Link back to comment

Thanks for the reply Peter,

Yes you correctly point out that the definition you cited was from someone in favour of identity politics (IP), and I did not mean to suggest that you were attempting to Strawman or anything of that nature. My concern was more that if we all understand IP from one theorist's perspective, I fear the risk of analyzing a more radical version of IP, rather than a more mainstream or defensible version of IP. That said, you do argue well that Kruk's definition fits in line with your list of grievances against IP.

Regarding your mention of Haider and the problems this raises for my proposed definition, you raise an interesting point, and I will give that section a reread. This is because I currently not so sure how treating those from groups that do not adhere to the narrative of oppression or victimhood as 'identity traitors' necessarily follows from ‘identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context’.

You raise other interesting points in your reply as well, such as the observation of MLK, but I feel this reply is getting long so I'll leave it there.

Thanks again for your reply, much appreciated and I am looking forward to next week's entry,

Andrew.