What are the philosophical roots/foundations of SJW identity politics? People throw around the term post modernism a lot, but that is such a wide-compassing term. I'm looking for specific thinkers and works to read to understand this phenomenon.
I would've gone to /pol/ but I want more thought-out answer than just "Frankfurt school".
What do you mean by SJW identity politics cause that's mostly something that just exists in the heads of youtube 'thinkers' and /pol/acks.
Stop trying to gaslight.
>There's totally an organisation of colored hair ladies trying to destroy western culture by screaming in people's faces dude.
And answer the cocksucking question.
You give them too much credit.
Distinct psychopathogenesis give rise to this flawed mode of thought. They are, quite literally, sick in the head. The eyeglassed, I assume, woman in your picture simply shows signs of mental illness—Contorted face, dismissive gaze, aloofness, and to put on what we generally observe in this population of what you call SJWs, a propensity to be emotionally upset at differing opinions. They should all be referred to a psychiatrist, and if they do not show signs of improvement, committed to an inpatient psychiatric facility long term.
>You can diagnose people based on low resolution picture.
t. Petersonite.
Tfw she has a more masculine face than you
Okay.
Post-Modernism is falsely conflated with Marxism and Feminism. Most Marxists and Feminists are not necessarily postmodernism. Many are in fact, existentialist and/or modernist. Postermodernism carries with it, in most instances (though not all), a rejection of philosophical metanarratives. What's at the heart of Marx's philosophy? The metanarrative of dialectical materialism, and of the inevitibility of communism through global revolution, stemming from the internal conflict of precommunist politics. What's at the heart of Christianity? The metanarrative of salvation. Postmodernism largely presents philosophical frameworks as tool-kits to be applied when needed, or borrowed from and expanded, like open-source software, as opposed to an end-all metanarrative about the inevitability of some outcome.
If you're interested in the fiscal/economic side of leftism, read Hegel as a foundation, move onto Marx, then read the frankfurt school.
If you're interested in the social side of things, that is, Anarchism/Socialism/Feminism/Social Justice/Anticolonialism/Anti-imperialism, all philosophies which are neither packaged together nor mutually exclusive, then read authors in those categories, for instance Bakunin, Chomsky, Parenti, Angela Davis, Simone De Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, Murray Bookchin etc.
By far the most important "philosopher" for contemporary "woke" politics, or whatever you want to call it, is Foucault. Many of the most important identity-political academics, including Said and Butler, were straight-up Foucauldians. This is kind of bizarre, since Foucault obsessively avoids the sort of moralizing so characteristic of SJWs, and even if he expressed a clear positive politics, it would likely little resemble the sort of pseudo-revolutionary authoritarianism being peddled by college students who admire him.
Frankfurt school / Marxism / Post-Modernism / Existentialism
Basically everything that questions the old pre industrial conservative norm is an influence of our current day SJW/Identity Politics
Try these:
Sigmund Freud
Jacques Lacan
Friedrich Engels
Karl Marx
Émile Durkheim
Claude Lévi-Strauss
Gayle Rubin
Betty Friedan
Simone de Beauvoir
Michel Foucault
Audre Lorde
The only good comment
/thread
the thing about SJWism is that it has no real philosophical foundations. Its essentially a weird bastardized mutation of second and third wave bourgois feminisms with the worst characteristics of the Old Left.
This is also why the right is so successful when it attacks it. Because it is so full of shit. Its empty, and people may not be consciously aware of it but they sense it, and it's inherent vacuousness comes to the limelight when shit really gets real.
Its really a hardcore authoritarian conservative, quasi fundamentalist-religious force and doctrine. The internet "right" ("Alt Right") are (or were anyway..) the actual subversives and counterculturalists. In any way you measure it, the left are lame and conservative and weak and the "right" are not. By "right" i mean primarily the idiots seen here on Yea Forums in decentralized message boards who dont actually hold an ideology. donald trump supporters and neo cons and libertarians are just as stratified and idiotic as the left by their allegiance to something. Yea Forums idiots dont hold any allegiance or true understanding of any ideology. They are just radically critical of the left, and many times post-ironically wearing the skin of the Old Right to a cartoonish level (racist, christian, white supremacist, misogynist... precisely all the things the mainstream media says are "baaaaaaaad")
I dont say this as a right winger or anything. But this is the truth. It just a shame that today the youth of basically two generations and probably a third are full of this statified statist conservative and boring ideology. What a waste.
