two on language, idpol, and power

[queermermaids]

*repost/edit of some posts I put on my tumblr*

1. “the absence of a formal hierarchy means there is no hierarchy” is just a general problem in loads of left spaces, but is most annoying in anarchist spaces, where one would expect people to understand that “formal hierarchy” and “formal oppression” are inherently hierarchical, as someone has to decide what is a hierarchy, what is oppression, what is and isn’t legitimate, and that is immense power over people and their lives

 

what is and isn’t formal is a social control mechanism, formal language, formal dress, formal education etc. yet people seem to think that oppression/privilege dynamics have to be “formal” for it to be legitimate


This one is in reference to someone reblogging an acephobic "demisexuality is a funny word that has no reason to exist" type post, and try and defend it by saying they're going against idpol, not identity:

2. Idpol criticism is needed but wow do people sound like reactionary authoritarians when they go towards anti-identity as opposed to anti-identity politics 

 

It’s the reason why i will never feel comfortable with people who are like “there is no need to have the word folx when folks already exists” bruh its called language it evolves chill for 5 seconds

 

Language isn’t just for utility (though identity is definitely a utility, try and think of explaining to someone that you are only attracted to people sexually once you’ve created an intense bond with them, otherwise you are not attracted to anyone, without having demisexuality to fall back on as a simplifier) but it is also language is for fun like “folx” because thats fun making words up

 

Like when i think of people who only want things to exist for utility and not for pleasure, i think of authcoms which get the (sometimes unfair) criticism of never wanting any culture that isn’t beneficial for the collective, the “USSR has no culture only work” stereotype

 

Not just authoritarian but also reactionary because when have you ever seen someone go towards the origin as opposed to a subgroup or subgroup of a subgroup, its never “the entire formation of people first sexuality descriptions are invalid because it doesn’t properly describe the reality of sex and people’s lives” its always “hey asexuality (or any ace/aro identity) alone don’t describes people lives right, we need to get rid of only those!”

 

And in general this goes back to my previous statement on language, the decision making that comes with deciding what is and isn’t valid or useful language is an immense power to hold over people, what could someone gain by removing words from a dictionary, or using social pressure to push people into not using words they’ve invented to make their lives easier

no lie thinking about language and power and nationalism and state building is making me want to shift my sociology degree to focus on linguistics, um but let me know what you think of these takes, if u disagree or agree idk.

on a more personal note, I just finished my sophomore year yesterday and lol I'm already sick of internet discourse. I start work for the summer next wednesday, but because im working significantly less hours than last summer, because of corona, I do plan on posting on here. especially because its easier to vague blog when no one can see it lol  

Comments

[hellofriendsiminthedark]

#1 reminds me of a number of discourses related to legislative equality. People who want to explicitely legalize sex work because they think that equality on paper is the same as equality don't consider the ways in which law, bureaucracy, and the legal system are themselves structured to disenfranchise certain people and promote certain outcomes. People rail against fatphobia because it's not "institutional oppression," it's just ~prejudice~ or whatever.. People have a knee-jerk reaction to marginalized people talking about forced institutionalization by being like "it's illegal for therapists to force you into a psych hold unless you're actually going to hurt yourself!" as if "illegal" means "doesn't happen." It's very convenient to be able to read that something is or isn't allowed and be like "cool, it's taken care of" and not have to think about the repercussions or the loopholes or the dogwhistles or the consequences.

For #2, yes, language has multiple utilities, multiple rationales, multiple reaons for existing! It's like day one of linguistics, how many debates there are over where language comes from and why.

Utilitarians don't value things like art and aesthetics and form. They don't understand how "immaterial" circumstances do have "material" effects and do make a tangible difference on morale and well-being. Utilitarianism is actually pretty central to how capitalism works in that regard--it doesn't matter to the capitalist how close you are to falling apart, so long as you still manage to scrape together the amount of labor they want from you. Contrary to popular belief, alienation and hopelessness and dejection are not actually good motivators for a revolution.

Also "anti-idpol-but-actually-anti-identity-in-practice" people are just hypocrites. "There's no need for 'lesbian' to exist as a separate identity from 'gay'" is just as valid of an argument under their logic, and yet it's rightfully seen as offensive as fuck.

Epistemic injustice describes really well the reasons why these kinds of policing of language and identity are unethical. Philosophy Tube has a video that breaks it down really well.

[queermermaids]

Absolutely agree with both your takes! I was trying to think of the name of people who's philosophy is like that and its Utilitarian, because definitely it is something that transcendes economic systems. Thanks for the philosophy tube rec, I watched that one a couple of years back but completely forgot how poignant it was.