Postcolonialism, Identitarianism, and the Rise of the New Right
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Postcolonial Theory
“Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988): * This essay is considered Spivak’s “big statement” and a foundational text in postcolonial theory. * The Politics of Representation: The central concern of the text is the politics of representation, specifically questioning who has the authority to speak for whom, the timing of such speech, the location of the discourse, and the methods used to represent others. * The Concept of the Subaltern: Spivak argues that structural disadvantages—economic, social, and political—prevent marginalized individuals (the subaltern) from “speaking.” In this context, “speaking” does not simply mean the literal act of talking; it refers to the ability to be heard and recognized by the dominant social and political structures. * Focus on Subaltern Women: Spivak highlights that marginalized women face a unique, multi-layered oppression.
Section 4 Analysis (Beginning on Page 90): * Proto-Intersectionality: Spivak employs a proto-intersectional framework, famously stating that if a person is simultaneously poor, black, and female, they are oppressed in three distinct ways (they “get it three ways”). * The Case of “Sati” (Widow Immolation): * Sati refers to the historical practice where a widow was immolated on her husband's funeral pyre. * The British colonial government outlawed the practice in . * Conflicting Representations: Spivak notes the common colonial justification for intervention: “white men saving brown women from brown men” (Page 93). * The Silencing of the Widow: Amidst the competition between British colonialists and indigenous men to define the practice, the widow herself has no voice. Both the white men and the brown men attempt to speak for her, but in doing so, they effectively silence her. * Spivak’s Goal: Her objective is to recover the subaltern voice so they can truly “speak” (be heard and acknowledged as subjects with agency).
The Identitarian Left: Philosophy and Critique
Core Characteristics: * Identitarianism is defined as a politics of group identity, focusing on the tension between hegemonic powers (the dominant structures) and those categorized as excluded, oppressed, marginalized, or subaltern.
Dichotomies of Goal (Liberal vs. Radical): * The lecture identifies a split within identitarian movements regarding their ultimate goals. The first option in the following pairs represents the liberal approach, while the second represents the radical approach: * Critical Race Theory (CRT): Is the goal a less racist country (liberal) or an admission that the country has always been and will always be fundamentally racist (radical)? * Gender Theory: Is the goal for trans people to be recognized as equal (liberal) or to be given the power to impose a new, non-binary outlook on gender on everyone (radical)? * Intersectionality: Is the goal to foster greater empathy for those oppressed on multiple dimensions (liberal) or to create a competition for the status of “most oppressed” while casting cisgender, heterosexual (cishet) white males as perennial oppressors (radical)? * Postcolonial Theory: Is the goal to invite the subaltern into a conversation (liberal) or to have them take the lead and force others to sit in silent listening (radical)?
Psychological Motivations: * Isothymia: The desire for equal recognition and dignity. * Megalothymia: The desire to be recognized as superior or to become an oppressor in turn.
Contemporary Practices and “Wokeness”: * Politics of Testimony: There is an insistence in contemporary left-wing circles that those in power must “shut up and listen” to the “truth” of victims. This is described as a politics of testimony and passive spectating (related to Bell, standpoint epistemology, and storytelling). * Hierarchies of Domination: This brand of politics is criticized for investing in, rather than removing, received hierarchies of domination. * Impact on Free Speech: This ideology suggests protesters are entitled to shut down speakers they oppose. * Viability Questions: The lecture questions if it is viable to have a politics where one side must listen silently to the other, using the Israel-Palestine conflict as a potential example of the difficulty.
Institutional Implementation: * “Wokeness” Definition: The use of institutional and cultural power (including social media networks) to enforce identitarian assumptions through fear and shame. * Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): The lecture asks whether hiring, promotion, and firing should be contingent on accepting specific left-leaning positions. This raises the question of whether those who reject these assumptions should be marginalized or excommunicated. * Relationship to Neoliberalism: Is the identitarian left a critique of the neoliberal technocratic-managerial order (attempting to topple it), or is it a highly developed expression of it? This involves “fiddling knobs” within institutions to control outcomes rather than winning broader elections.
