are talking coherency in belief,  I think it would be more helpful to ask ourselves a couple of questions: (a) what is ideology; and (b) why doesn't the bottom paragraph qualify as one? It seems to me that groups who argue for a group-access policy fundamentally offer a charged belief system. And that if this issue were ever properly inspected -- you know, like we do all hegemony in the academy (cough, cough) -- that we might find that there are more unitary tasks and attributes present in all of us, and that we should find those tasks by looking inside of people and not at their shells. 

For any attribute you find that "women" have, I'm sure you will find it in various formats in all sorts of men, as is the case in reverse. One of the most ridiculous things about this sort of team logic is what it does to people like me. There are literally hoards of people who get thrown into "power groups" when they have nothing to do with the stereotypes of those groups -- just as people purporting to be for "women" very often have traits and beliefs nothing like those for whom they claim to speak. Just as ecological fallacy is a fallacy about averages in statistics, so too is this group-politics rhetoric. 

We need to teach people that they get selected because of traits, not appearances. And if "experiences" count, they have to be delineated rather than just assumed to accompany a chromosome. And once we delineate them, we are going to find that some Appalachian males have them too, as do gay males, as do Iraq war veterans.

Identity Politics, Ideology, Students and Selfishneess

(sent to law courts in response to a question about whether students get charged up over affirmative action and other kinds of race issues. The original poster said his classes have seen lessened interest) 

I have had an opposite experience.

I taught 90 kids a pop at Penn State for 3 years in a class that tackled all of these sorts of issues. In fact, I created the class. One of the pedagogical approaches I used was to be critical of all positions (left or right0. In other words, to challenge all the views on the subject. I found it exceedingly difficult to reach common ground. Not only would barriers exist along the lines of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth, but also across ideological grounds that existed for the very purpose of roping groups or interests together. In fact, if you set about in the class to go for "the center" -- as in, judge people as individuals, not as groups --  that alone was seen as mischief  by those indulged with what you call "identity politics." The situation here in Dayton is very, very different -- but not at all "better" (and for reasons I don't want to get into).

From my perspective, this IS a generational issue, but not as you suspect. I sense that kids construct ideologies about these things based on whether it suits their interests. If you are heading out of college and into the job market, you will like preferences that help you but not those that hinder. This would be consistent with a youth culture that has everything, right-now, instantaneously -- and that frequently uses the word "bias" to mean "I didn't get what I wanted." It doesn't help professors inculcate students with a world view defined by "politics, selfishness, passions and ideology" rather than things like ethics, character, rule, virtue, justification and so forth. In fact, if the professors don't think these things exist, why on earth would students not be simply bratty and self-centered about how to stand in line for jobs?

If you look at the exchange between Paul and Scott, all that really existed was a battle of world views. One view says there must be discrimination if a pool doesn't look right; another might say "not unless we have it under a microscope." 

Somewhere down the line, people have to lay down their arms (including professors). I don't think "identity politics" helps us do that. We have to see inside of individuals. We have to transcend cultural form. We should be letting students see the age they live in and that they are existing within a constructed cultural existence. If they could get a bird's eye perspective -- be more philosophical and less combative -- the situation could be approached with more of a level head.  We also have to listen to them when they talk of unfairness, no matter what it is. And we have to be more Rortarian in terms of getting others to see what another's life is like.  And I think we also have to make sure that everyone -- from Appalachians to those in south-side Chicago -- get a fair chance to be judged for what they offer.   
 
Regards.
 
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org/
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg
New Discussion Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/