By Yanis Iqbal
Ever since the inception of right-wing populism as a dominant political force, the contentious issue of identity politics has re-surfaced. This is mainly due to the fact that right-wing populism actively utilizes identitarian tools to augment its electoral edifice. A right-wing populist usage of identity involves the subjective solidification of a parochial identitarian consciousness and its consequent constitution as a politics of woundedness or ressentiment which proclaims the “triumph of the weak as weak”. According to Wendy Brown, this politics of ressentiment serves a threefold function - ‘it produces an affect (rage, righteousness) that overwhelms the hurt; it produces a culprit responsible for the hurt; and it produces a site of revenge to displace the hurt (a place to inflict hurt as the sufferer has been hurt).’ Through these three steps, right-wing populism is able to fulfill two important tasks:
(1) It is able to exploit and parochially politicize the ontological insecurities of neoliberalism generated due to institutionalized individualization and neoliberal de-communitarianization. This exploitation of ontological insecurities is effectuated through the creation of endogenously enclosed identities which culturally unify the victims of neoliberalization. (2) It is able to artificially separate the sphere of circulation from the sphere of production with a non-hierarchized culturalization of the sphere of circulation. This guarantees the continued existence of capitalism in which the question of the ownership of the means of production has to be insulated from disruptive politicization.
Right-wing populism, therefore, relies on identity politics to segregate the political from economic formation. In this entire operation of dissociation of the economic and political, the presence of class structures gets completely obfuscated and obscured. As a consequence of the blurring of class distinctions, the overthrow of the Capitalist Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) becomes more difficult and economic differentiational configurations get culturally cloaked in non-economic encrustations. But instead of countering this identitarian obscuration of class configuration, matters are further complicated by the left-wing camp itself which readily asserts that class too is an identity. This is an ambivalent strategic-theoretical impasse because it conveys that the Left selectively prioritizes class and chooses to ignore other identities. Due to the portrayal of the Left as apathetic towards non-class identities, coalitional opportunities are lost and the possibility of presenting an integrated opposition to capitalism is weakened. In order to move away from this opposition between class identity and non-class identities and correspondingly re-alter leftist political praxis, this article will re-theorize the notion of class within the problematic of anti-capitalist struggle and right-wing populism.
The consideration of class as an identity ignores its role in the construction of capitalism. Rather than being an identity, classes are the constitutive coordinates of capitalism. Within the sphere of the relations of production, classes act as materio-empirical ensembles, structurally embedded in the objective matrix of capitalism. As cardinal components of the system of capitalism, classes facilitate our insertion into the architectural organization of capital accumulation by unequally distributing economic resources. This insertion happens through people’s material objectification/structural determination by the exclusive possession of productive forces by bourgeoisie. The consequence of this structural determination by the prevailing material-economic circumstances of capitalism is our integration into the system of capital accumulation through the pre-existing arrangement of classes. This line of reasoning posits that capitalism pre-supposes the existence of an arrangement of classes and classes pre-exist our insertion into the system of capital accumulation. Accordingly, it is through the pre-established structural arrangement of classes that individuals enter into the regulated totality of capitalism.
Despite the constructural centrality of classes in constituting capitalism, we seldom observe its conspicuous deployment on the political terrain. Moreover, the subjective self-certainty of being a part of class is never fully realized. This indicates a gap between the objective structure of class and its self-conscious subjective awareness among the people belonging to that class. The contributory causal factors behind the absence of the discursive dominance of class can be located within the schema of class and class struggle. Class is politically-electorally unrepresented or poorly represented because it is deliberately disorganized and ideologically invisibilized by the facilitators of capitalism. This is a part of class struggle wherein the ruling class continuously decomposes and recomposes classes to discursively disrupt it and prevent it from subjectively hegemonizing the popular imaginary. The discursive deconstruction of class is necessary for capitalism insofar that it has to prevent the objective structure of capitalist inequality from appearing in the domain of politics and culture.
Systematic origination of a class-blind political and cultural morphology is aided by the concentrated cultural clout and political hegemony which the ruling class possesses. Along with the continuous construction of a non-class matrix, the ruling class also inhibits the development of class politics through the “selectivities” which are embedded in the system of capitalism. Capitalism is arranged in a way that prevents and constricts the emergence of counter-hegemonic class politics. The various modalities through which it selects and retains certain practices are referred to as selectivities. According to the classificatory schema developed by Bob Jessop, there are 4 selectivities i.e. structural, discursive/ideological, technological and agential. Through the criss-crossing interaction between these selectivities, the emergence of class-based counter-hegemonic program is impeded.
