Friday, September 25, 2009

Linda Nicholson: Identity After Identity Politics

Last Friday Professor Linda Nicholson of the Wash U Women and Gender Studies program presented a strong paper that picks up where her most recent book, Identity Before Identity Politics, left off.  That work looked at the historical emergence of society's current fixation on the problem of identity up to the 1960s.  With Friday's paper, Nicholson turns her eye to the "aftermath of identity politics."

Nicholson's paper is a work with elements of both history and critique.  While she begins by sketching out some historical context for the current dialogue on identity, the bulk of her paper is concerned connecting that context with what she views as the limitations and contradictions of current thinking.  To illustrate this, Nicholson brings up the 2008 election, where the victory of Barack Obama was cited as evidence that the United States had entered a "post-racial" era.  For Nicholson, however, Obama's victory is complicated by the election's constant focus on racial identity.  If Americans are post-racial, then why do they spend so much time thinking about race? 

Part of the answer stems from the fact that identity is heavily influenced by context.  Nicholson argues that the meaning of a particular identity can "slide" based on the situation.  For example, a man wearing a tuxedo at a ball might be thought sophisticated, masculine and suave, but the same man wearing the same tuxedo would be perceived quite differently if he were to walk into a blue collar bar.  Similarly, many Americans are perfectly happy to vote an African-American senator into the White House, but those same Americans might fear an African-American youth walking past them on the street.

Ron Watson was this week's respondent.  After he provided a far more worthwhile summary of Nicholson's paper than I have here, he offered a number of questions to Nicholson.  One dealt with the fundamental issue of whether or not Nicholson's descriptions contradict.  Watson posited that perhaps the post-racial era refers to a near consensus on the normative view that individuals should not discriminate, but this consensus does not override the fact that race is still acknowledged to be a salient category of discrimination.  In short, what society agrees should happen does not always align with what we acknowledge does happen.

As always, the room had a large crowd with a diverse set of specialties, which made for a lively open discussion.  In one noteworthy exchange, Clarissa Hayward pressed Nicholson for a more specific explanation of context and, specifically, the relationship of context and identity.  Andrew Rehfeld also took issue with Nicholson's explication.  As he often does with presenters, he encouraged Nicholson to reflect on whether or not her ideas were falsifiable.

I'll conclude with the top three discussion topics:

1.  What does it mean to be in a post-racial society?
2.  How should we account for the importance of environmental influences on identity?
3.  What does it mean to possess an identity if identity "slides" with context?

No comments:

Post a Comment