Samuel Francis and Paleoconservatism
The Evolution of the American Right: * The Old Right: Characterized by laissez-faire economics (allied with Gilded Age businessmen), aristocratic moral traditionalism, and an isolationist/“America First” foreign policy. * The New Right: Rose to prominence during the Cold War. Characterized by democratic-populist libertarianism in morals, an internationalist foreign policy to fight communism, and a preference for immigration and free trade. * The Rise of Paleoconservatism: Following the Cold War, the Old Right reasserted itself as “paleoconservatism,” coalescing around Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign. Buchanan won of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against George H.W. Bush.
Tenets of Paleoconservatism: * Economics: Protectionist and anti-free trade. * Morality: Traditionalist and democratic/populist. * Immigration: Staunchly anti-immigration for economic reasons (wages being undercut) and cultural reasons (xenophobia, nativism, and the preservation of a “white” American identity). * Foreign Policy: Nationalist (“America First”).
Essay 1: “Beautiful Losers”: * Critique of Reagan: Francis argues the conservative movement during the Reagan administration was “hapless” and useless because it made peace with the New Deal and the technocratic managerial state. Reagan failed to significantly reduce the welfare state. * Counter-Revolutionary Stance: Francis asserts the right should stop trying to “conserve” and instead become “counter-revolutionary.” * Elite vs. Middle America: Francis argues the establishment serves the elite in Manhattan, New Haven, and Washington. The new right must ally with the “alienated and threatened strata of Middle America.” * The “Squeeze” Theory: * Managerial Elite: The bureaucratic administrative state (the regime) that runs the system and leans liberal. * Urban Underclass: Poor minority groups. * The Squeeze: The elites bribe the underclass with welfare benefits to stay in power, funded by the taxes of “Middle Americans” (who are typically white working class). * The “Seize” Strategy: Francis advocates for Middle Americans to “seize” power from the managerial elite and force the state to serve their interests instead of the underclass.
Essay 2: “Nationalism, Old and New”: * Defining Middle America: * Economically: Working class (specifically non-BIPOC/WASP). * Sociologically: Caught between the non-white underclass and the leftist intelligentsia elite. * Geographically: The Midwest and the “Rust Belt.” * A New Political Formula: Francis proposes a synthesis of left-wing attention to material-economic interests and right-wing defense of concrete cultural and national identity. * Rejection of the “Propositional Nation”: He rejects the idea of America as a philosophical proposition about equality for all. Instead, he views the nation as a “historically and culturally unique order” that commands loyalty and excludes those who cannot or will not assimilate to its norms. * Tactics: Populist; involves seizing the administrative state (the “regime”) and replacing civil servants with ideological allies while abolishing various departments (Education, Labor, HHS, etc.) and civil rights enforcement agencies.
Murray Rothbard and Right-Wing Populism
The Libertarian Paradox: * Rothbard addresses why libertarians would favor a nationalist platform (anti-immigration, protectionism, strong anti-crime) which seems like “big government” conservatism. * Critique of Intellectualism: Rothbard claims the models of Hayek and Friedman are too slow because they rely on ideas trickling down. He argues that cultural elites cannot be persuaded because they benefit from the statist system. * The Alliance: Libertarians should ally with white middle and lower classes (“rednecks”) who hate both the government and the groups (predominantly minorities) perceived to benefit from it.
The Rothbard Program: * Economic/Policy: Repeal income tax, abolish the IRS, slash welfare, and abolish affirmative action. * “Crush Criminals”: Rothbard calls for unleashing the police to administer “instant punishment,” stripping individual rights in the process. * “Get Rid of the Bums”: He advocates using police to clear the streets of “bums and vagrants,” irrespective of where they end up. * Foreign Policy: Abolish the Federal Reserve and adopt an “America First” foreign policy.