In contradistinction to classes, identities are differentiated subject positions which individuals occupy. While identities are constructed to provide us with variegated subject positions and a symbolic world, classes are pre-fabricated structural assemblages which are later ideologically concealed through diverse semiotic techniques. Moreover, despite being shrouded by the ideologists of capitalism, classes don’t disappear and we continue to remain associated with specific classes. This is because of the fundamental fact that as long as capitalism exists, classes will also exist and our locationality within this system of classes will also persist insofar that we cannot transcend the limits of capitalism and remain within its economic confines. Identities, on the other hand, are not materially rooted in the formational processes of capitalism and are negotiable, moldable and de-composable. Their symbolic elasticity derives from the fact that they are not the constitutive-structural components of capitalism. Instead, they are the ramified excrescences of class which acts as a generative core.
The status of class as a generative core can be clarified by using the concept of “generative entrenchment”. Generative entrenchment refers to the creation of dependency networks in which a structure has many things operating on or within it. Class is generatively entrenched due to its qualitative specificity in the constitution of capitalism. It is an omnipresent fundamental feature of capitalism within which polymorphic identities operate. Therefore, different identities aggregate and disaggregate within the spatial bounds of class structure and class acts as the material plexus in which identities are interlarded.
This underlying theoretical explication of class and identity has been mystified by the concept of “intersectionality” which has acquired unprecedented popularity within identitarian theorizations. While it is true that a multiplicity of identities are contemporaneously acting and converging, intersectionality’s depiction of identities as mere descriptive categories leads to the absence of an active interpretation of oppression. According to Myra Marx Ferree, intersectionality theory highlights the ‘infinitely multiple substantive social locations, generates a long list of important intersectional locations to be studied and offers voice to the perspectives of many marginalized groups’. In this description of intersectionality theory, one can clearly observe that there is a complete non-existence of an interpretative-analytical focus on the origins of oppression. This gives rise to the framing of identities as static and freely floating in an undefined atmosphere of interpersonal relations. Classism is a paradigmatic example of a failed intersectional theorization of class in which systemic questions were reduced to questions of interpersonal sensibilities. Classism’s “objection is to the way snotty rich (or middle-class) people treat poor people, not to the system that produces these divisions in the first place”. In this way, oppression is reduced to personalized inferiorization, inequality is reduced to the snobbishness of the rich and the answer to capitalism’s destructive tendencies becomes a change in attitudinal practices.
As this article is operating within a problematic of anti-capitalism and right-wing populism, it is necessary that a new strategy for strategically deploying the revised understanding of identity and class be crafted. It is clear that polycontextural identities are interpolated in the reticulation of class structure and it is on the generatively entrenched surface of class that identities operate. In present-day circumstances, right-wing populism has synthetically separated identity from class by emptily culturalizing and traumatizing the experience of neoliberal entrepreneurialization and de-communitarianization. This emphasis on cultural wounds has led to the creation of an antagonistic frontier in which antipathy towards neoliberalism has been funneled in the direction of an “excluded other”. Consequently, essentialized identities have solidified and sedimented with the aim of engaging in a moralized politics of revenge. What has led to the essentialization and sedimentation of identities is the ideological concealment of classes. With the conjoint involvement of class and identity, a dynamic politics of revolution is produced which refuses to being tethered to the putative particularity of hollow identity. This happens as a result of the ultimate aim of class-conscious politics which is the comprehensive elimination of class itself. For example, subaltern classes participate in revolutionary class struggle to obliterate their subalternity. Matt Bruenig aptly sums this up when he says that “justice for poor people requires their elimination”.
When the radical universality of revolution is introduced through a class-conscious politics, the specificity of identity gets entwined in the progress towards a “radical humanism”. This radical humanism has to be achieved through a careful movement of the particularity to universality which humanizes and incorporates this closed particularity. The humanization and incorporation of identity into revolutionary universality will yield what can be called “democratic cultural identity”. Democratic cultural identity stresses the need to continuously re-compose identitarian specificity and organically combine the multiplicitous I’s to concretely progress towards a revolutionary “we”. It is only through this concrete and open-textured articulation of I’s that we can achieve a humanized and sonorous democratic cultural identity.
