Identity politics - where only some citizens 'matter' - incompatible with democracy
With some contentious topics in a democracy, is the only way forward to reframe the questions altogether?
It has been interesting to see the ‘childless cat ladies’ debate in the context of US politics.?
This is a topic where I believe all concerned need to take a step back.?
The basis of the debate is the idea that women are replacing relationships and children with pets.? JD Vance uttered the words but disputes the deep meaning many have taken from them, which is that women are considered less valuable to society as a result.
Such an insult seems quite mild to me, compared to all the other dreadful things various groups of people get called – both men and women.?
Nevertheless, it is important to point out such insults (where deliberately intended with a serious meaning) are incompatible both with human dignity and with liberal democracy.?
My belief – which I state upfront on my profile – is that every human being has inherent worth and dignity by virtue of being born human. It does not matter what services a person performs in his or her lifetime. This concept of the intrinsic value of each human life - regardless of what the person chooses to do with that life - underpins many major religions as well as secular concepts of universal human rights.
Importantly, this universalist concept of a person's enduring worth also underpins liberal democracy – so every citizen votes, irrespective of their role, their contribution or ‘place’ in society.?
The opposite point of view is the utilitarian perspective, which is that the worth of a human being is in the eye of the beholder.
If a person is ‘useful’ to society and performing ‘services’ (like daily duties as a mother or father), then the person has more worth. If the person is not ‘useful’, then the person has less worth.
This point of view – when taken to its logical conclusion – is absurd. It means, for example, that even if you are a parent, if you fall ill or become disabled, you are no longer ‘valuable’ as a human being, because you cannot show up at work or look after your children. ?Such a perspective is repugnant in any civilised society.?
This brings us to how people should respond to these insults.? Unfortunately, many women responded to the ‘childless cat ladies’ critique by highlighting all the ways they contribute to society and attacking men for contributing less.
You do not respond to such “transactional” criticism by engaging in your own “transactional” arguments. Such a debate can never be won by any side. Indeed, identity politics is ultimately incompatible with democracy, by seeking to assign a higher value to some groups of people over other groups of people.
Instead, the answer is to refocus on the intrinsic value of each individual and to reaffirm the core values of liberal democracy, including the primacy of a contest of ideas.
Ultimately all thoughtful citizens have a duty not to participate in these ugly debates, which reduce infinitely precious and complex human lives to whether such lives have political utility. ?
?? Existential Detective - Regenerative Changemaker | ?? Advancing Circular Economy & Systemic Evolution | ? Cultivating Conscious Ecosystems for Holistic Prosperity | Guiding the Emergence of a Thriving Planet
1 个月Great article Margaret Joseph - I deeply resonate with what you say about the transactional nature of the arguments and the ensuing tit for tat. I also agree about the intrinsic nature of each individual. I presume JD Vance would phrase it the same way now and what he said was an off hand attach at the push towards independence away from the virtues of family - something I also agree with and I believe worthy of discussion - and something that can be had without attacking groups of people and playing into identity politics.
Driving Talent Growth | Balancing Technology with Humanity
5 个月Thank you for another thoughtful and interesting piece. I would agree that all human life has intrinsic value (which is why I tend to resist group identities). However, like Archbishop Tutu, I also believe that no one is fully human by themselves (ubuntu). Being human (and a citizen) comes with responsibilities, not just God-given rights. Those who accept those responsibilities and do their best to meet them (even if ill or disabled) should be recognized, applauded, and used as models for our young people. Regardless of our lifestyle choices, all of us have a responsibility to serve. It is easy to lose sight of this in today's algorithm powered society which can allow our inner entitled child to hijack our heroic nature. The Athenian's had it right: "My native land I will not leave a diminished heritage but greater and better than when I received it." Thoughtful citizens indeed have a duty, but it should never be non-participation. It should be working to raise the level of debate to a state worthy of our intrinsic value.
Senior Assurance Officer
5 个月Whilst I have my own ideas that those who know me, know I'm quite passionate about, I've learned the hard way for the most not to air it on any socials. The comment reinforced to me why I no longer practice a congregational religion of any kind. Often those who don't have a partner or children (or both) are excluded from the general social set up in society, this applies to all movements and not just faith ones. It's also not a healthy way to engage spare time. That's why I still like my hard copy books to get away from screens, spend enough time in front of them for work.
Research Fellow
6 个月Wow, spot on again! Love this, “Ultimately all thoughtful citizens have a duty not to participate in these ugly debates, which reduce infinitely precious and complex human lives to whether such lives have political utility” ????