SIGMUND FREUD attributed the many maladies of human existence to traumatic sexual experiences in early life. Alfred Adler (1870-1937) attributed them to a different cause. According to Adler’s concept of “the will to power”, individuals – especially males – are driven by a determination to achieve superiority and domination over other human-beings. Assailed by feelings of insecurity and inferiority, emotional states which men are encouraged to associate with femininity, they embark on an unending quest for mastery. Of course, the will to power is not confined to men alone. Women’s all-too-real subordination in patriarchal society cannot fail to generate feelings of insecurity and inferiority – exciting the will to power in their own psyches.
Adlerian psychology, not much esteemed, it must be said, in the Twenty-First Century, nevertheless offers a useful way into the fraught world of Identity Politics. The practice of those promoting the politics of identity is driven by (some would say is utterly obsessed by) questions of power and privilege – who has it, who doesn’t, and what must happen if those without it are to get it. The answer would appear to involve an upward surge of resistance on the part of those for whom chronic insecurity and imputations of inferiority are a way of life, directed at those best positioned to claim superiority and exercise domination. In short, the question, repeated endlessly by identity politicians, is: “Who’s got the power?”
Obviously, the social strata with the most to gain from the quest for power through identity is the lowest. Unfortunately, determining exactly who has the least power in society is an extremely contentious exercise. People of Colour may find themselves arguing with the disabled community about which of them is discriminated against most viciously. LGBTQ+ people may find themselves at odds with women over whose lives are the more insecure. It’s tricky. Fortunately, near unanimity prevails over who wields the most power and enjoys the most privileges: White, Heterosexual, Males (WHMs).
In practical terms, identity politics has only one clear goal: to depose the dominant identity group – i.e. WHMs – and strip them of their power and privilege. But, even allowing such a revolutionary goal to be feasible, it cannot avoid raising some hugely divisive political questions. To whom should the WHMs’ power be passed? With the formerly all-powerful WHMs no longer in control, which identity group is best placed to achieve superiority and domination over the human-beings below them? People of Colour? Women? LGBTQ+? The Disabled? And won’t whoever ultimately wins that struggle suddenly find every group below them striving to replace them? Won’t the winners instantly become the next target?
And what about those people who belong in more than one identity group. A WHM with a severe disability, for example? Or a Person of Colour who is also a member of the LGBTQ+ community? Or a White Lesbian? What happens when an individual’s advantages and disadvantages cannot be stacked in neat and tidy piles? Whose Will to Power should prevail in those circumstances?
Because there’s no point in arguing that as soon as WHMs are hurled from their privileged perches the struggle for superiority and domination will cease, and the will to power will miraculously fade from in the human psyche. Consciousness of privilege is well-nigh impossible to eliminate. Like the determination to defend one’s position in the social hierarchy, it is one of those human predispositions that are pretty much ineradicable. Awareness of those below cannot help but cultivate a sense of superiority. Just as knowing that the lower orders want what the powerful possess cannot help encouraging the ruling elites to keep them in check. And vice-versa. The Will to Power is as much about clawing-up as it is about kicking-down.
Patriarchy, the power structure that prevails across the planet, is no anthropological accident. The prehistoric overthrow of the daughters of the Earth Mother by the sons of the Sky Father made certain that human society was vertical rather than horizontal in its orientation. And the beauty of a vertical social structure, from the point of view of males, is that it makes it possible for all men to define themselves as essentially not-women. No matter where a man is positioned in the social hierarchy, there is one psychically empowering privilege which he shares with all who embrace the rules of masculinity – a lifetime exemption from the socially-constructed inferiority and insecurity inflicted upon the feminine.
The identity politicians’ obsession with power and privilege is understandable but, ultimately, futile. Even if the WHMs were cast to the bottom of the social hierarchy, how long would it be before they became the most vociferous challengers of the privileges enjoyed by all the identity groups above them? How long would it be before the cry – “Who’s got the power?” – became “We got the power!” “We” being all men: gay and straight, black and white, abled anddisabled, rich and poor.
It’s hard to deny that old Alfred Adler was on to something with his Will to Power: repudiation of the feminine has always been the inexhaustible power-source of patriarchy.
As Chris suggests, the reason that liberal particularism is ultimately a con is because it actually obscures ‘who has the power’.
These theories attempt to bury any real analysis of the material conditions, which would ultimately expose the basis of class society in every epoch: the exploitation of man by man, where the working masses of society are ruled by a tiny exploiter class.
The Poststructuralist demagogues have managed to construct an ideology which arbitrarily divides society along the lines of physical human traits, and claims that everybody within such a division shares the same interests — regardless of class.
This conveniently busts up the working people into innumerable warring factions — so rather than working people recognising they all have common interests and a common exploiter, they become mired in sectarianism (and easily manipulated by the ruling elite).
Because it is anti-scientific (openly railing against the Enlightenment and the scientific method), this ideology is unable to produce any type of social progress. Instead, it is a destructive force: despite hiding behind ‘left-sounding’ phrases, it is really an ideology opposed to the ideas of socialism.
