Link back to commentThank you for (another) considered and thought-provoking reply - this exchange could develop in any number of very interesting directions. One such direction might be the philosophical problems and challenges of AI, for which I had half an eye peeled ever since reading Douglas Hofstadter's 'Goedel, Escher, Bach' - and not so much because I hold a particular interest in Artificial Intelligence, but because of what it says, and which questions it raises, and insights it drives, into and about Natural Intelligence.
In that sense I always found the Turing Test more interesting for whatever it implies about human thought. In particular, I never quite understood the idea, implied rather than expressed, that human thought, or human consciousness, is some sort of finite and immutable entity. This notion completely fell in a heap on my reading Daniel C. Dennet's 'Consciousness Explained'. I recommend it as a very interesting book, and an illuminating look from many different angles at that which most makes us human. Alas, the problem is with its title: "You can't explain consciousness", remonstrated the little marxist professor, insufferable know-all that he is, holding forth in the Cartesian lecture theatre inside my head (Cartesian theatre being the model of consciousness elaborately dismissed in Dennet's book). Since as a result of absorbing Dennet's explanations about consciousness, I am now aware (conscious) of certain aspects of my consciousness that I was not aware of before, Dennet's explanation of consciuosness has changed (expanded) the very thing he tried to explain...
What do questions over Artificial Intelligence have to do with identity politics? Well, if we have so far been unsuccessful programming artificial empathy, maybe that is because we humans are naturally lacking empathy - and identity politics is an attempt to ameliorate this sad aspect of human nature - one of many, and with at best mixed results, for it seems to generate as much antagonism as empathy.
In that sense, and as always with an eye to the practical implications - the proof of the pudding is in the eating - I ask again what it is that identity politics tries to achieve? How would an official at the Dept. for Veterans Affairs better interact with veterans, after listening to numerous accounts of acquainted knowledge - after all, even individual cases of PTSD differ from one another yet somehow need to be fitted to a more or less sophisticated and discerning bureaucratic MO. And even if our hypothetical official now has a better understanding of combat PTSD, how is he to relate this better understanding, and his divergent decisions based thereon, to his departmental superiors, right up to the minister, who do not share his understanding, but quite on the contrary, are all upwards accountable to their respective superiors...
Universal humanism is another interesting one: tout court (I, too, am conscious of the word count, Andrew), I think Monthy Python's Life of Brian called it with inimitable precision: Brian: "You are all individuals!" Chorus, as one: "Yes! We are all individuals." Brian: "You are all different!" Chorus, as one: "Yes! We are all different!"
James Surowiecki has elaborated in more detail, and less satirical terms, on 'The Wisdom of Crowds' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds). To some degree, it implies a defense foe identity politics in that it create space for previously ignored or deliberately silenced voices. But here, too, there is a Goldilocks zone: too little solidarity among individual members of any one identity group splinters and erodes its social and political power, and too much (enforced) solidarity and conformity regenerates exactly the kind of repression of dissent and divergence identity politics (supposedly) sets out to combat.
Thus I agree with you that, as you put it: "we are entitled to hold issues that concern our group membership above those concerning other groups". By the same token, we should be just as entitled to take a greater view. Not all Australians, for example, were happy with former prime minister Tony Abbott's injunction to "barrack for Team Australia", no matter what.