Lol, what kind of schizoposting is this.
Paul Josepth 'prison planet' Watson is this you?
there aren’t any - that’s why it’s an incomplete and ultimately toothless “ideology” (i say this as a marxist).
general “awareness” of developing social theories re: queer theory, afro-pessimism, general critical theory, etc. leads to a shallow understanding of the actual philosophical arguments and constructions being made, and instead these so called “sjw’s” (terrible term btw, but there’s really nothing better) have a surface level knowledge of what is “good” and “bad”, but no actual engagement with the literature base. this coupled with increasing prominence of marginalized individuals seeking identity and companionship on internet forums leads to shouty espousing of these secondhand ideals without any real substance to back them up, and the insecurity of the proponents leading to overtly defensive “repudiations” (i.e. ‘i’m triggered’) of identified transgressions.
the problem is that their core thoughts aren’t necessarily that malintentioned, but they have no actual philosophical framework to identify or construct what is or isn’t politically useful, which leads to all the xe/xim/xir type bs that is commonly mocked (such pronouns btw are rarely/never used in actual lgbt political circles, having been replaced by the far more reasonable and linguistically grounded they/them).
It was merely a hypothetical. Regardless, your line of inquiry is ignorant. Peterson cannot diagnose people beyond whats in his book, and even if he does, there is little he can do about it in must jurisdictions; he is a clinical psychologist and lacks medical training that would allow further diagnostic and proper pharmacotherapy. It would take an actual psychiatrist to get someone like the woman in OP properly treated.
leftism is not synonymous with being free or subversive. everything changes. open your eyes, mental gramps. stop trying to see things through the lens of the past century. stop being a boring old fuck. embrace the next century and all the possibilities it brings. discard all old beliefs ideologies and allegiances made by dead men and old women. they dont mean anything to us
>lol kill all the freaks and brown people GRANDPA it is the current year and it'll be FUN
>anything outside of what people that patently dont know what theyre talking about told me is RACIST and youre a NAZIMURDERER if you dont submit! I never had to think for myself and the idea of doing it scares me! Excuse me while i hide under my safety blanket
Isnt it suspicious to you that the same ideology you spouse happens to be exactly the same one shown on tv by millionaires and multi millionaires who are proven liars? Why would a genuinely free and subversive and radical view be on CNN and MSNBC (basically state run tv)? Because its not genuine, or radical in anyway.
Again I'm not even a right winger. Im actually almost positive i hold positions much more "left" wing than you.
A couple of important things to note:
>not everyone accused of being an SJW is actually an SJW
>the Frankfurt School as nothing to do with neoliberal progressivism. It's in fact one of it's biggest critics.
>most SJWs get their politics online rather than through reading. A feminist or a communist who has actually read the relevant material tend not to confirm to the SJW stereotype (at least in my experience)
tl;dr the term "SJW" is often misused, so keep that in mind.
what ideology do I 'spouse'? what were you able to glean about my beliefs and convictions from a line of greentext mocking you?
Judith Butler and Bell Hooks
there are no philosophical roots. what youre describing is an out-growth of the old left and the women's movement. people who talk about marx or postmodernists seem to believe that people marching enmasse do so after reading books, which is never true.
at the core the problem is that of identity. marginalizing the out-group is an ancient way of feeling part of a group. sjws identify with the outcast but because their movement has been co-opted by larger corporate media for cynical reasons, they now suffer cognitive dissonance. a way to resolve that dissonance is to go all in with whatever the resentiment de jour is, even if its completely counter-intuitive to their goals -- think of ilhan omar or terry crews. ironically, it means being even more cruel to outcasts, which is of course an ancient lesson every generation learns anew.
