Very interesting talk. I'm going to pick up the book soon. As someone who under some frameworks supports identity politics and under other frameworks opposes identity politics, I think this is an interesting idea. My major worry, though, is that the critique of identity politics as ideology (in the Althusserian sense of the word) seems hyperfocused on the ideology as it operates subconsciously. I find great value in the Althusserian critique of ideology, but I think that the critique Haider makes is already the consensus position among critical theorists because those who are consciously acknowledging their ideologies and who are working within that domain (critical theory) tend to avoid the problems of essentializing identity that Haider points out. So that all raises the question: why make this critique in this way? What purpose does it serve? I don't think it's making too much of a dent in terms of advancing theory, but really just seems to rearticulate the consensus position. It's being published by Verso and so will reach a more popular audience than an academic text. That's certainly noble, popularizing theory, but is that all there is to it? Is there something I'm missing here?
Very interesting talk. I'm going to pick up the book soon. As someone who under some frameworks supports identity politics and under other frameworks opposes identity politics, I think this is an interesting idea. My major worry, though, is that the critique of identity politics as ideology (in the Althusserian sense of the word) seems hyperfocused on the ideology as it operates subconsciously. I find great value in the Althusserian critique of ideology, but I think that the critique Haider makes is already the consensus position among critical theorists because those who are consciously acknowledging their ideologies and who are working within that domain (critical theory) tend to avoid the problems of essentializing identity that Haider points out.
So that all raises the question: why make this critique in this way? What purpose does it serve? I don't think it's making too much of a dent in terms of advancing theory, but really just seems to rearticulate the consensus position. It's being published by Verso and so will reach a more popular audience than an academic text. That's certainly noble, popularizing theory, but is that all there is to it? Is there something I'm missing here?
Hot take: Kanye West is a great (if highly "problematic") example of self-shattering
If y’all haven’t checked out Mr. Haider’s twitter feed, it’s laugh out loud hilarious if you’re a total theory nerd.