Wednesday, April 18, 2012
4/18 Thoughts
Among other things, Honig takes a critical look at an exchange between Arent and Gershom Scholem which veers into questions of identity politics. Scholem believes Arent has a political responsibility to the Jewish people while Arent believes not only that she does not, but that politics can only be meaningful when homogenization of identities is disgarded. It's an interesting debate. While I agree that no one has any responsibility to the homogenized identity groups that current "politics" (not the Arent definition of politics) lumps people into, I agree with Honig that Arent's arguments become problematic because she overlooks the political leverage that can only be gained in such groups. Arent herself defines power as something that only comes from a large group of people coming together. If this is true, she ought to see the "power" in homogenized groups. Of course one could argue that political bodies that partake in "action" should not form out of having in common certain characteristics, but out of sharing similar ideas; but it could also be argued that the members of any kind of organization united by homogenized identity probably share somewhat similar ideas if they are partaking in an organization that acts on specific ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I disagree that Arendt has a political responsibility to Jews, I also disagree with Arendt stating that politics can only be meaningful when homogenization of identities is ignored.
ReplyDeleteThis example is yet another case where Arendt is speaking of how things ought to be but not how they are.
People are shaped by their experiences, by their identities. Especially Jews. People will perceive politics differently depending on their ethnicity, race, gender association, economic standing, and various other identity factors.
It is homogenization of identities which allows for politics to happen. When we can agree on something as simple as the fact that we are all humans with the same basic needs, it can move entire populations into action. To ignore the power of homogenization of identities is, in my opion, ignorant.
On the other hand, if Arendt does not identify to the Jewish identity or does feel a political responsibility to that identity that is her choice.
I think Arendt wants to separate what you cannot change and what you can. I don't really think you can though. It reminds me of how supreme court justices say that they're unbiased referees of the legal system, and personal experiences and interest don't enter into their decisions. I don't really think that it is actually possible, because your whole worldview is shaped by your experiences and identity. In the case of Arendt and the justices, maybe it would be nice to be able to separate them, but it just isn't possible.
ReplyDelete