i suggest you read semiotic works on information and media theory. understand how these symbols become absorbed and disseminated.
as an SJW myself, the most brutally frustrating thing has been people randomly adopting phrases/words to make it clear who is ingroup and outgroup. im totally against that because i understand that the purpose of activism and changing society is addressing the outgroup and trying to change their mind. but most SJWs dont care about that, they just want to secure an ingroup for their own selfish psychological reasons.
they're ready to tweet abuse at people, but talk about volunteering at a women's shelter or doing work with the homeless and youll quickly see who's actually interested in making the world better and who is just in it to feel better about themselves.
Actual answer: Kimberlé Crenshaw coined "intersectionality"/created intersectionality theory as a professor at UCLA and a lot of this shit spawns from her spooky mind, though only the hardest pipe hittin' idpolsters have actually read her stuff. Mostly it is people parroting her buzzwords because they heard them from smarter people.
that you think im anti sexual and racial minorities, pro white, and violent, and also dont know what im talking about and also probably too young to know what im talking about.
i never said anything about minorities, i only said the left was bullshit, so it follows that you think im some right wing neo nazi boogeyman youve painted in your mind (even though ive said im not a right winger).
The truth is, I'm none of those. I'm unironically more pro trans because to me they are the most marginal and radical and transgressive group out there today. So i actually love the "freaks". The point is the left are not freaks. They are intolerant of freaks. They only open the role of "non-freak" a bit, but the category of "freak" or unacceptability still exists to them. This is bullshit and is conservative nonsense. The idea of stratified identities is conservative nonsense.
Also, I actually am brown. And i tihnk it's hilarious how white liberals love to cry on behalf of brown people but as far as I can tell, have done next to nothing about the brown kids getting DRONE'd in Syria and Yemen. But if D-D-D-Drumpf makes one dumb tweet or something suddedoes one thing that in turn makes them feel morally superior, it's all pussyhat marches and and talk of impeachment. Again, all empty bullshit.
>increasing prominence of marginalized individuals seeking identity and companionship on internet forums leads to shouty espousing of these secondhand ideals without any real substance to back them up, and the insecurity of the proponents leading to overtly defensive “repudiations”
exactly. and the SJWs (the whole left actually) have absolutely nothing to say on fixing this increasingly serious problem. the only solution becomes either withdrawing into a weird, essentialist ontology (im actually not white or straight) or going far right.
i actually totally agree with you. and im a far left lunatic.
It does have teeth because of the coalition it successfully unites.
>My line of inquiry
One: I didn't 'inquire' anything mong, I called you a petersonite moron, that's not a question.
Two: You're still pretending like you can diagnose someone with having an unspecified mental illness through a low resolution jpeg.
Off yourself.
This, its the ultimate pseud ideology.
The collective attitude towards authority is destructive and they have a vapid culture which uses radical hair dyeing as a social signifier; conspiracy? No, a mere mass crop of easily enticed 'radicals' who like all majorities are too stupid to realise the nature of their identity, which in this case is very ironic due to it being the main (not to say most virile or stable) current of the present political climate
nah. the american disciplinary society has always been here. it might just have a different face now.
Are we going to make it?
But you were birthed from the egg and sperm of those old men and women
Don't get me wrong, I don't like libs either. But that's not because they're screaming at right wingers, that's because they're status quo affirming bourgeois morons.
In ignoring the struggle of the working class they're actually allowing right wing conservatives who pander to their ideas to exploit them. The only real problem with SJW's is that they don't see the forest for the trees. They focus more on Trump being impolite than for example his actual policy just to give an example. Late night liberal tv is really guilty of this for example.
Too dismissive and cowardly, aside from being nothing more than wild conjecture. How society enforces norms and mores changes, but the ride never ends.
