The following position paper circulated in Germany in late March here. It is part of a wider discussion of identity politics, especially the opinion piece by Wolfgang Thierse, translated in TelosScope here. See also the comments by one of the signators, Peter Brandt, here and here, and comments by the translator, Russell A. Berman, here.
To read more in depth from Telos, subscribe to the journal here.
We, the undersigned of this position paper, understand ourselves to be critical, progressive, open-minded, and ecologically oriented. We support deep ecological and social changes in our society. However we want to do this without identitarian fundamentalism! With this position paper we want to
- clarify that there are lots of people in the “left, green, and liberal spectrum” who have significant doubts concerning central elements of the diversity orientation, as has come to a head in the attacks on Wolfgang Thierse;
- warn that well-meaning positions can often have wrong results due to exaggeration and therefore do harm to the credibility of basic positions that are correct and important. It is correct and important to oppose racism and discrimination decisively. However our criticism is that identity politics is currently turning into self-righteousness, arrogance, and prohibitions on thought in the name of “diversity” and postcolonialism. In our view, this is an attack on freedom;
- point out that identitarian fundamentalism may seem to oppose right-wing, racist, and reactionary tendencies but in fact only spurs them on and ultimately relies on the same structures of thought. The fact that young right-wing extremists across Europe call themselves “identitarian” is no accident;
- advocate freedom of scholarship, teaching, art, and a culture of open dialogue, in which different opinions can be expressed and shared in a fair way and on the basis of differing knowledge and experiences, without repression, in a context of polite and respectful behavior by all.
Many of us have vigorously opposed established functionaries, some of them with terrible Nazi backgrounds. We opposed attitudes of European supremacy and the racist apartheid system in South Africa, we opposed discrimination and criminalization of gays, and the men among us have also supported ending patriarchal structures that do not oppress women exclusively but secondarily men as well through behavioral expectations and role assignments.
We specifically do not oppose minority-supportive, emancipatory, and postcolonial principles but rather their perversion into their opposites!
That takes place when
- it is claimed that the countries of Africa and Asia do not have the ability to improve their situation on their own and—rather than a correct assertion of European (co)‑responsibility—instead the guilt for the poor conditions is ascribed exclusively to the white population or the European states. This does not lead to an equal collaboration where the situation could be bettered on the basis of equal footing but instead keeps these countries in the role of victims, while also ignoring the developmental achievements in some non-European societies;
- and thereby every form of immigration—regardless of motivating factors—is seen as the same, and the legitimate demands of migrants are defamed as extensions of white domination;
- language and articulation proscriptions are introduced that lead above all to division and subordination instead of to discussion. What takes place then is the opposite of what progressive movements have fought for over centuries—the upright gait of emancipated human beings. We reject all such constructions!
Search for what binds us together—appreciate difference and respect it!
From our point of view, disadvantaging, discrimination, and exclusion cannot be overcome through ritualized statements of appreciation, language guidelines, or special rights. Quotas too are solely acceptable as transitional instruments to break up particularly ossified structures. One’s genealogy, skin color, private religion, sexual orientation, or gender must have no relevance to the claim on respect and recognition as citizens. At the same time, everyone with this claim has the obligation to behave according to a principle of reciprocity, just as is demanded of others, without being able to insist on exceptions on the basis of diversity.
A social consensus can be achieved on the basis of the claim that all persons should be judged according to their behavior, their pursuit of humanity, and their consideration of others. That sort of metric would encourage a social behavior, especially in cases of doubt. In contrast, the cultivation of victim status can lead to the exact opposite.
Overcoming social fragmentation requires the pursuit of the common good.
The extreme polarization in the United States, with the dramatic final scenes of the Trump era and the scope of right-wing populist electoral victories in Europe—reaching far beyond the traditional extremist right-wing spectrum—shows how dangerous the situation is. Anyone on the left who adds to the heat of this cultural polarization bears the responsibility and potentially the guilt for the results of the unintended consequences of their own actions.
In the face of inhuman statements—no matter from whom—we believe that clear opposition is not only legitimate but also specifically obligatory. This obligation to condemn concrete transgressions is however not a license for self-righteousness or an unfair treatment of others whose opinions we may reject or who pose critical questions that do not fit our understanding. On the contrary: In our view there is an obligation to participate in a fair exchange of opinions, as long as our interlocutor behaves discursively.
Appeal to the others to debate fairly, but we should as well!
It is not hard to share opinions with friends! It is difficult however to be able to have a fair debate on a controversial topic, especially with people we don’t like. Yet this is a core competency of free societies. It is all the more important, the more societies become polarized.
The signatories to this position paper are open to discussion. We call for fair discussion to take place in the left-wing, green, and liberal contexts, as well with individuals from the conservative spectrum who are open to discussion.
At the same time, signing this position paper also entails an obligation to strive for fairness, in the discussions among ourselves as well as with others. This includes the readiness to listen closely, to start by looking for fundamental common ground, and to formulate differences as objectively as possible. Places where fair discussion can be held are especially attractive. And we can develop power, in a good sense, if we can achieve what is no longer possible in many parties and organizations: dialogic exchange of differing opinions with dignity and respect.
We advocate an open society of solidarity that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is based on the idea that all have the same opportunity to develop and cultivate their individual personalities. We decisively reject any attempts to divide people up into groups based on genealogy or sexual identity and to treat them on the basis of group membership.
March 31, 2021
Original German with list of signatories is here.