The Right Against Conservatism: Tucker Carlson and Michael Anton
Tucker Carlson: “Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right” (2016): * The Failure of the Establishment: Carlson argues that the Republican establishment failed because it spent decades on think tanks without listening to its voters. * Exhilaration of Truth: Trump’s appeal is his willingness to say things that defy “woke” self-censorship. * Shift in Evangelicalism: Evangelicals began to view Trump as a “transactional strongman-protector” rather than a moral exemplar. * The Whistleblower: Trump is cast as a “traitor to his class” who knows the system is corrupt because he participated in it.
Michael Anton: “The Flight 93 Election” (2016): * The Metaphor: The election is compared to the hijacked Flight 93 on 9/11: charging the cockpit (voting for Trump) is dangerous, but doing nothing results in certain death. * The Critique of Conservatism: Anton argues that “conservatism” has become an establishment that accomplishes nothing. If things continue without fundamental change, conservatism has effectively failed philosophically and practically. * The Leftward Trend: He argues the entire trend of the West is “ever-leftward,” and conservatives have often assisted in this shift.
Types of Reactionaries: * Restorative Reactionary: Believes nothing is left to “conserve” in the present and seeks to restore a specific “golden age” from the past (e.g., the 1950s). * Redemptive Reactionary: More radical. Believes the golden age is so far removed that it cannot be restored. The only option is to destroy the present system entirely.
The Narrative of “Beautiful Losers”: * The lecture traces a history of GOP “losses” despite holding power: * Eisenhower: Did nothing with the welfare state. * Nixon: Continued expanding the welfare state. * Reagan: Won the Cold War but didn't cut spending, only lowered deficits temporarily for revenue. * Bush (41 and 43): “Compassionate conservatism” that cut taxes but expanded government spending and started the War on Terror. * Conclusion: The Right believes they have been “suckers” for years, gaining power but never using it to move the country to the right. This justifies the need for a leader who will “take a baseball bat to the system.”
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak:
Spivak is significant for her critical examination of representation, especially as it pertains to marginalized voices, and her essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" highlights the complexities of identity and oppression faced by subaltern groups, particularly women.
She argues that those who are economically, socially, and politically marginalized struggle to be heard within the dominant discourse, thus her work seeks to recover these silenced voices, empowering them to claim their agency.
The Identitarian Left:
Thinkers in this movement emphasize the importance of group identity in the face of hegemonic power structures. They advocate for an understanding of intersectionality, recognizing that individuals may experience oppression through multiple identities (e.g., race, gender).
The contrast between liberal and radical goals illustrates their diverse approaches: liberal thinkers often aim for inclusion within existing frameworks, while radicals seek deeper systemic change and a reconfiguration of power dynamics.
Samuel Francis and Paleoconservatism:
Francis critiques the contemporary conservative establishment, arguing for a return to a more traditionalist and nationalist framework that prioritizes the interests of Middle America over elite agendas.
His writings highlight the disconnect within conservative politics and advocate for a revival of populist sentiments that reject the liberal consensus on social issues and prioritize cultural identity.
Murray Rothbard and Right-Wing Populism:
Rothbard’s libertarian views challenge conventional narratives around government and nationalism, showing an alliance with lower-class white populations resisting perceived overreach by the state.
He promotes the idea that true liberty can only be achieved through the dismantling of state power, emphasizing a radical departure from the norms of both liberal and traditional conservatism.
Tucker Carlson and Michael Anton:
Carlson’s critiques of the Republican establishment reflect a disillusionment with traditional conservatism, representing a shift towards a populist approach that prioritizes direct engagement with the electorate's desires and frustrations.
Anton’s metaphor of the "Flight 93 Election" illustrates the urgency of political action against what he views as an existential threat posed by leftist ideologies, advocating for a radical break with ineffective conservative policies.