I don't think there even is any real political Left mobilised in politics anymore. The self-indentified "left" parties care more about corporate interests than class interests, the "feminists" aren't real feminists and just promote consumerism among women, different ethnic groups and LGBT will be thrown under a bus a different points for political gain. An actual left wing party could probably shake up the system in a significant way if it gained enough popular support, but it seems as though any leftism that isn't the specific neoliberal brand of leftism is being silenced by the media and political forces at large.
his post is very clearly accurate, and this hasn't even been news since like 2007 or something
lmao you mad OP? OPs a bitch
That you both exist gives me a perverse hope.
>different ethnic groups and LGBT will be thrown under a bus a different points for political gain.
Well they're incompatible. The Muslim-feminist-lgbt tension is especially irreducible. But there are loads of other ones, like the way the Left talk about Israel today is indistinguishable from how Stormfront talk about them. The only difference is that Stormfront see Progressive diaspora Jews as also being evil
Communism is at least a position with clear boundaries. There is an us and them, who are the actually identifiable classes of proletariat and capitalist, and there is a code to follow. In practice it's a shitshow but it's at least marginally coherent. The modern left have nothing like that. The intersectional oppression matrix has no actual foundational logic or goal in mind. Is a trans black woman achieving membership of the capitalist class a win for the modern left? Who is qualified to answer this?
lol stfu bitch
Samefag
>It was merely a hypothetical. Regardless, your line of inquiry is ignorant
who the fuck talks like this, go back to r/samharris you dumb faggot
>They should all be referred to a psychiatrist
The psychiatric community is on-board with the SJWs.
Look at this bitch getting offended by a faggot like Sam Harris holy shit hahaha
They don't want justice, they don't want "progress".
They only want catharsis.
And they're always mean to me.
Rare good answer.
If you're being serious, the crux of the matter goes much deeper than just this. Your concern is surface level. Basically, try to imagine these things as forces in and of themselves and human beings being carried with them, not at all causing them.
Marxism is not a force today on the left not because of some personal failures of leftists or narrowmindedness, but because Marxism is frankly outdated. It's conceptions of the means of production is no longer relevant, and even it's definition of what a proletariat is is rapidly becoming outdated as again, the role of the means of production in capitalism (land, labor, tools) become increasingly irrelevant to capital.
Therefore it is no mistake that Marxism as a force was beaten by Neoliberalism. Capitalism always evolves. It is death. That is it's great strength. Marxism was an analysis of capitalism at a certain stage at a certain time. A stratified singular ideology. One that is no longer relevant to the world as neoliberalism is.
The incoherence you see among muslim-lgbt-feminism is not weakness, but strength. A realigning and redefning of what these roles and identities mean in this new different stage of rapidly approaching post-labor global capital. Capitalism disintegrates old boundaries and identities. That is it's other great strength. What remains to be seen is not how an old 19th century analasys can be revived from the dead and made to work today, but what new frameworks and conceptions of things arise in this era. History rhymes, and if current trends tell anything, we're headed towards a weird neo feudal stage of well..neo-religious fundamentalism except instead of religion it will be decentralized identities and ideologies that arise organically from the corpses of the past. Marx was a product of the enlightenment and was painstakingly scientific and "rational". This will be very different.
Not to whom you replied but these signs are very over-represented in pictures and footage I have seen of SJWs.
>forces in and of themselves and human beings being carried with them, not at all causing them.
It's the same thing. It's large scale patterns of behavior, which are certainly caused by humans
My point is that a communist revolution is possible even today because it is easy to make a uniform so to speak. The intersectionalists have no uniform and they have internal tensions that can't be surmounted in any way except by one group allowing the other to dominate.
Sharia, ethnic nationalism, worker's revolution, these are all feasible, they make sense from an engineering perspective. Intersectionality does not
Again, it is not a mistake that Marxism failed and is not a driving force today. Marxism is a modernist ideology. We are living in the post modern era. Posmodernism "beat" modernism because frankly, postmodernism is right in all it's critiques of modernism and it's totaliizing narratives. The present and future are not of the modernist mass industrial age of the past two centuries. The present and future are highly individualistic, decentralized, destratified, irrational, and ambiguous. Again, this is why Ford and GM (huge physical companies of steel and mortar employing thousands and making physical products) pale in comprarison to Google and Facebook (companies who gained most of their success with no land, little labor, and no tools besides computers and an internet connection, and produced at first no physical product).
this is me to a T actually
I think there's some truth in this statement
I'm not saying Marxism(or by extension Modernist ideologies in general) makes sense, it's like we're talking past each other here. I'm saying you can use Marxist propaganda to stage a revolution in a way that doesn't work with intersectional propaganda.