Thanks Chris. The irony with Identity Politics for me is that it is being driven mainly by White Heterosexual Males.
It comes back to the appalling concept of ‘equity’ as defined by the woke/left: Equal outcomes.
In order to create equal outcomes requires ever more tyrannical control of society and as you say, it would never end because as soon as the system had deposed white hetero men from their position, then it would seek to redress the balance for, say, gays, short people or left handers, etc.
Meanwhile if we examine wealth statistics in the USA, whites aren’t even near the top of the pecking order! They come 6th. Indians are the highest income earners followed by people from various East Asian nations. It seems America is indeed the land of opportunity…for those wishing to grasp it.
Also, the concept of a patriarchy is massively missing the point. For nearly all human history life was a terrible struggle for nearly everyone. A struggle to find food, shelter, security, to reproduce and avoid sickness. Generally, this struggle was undertaken by men and women as a family unit with each providing what they’re best at. Neither gender was in total control – it was a team effort.
Aha, Andrew! The old Hobbesian “nasty, brutish and short” argument.
Not true.
Human-beings in their 200,000+ years of hunting and gathering became highly proficient at feeding, clothing and housing themselves and, according to the anthropologists, lived relatively abundant and relaxed lives.
Did they succumb to disease and infection? Yes. But, on average, if you made it out of infancy, you could anticipate a reasonably long and happy life.
It was the agricultural revolution and the development of cities and states that produced the ultimate triumph of the Sky Father and his devotees – along with its practical economic and political consequences – Patriarchy.
The division of labour you describe among those who worked the land holds true only where slavery gave way to serfdom. Family values and involuntary servitude were seldom a happy mix!
I see you’ve fully bought into the ‘myth of the noble savage’ Chris. Rousseau would be proud of you!
The reason our ancestors took up agriculture is because it was a damn sight easier than hunting and gathering all day, every day to eke out an existence. Sure, it brought with it consequences, such as hierarchical social structures, new diseases due to proximity with others, but it also kicked off science and civilization.
I remember puzzling over the idea that feminism was the desire to reverse patriarchy when I first heard it.
There may be some who wish to inflict relative powerlessness on men (in the example of this particular example of identity bestowing power over),
but my understanding of socialism is not reversing power and privilege according to membership of particular groups, but of sharing it. Of horizontal relationships between people taking precedence over vertical top-down relationships.
Perfection is not possible, but I understand socialism as sharing resources, including power and human value, as a first principle, and competing for more than others as secondary and always held in check by this primary value.
The change isn’t about who, but what matters.
If you want to know “who has the power”? Try the thought experiment of removing that person/group from existence and imagining what changes might occur as a result. Are they simply replaced by a similar figure or group, in the way water returns to it’s undisturbed state once a dropped stone passes through it, look to see where do the ripples go, does anything fundamental actually change?
What you will likely discover is that many we think of as “powerful” are mere figureheads and are easily replaceable. Finding the source of true power is considerably more difficult, and often when you think you’ve found it, like water, it slips through your fingers, or just simply evaporates into thin air.
I’m a woman and I have lived my entire life doing what I have wanted. And the only times I have felt disadvantaged is when politics came into play. I’ve experienced sexism and all sorts of physical power tactics but you just ignore it and give back as good as you get. I was very well paid for all of my working life so nothing held me back in real terms.
I believe in meritocracy and making your own way and if you find your path blocked somewhere, go around it, rescope, find another way. And when the politics get you (as comes to all of us eventually) dont take it personally. Accept that people are a**holes and get stuck into finding another way.
How much simpler life is if we all just get on with things without navel gazing. So much more satisfying too. All this identity stuff just does my head in.
How do “the right” keep on winning? They foment politically irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with the reality of peoples day to day lives and sadly, loads of people (often intelligent and politically astute people) get sucked into it.
Apparently the most pressing and problematic issues that people are facing are whether or not we have quota’s for women on boards, or encourage Maori participation in government or advocate for equal rights for the trans and gay community.
“Demagogues take the anger that people feel and what demagogues say is don’t look at the people who really own the system, don’t look at the ruling class, don’t look at the people who cause the problems. Look at immigrants, look at people of color, look at gay people, look at people who might be different to you. You’re supposed to hate those people. Let’s rally together around hating those people rather then looking at those who are really causing the problem.” Bernie Sanders on Sky news when asked why people tack to the right when times are hard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgoPQS1kBUw
Right on queue – as if to make my previous point for me – here it is https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/distressing-police-called-as-queer-community-targeted-by-protest-at-auckland-library-drag-reading/UTQGWO5IHBBKLHVZ4NA4J6KBAQ/
“LGBTQ+ people may find themselves at odds with women over whose lives are the more insecure.”
It isn’t hard at all. If a trans woman lives as a woman, she ought to be regarded as such — in fact she’s much more likely to be than not. It’s good that only a loud few bigots disagree, only a pity they exist at all.
Comments are closed.