No doubt like a lot of people I’ve been struggling to come to terms with the political developments of the last year. I think for me the biggest shock has been a growing awareness that I don’t quite live in the type of culture that I thought I did. Perhaps I live in the much discussed “political bubble” or “echo chamber” as I thought that we were gradually moving away from racism, xenophobia, sexism and misogyny. Without really realising it I think this was founded in a kind of enlightenment belief in human progress and although there have been bumps in the road along the way things were generally getting better.
What we have heard since the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump is that many working-class, rural, and poorer people have felt “left behind”. What people on the left such as myself have probably forgotten is that the “progress” we’ve put so much confidence or belief in has been partial to say the least.
The progress we have seen is, if indeed it is that, has been through winning battles in the “culture wars“. That is, the left basically seemed to have won the argument on identity politics. So it was becoming more accepted that language is important (racist or sexist comments have an impact) representation is important (people other than white men need to be in, and be seen to be in, positions of influence and power) all people should at least have the opportunity to have some kind of self determination and fulfilment. But what we neglected was class and economics.
Reflecting on this has made me think about the distinction which Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello made in their book The New Spirit of Capitalism between two critiques which emerged after the social protests and upheavals of 1968. What they claim came out of these events was a social critique and artistic critique.
The artistic critique was one which opposed the ways in which the existing capitalist structures didn’t allow for self-expression and fulfilment. The social critique was concerned with the structural and economic inequalities brought about by capitalist relations. Boltanski and Chiapello claim that capitalism gave ground on the artistic critique and incorporated this into their strategies of capital accumulation. The left allowed the social critique to largely wither away.
The artistic critique (and perhaps identity politics more generally) ultimately proved relatively easy to integrate with existing capital structures and to compatible with their aims. The concessions made by capitalism placated those on the left who were relatively economically secure. In the meantime the bases of the social critique (economic inequality, lack of opportunities for working class people) were largely left unchanged over the next forty years or so. The consequences of this bargain being struck between capitalism and its critics and the acceptance of the situation by the left is now coming back to bite them.
This Is Not a Sociology Blog 
seems to me the left & liberals in general have got to consider their identity in light of their failures. just saying the other is wrong isn’t working. i don’t know how two opposites can be reconciled but i see that both side’s methods hinge on one form of ignorance or another. what is difficult for the left is that facts aren’t of value for changing things, which is frustrating. it should be a solution. what can be done about this? is it how the facts are delivered?
No idea what the answer is but I think what we can learn from this is that there is little benefit dealing with identity issues without also addressing material ones. Trump and Brexiteers have appealed to identity -related problems (that could be aligned with what I refer to as the artistic critique) and these are groups of people who haven’t had that kind of engagement for a long time. However, in both cases material factors were intermingled with the identity ones. I think the post fact politics thing perhaps obscure something that the people who voted in the way we would necessarily agree with are concerned about facts but the facts of their lives which they are not happy with. This is a kind of fact they know they can’t get a good job or are getting paid what they think they should. But they are a different order of fact to the ones which were used to try to convince them to vote (e.g. the country will be £X million poorer). However, I think one of the problems is that some politicians are following the lead of the likes of Putin and deliberately using misinformation as a tactic of politics. When the truth is destabilised force, strength, personality and bravado seem to work in its place.
if the material problems are being taken on by those who win the identity contest, then what hope have the left got. the right don’t like the smart arse left, & the left don’t want to make it about identity, but the leap to being able to have a go at solving the material problems is by triumphing in the identity contest. this is sort of what i was driving at. am i full of crap, or do i have a point?
I think I agree. Although, the right only pretend to be take care of the material issues. For instance, it is highly unlikely that Trump will be able to do most of the things he claims he will (such as bringing back jobs and massive infrastructure investment while cutting taxes) and leaving the EU is unlikely to make UK more prosperous. The left will have to start taking account of identity in a broader way I think. By which I mean they have to stop thinking about class. Also, rather than the “transactional politics” they have been engaged in (individual policies focus grouped to apply to swing voters) they might have to stop being a bit more ideological.
do you think a political party or a politician can really solve any problems? it seems politicians promise such a lot, yet very little changes, ot it gets worse.
i don’t personally think we have it that bad in England, Brexit or not. not compared with say Nigeria, Syria or even Turkey.
Yes of course things could be worse but it’s not a race to the bottom and things can get worse. I think politics can change things but they have to challenge people’s assumptions not just pander to prejudices. Also, actually tackle economic forces.
no of course not. but i think to re-contextualize where we are compared to others can help us gauge what we need to do rather than see it as an enormous overhaul of our systems & society.
True, need to be thinking about these things globally anyway. I had thought that the general trend was towards that but the last year seems to have signalled more inward looking and nationalistic thinking which is sad.
i always thought globalization had popular appeal.