Countries still flirt with socialist mass movements, especially in latin america
Capitalism, unironically. Woke capital responds and reacts to upper-middle class white women who direct all their maternal affection to migrants, sodomites, and cats
I'm saying you can't because of real structural and historical forces now making that whole idea of "revolution" impossible. Unions are at an all time low point. Why do you think that is? Is it just a coincidence that mass movements and organization is at its weakest point at the same time that individualized narratives are only multiplying and getting stronger? I dont think so.
Revolution is a modernist idea. It has already been rejected and rendered impossible in reality by historical forces. People instincitvely dont care abut revolution or class consciousness because it doesnt speak to them on a real level that means anything beyond nostalgia for old forms of labor relations. They aren't stupid. They instincitvely realize Marxism and modernism is dead.
Venezuela very nearly had an actual socialist revolution, I don't think it's at all as unlikely as you're making out.
I don't see how you think individualized narratives are a stable situation. In practice we will get ethnonationalism here, Fascism here, religious theocracy there, etc. The individual tensions will collapse under the authoritarian rule of one faction.
Not that many people have to care for a revolution to take place, the masses are almost always just inert or a mob to be unleashed
Liberal democracy and the social issue focus of the democratic party after the 1960s.
The "socialist" revolutions always happen in places less touched by capital. So they tend to happen much more in underdeveloped or developing countries like in Latin America or Africa because these places are not as subsumed by the global market as Europe or Japan.
And if you look at Venezuela, who were the people that put Chavez into office? It was primarily the poor rural and native areas. The outliers who were not yet subsumed by capitalism.
These areas, (poor rural) not coincidentally, were also the areas that in the United States went for either Trump or Bernie in the 2016 primaries and then election.
The cities, always being walled castles to capitalism, ALWAYS follow capitalist logic. In Venezuela, the anti Chavez faction were and still are the liberal urban centers. In the United States, Clinton nearly always won the populous urban centers even in places like Texas. The same goes for the right wing populist surge in Europe and Brazil. Nearly all of them from places not as touched by capitalism, reacting against it.
Famously, Mao Zedong's army was primarily of from the poor peasant areas. He had to forcibly conquer the cities.
I say this just to make the point, "socialism" and its revolutions are not pro Marxist as much as they are simply, reactions and hostility to capitalism devouring their old identities and ways of life. These identities and ways of life are not always so great and pure, as can be seen by the fact that these same areas are the first to turn out for fascist demagogues like in Brazil.
Socialism and now nationalism are the primal scream people who are being eaten by capitalism let out right before they are devoured. Soon, the entire world will effectively be bourgified and urbanized to the point where this will cease.
You are right that individualized narratives do not lend temselves to stability. But that is the point and the promise of freedom in these narratives. They cannot dominate for long. They can all only compete and battle one another. One thousand years of war and darkness under "capitalism". But one of multivariance and brilliant hues, instead of the static one dimensional black and white static conflicts between states
>What are the philosophical roots/foundations of SJW identity politics?
being ugly(a particular, unjustifiable, unpitiable kind of ugly) is the catalyst for the more extreme forms of internalized inferiority and delusional fetishes. I really wish it wasn't such a faux pas to talk about how crippling and deterministic being ugly is for people, especially slave caste, it's a real curse.
why are there so many marxists back on Yea Forums? I thought your ilk all fled to cripplechan. Please don't make Yea Forums the worst board on the site again.
>I say this just to make the point, "socialism" and its revolutions are not pro Marxist as much as they are simply, reactions and hostility to capitalism devouring their old identities and ways of life.
For sure and well put, though they are organized along Marxist class lines, which was what I originally meant about the unifying principle of communism being coherent.
Your vision of the freedom of narratives is intriguing, but I wonder if it's sort of illusory. Is there not some ruling caste even now that dictate which set of individual narratives are permissible, according to a doctrine that helps them maintain power? Or to put it more bluntly, can you imagine a society without such a ruling caste?
Identity politics is not a new idea. The soviet union called it "bourgeois nationalism"
Identity politics is used by capitalism in order to divide people of the same material conditions. It has nothing to do with Marxism and everything to do with liberal capitalism
Now, before you get a hard on pol, just realize. White supremacy is ideinty politics too. In the eyes of a learned marxist, both pol and sjws are scum.
The purpose of the modern american university is to train the future neo liberal managers of america. True Marxism is impotent in the face of divisive identity politics. The revolutionary fire of class warfare doused with the sterile hot dog water of neoliberal intersectionilism. A bougoises nationalism more concerened with the idenity than the improvment of ecnomic material conditions. These people arent taught to overthrow capital. They are taught therapeutic exercises (safe spaces) and to encourage the absorption of the so called marginalized into the capitalist machine (representation). You can not expect a pol tard to know any of this. They cant tell the difference between liberalism, marxism, neoliberlism, and social democracy. They will never realize their war against moral decay and mass immigration is not rooted in Judaism, but in capitalism.
identity politics is just a boomer buzzword to justify their disengagement and delusional perception of the world as it was and it.
The weird thing about the marxists on Yea Forums is that they're nothing like the majority of marxists but they act like they are.
not an argument
I'm well aware of everything you've said in this post and have seen it said dozens of times on this site, but it really does not refute in the slightest the pol position re: Jewish behavior in Western countries. I'm not sure why you even want to bring that topic up.
Capitalism being the cause of moral decay and mass immigration(supposing we accept the argument for a moment) doesn't change that Israel and Jews generally have a set of policies that give it a 3.1 fertility rate, deport their refugees and have genetic testing for birth right, while simulatenously promoting open borders and childlessness in white countries. It doesn't explain the preponderance of Jews in the press, academia, the civil service, finance, business, organized crime, etc.
I think it's possible that you are not acquainted with the pol position rather than the other way around
So, it's essentially a Jewish movement.
have you considered it isnt jewish behavior but bourgeois behavior?
Do you know the actual religious practicing jews all have like 10 kids and live off welfare?
Have you considered that jews arent the only part of the elite and that white anglo saxon protestants, han chinese, and arabs have money too?
Your traditons arent destroyed by jews. Its destroyed by capital. Its turned into a commodification and sold back to you. And your traditions are destroyed and replaced with new things, new things to BUY BUY BUY.
As marx said "all that is solid melts into air"
Guess what pol. It isnt jews who are pro immigration. Its the capitlists who profit off a source of cheap slave labor that also lowers wages and helps them make a better profit
Han chinese and Arabs don't run the Federal reserve or draft laws outlawing criticism of Israel. They don't own absurd amounts of the press all across the West. Though yes other ethnicities also do shifty stuff, I don't see how that absolves Jews.
As for 'my culture' assuming you mean traditional western culture it was already dying by the time the Jews left the ghettos of Europe so they're not to blame for that one.
guess what pol, it isnt jews who want feminism. Its capitalism.
Shitskins arent the only pool of cheap slave labor. Why would capitalism want women to have a husband and kids and be locked up in a house when they could be liberated by becoming worker drones and helping capitalism make MORE PROFIT
>Is a trans black woman achieving membership of the capitalist class a win for the modern left?
>Who is qualified to answer this?
Good shit.
>it isn't fish that want bait, it's water
>It isnt jews who are pro immigration.
Tell that to Barbara Specter. Besides, stacks of those organizations are physically based in Israel.
John Rawls, A theory of justic
Kant, he invented the concept of objectification
Mary Wollstonecraft is good for a start in feminism
Simone Debeavour is pretty swell also
Then include some Judith Butler and so on