Once a new electoral process has been concluded, this time aimed at determining the figure of the next president of Chile and the new parliamentary configuration that will accompany his administration, the subsequent (hopefully fruitful) evaluation period begins aimed at extracting those conclusions and learnings that will serve as input to travel the new cycle of the Chilean left.
Most analyses agree that the choice that confronted identity conservatism, represented by José Antonio Kast, and progressive liberal reformism, led by Gabriel Boric, constitutes a kind of extension and historical continuity of the cleavage of the binomial between the “YES” and the “NO”. Indeed, I think it is responsible to recognize at this point that the support received by two historical figures of the concertación, Michelle Bachelet and Ricardo Lagos, constituted an indispensable element for the configuration of a new progressive bloc aimed at defeating the candidate identified with political Pinochetism. Separate analysis deserves the symbolic reconciliation between the prodigal son (Frente Amplio) and his worn-out and aging parents (Concertación, Nueva Mayoría). There are those who say that children, in the face of need, always return home parents. Not to be fooled, there is an important merit in this: The family union allowed, not only the defeat (perhaps momentary, but defeat at last) of an emerging reactionary force enemy of democracy, but ended up burying all the attempts of the right (political and economic) to place itself in the sphere of the liberal center. Today the euphemism no longer serves: The so-called “Chilean center right”, paradoxically and in the midst of a desperate need for salvation, returned to its old trench in order to join forces with the candidate José Antonio Kast. Today, along with lamenting again their position of irrelevance (in 31 years of democratic governments, they have only achieved two presidential victories), they are forced to face a real and serious identity crisis.
Naturally, the left and center-left celebrate (for different reasons) the current scenario of things. The epic was too big. But the weight of reality will not be long in coming: given the complex results obtained in Congress, the new government of Gabriel Boric will be faced with the complex decision to negotiate with the different opposition forces that today make up both chambers. No doubt that will force us to “compromise” certain aspects of the program, prioritize others and discard the rest. What happened in parliament is certainly a major defeat. Nor should we neglect the fact that Gabriel Boric obtained in the first round a support equivalent to 25.8% of the votes, increasing only by 800,000 votes the results obtained in the primaries of Apruebo Dignidad (approximately 1,060,000 votes). That is, only the threat of an eventual triumph of José Antonio Kast in the second round allowed the left to convene the necessary majority to return to being government. We will have to ask ourselves how many of the votes are due to a genuine adherence to the program proposed by the Broad Front and how many went to vote with the sole objective of Kast not winning. However, the picture is far from the best.
It is urgent, then, to ask what aspects underlie the strategy for the dispute of the power of the new lefts worldwide. It is also necessary to resolve, without losing sight of the multifactorial universe of factors that could also have an impact, that both of those strategies is precisely what has cemented the foundations for the (let’s say it) surprising rise of the extreme right at the global level.
For some time now, the idea that the recognition of the particular identity (gender, ethnicity or population, sexual orientation, etc.) would constitute “per se” an emancipatory and, to some extent, revolutionary act has permeated progressive circles and parties for a long time. This conception, present in an almost hegemonic way in the world left after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has contributed to positioning the vindication of particular identities (also known in political science as “identity politics”) as its main strategy and banner of struggle. This has led it to place itself in the field of cultural, ideological, institutional and legal dispute (the superstructure if the concept is preferred), a plane of confrontation where it has found in the Hollywood industry and in large corporations its main allies.
The valuable cultural change driven by historical groupsThe oppressed should fill us with hope, which is doubtful. The painful reality of those who suffer daily the weight of the old norm must necessarily challenge us. However, along with the recognition and inclusion in social and political life (also corporate) of the multiple marginalized identities, truly necessary and indispensable changes for the progress of all humanity, those brands and multinationals that have been able to “absorb” the demands of those groups through phenomena such as “pinkwashing” or “cause marketing” have also enjoyed greater validation and growing reputation.[1]
The problem with this, in my view, lies in the following. Professor Todd McGowan, a scholar of psychoanalysis in modern cinema and a great critic of identity politics, argues that the “enjoyment” or “enjoyment” of one’s own identity would only be possible through differentiation or opposition with the rest (other identities, the “other”). This is how the reinforcement of identity would be intimately linked to the confrontation of one’s own individual particularities with respect to those of others, which is why there would then be no genuine recognition of identity “by itself”, but in function of what makes me truly different, special or unique. In this way, for McGowan, there would be a paradox in the objective of symbolic recognition proposed by the defenders of identity politics insofar as it is precisely the absence of recognition that reinforces the commitment to one’s own identity. The more you gain, the more you lose.
In the words of the intellectual Asad Haider: “The identity scheme reduces politics to who you are as an individual and to gaining recognition as an individual, rather than your belonging to a collectivity and to the collective struggle against a social structure (…) As a result, identity politics paradoxically ends up reinforcing the very norms it set out to criticize.”
Now, we must not be confused. The vindication and defense of the particular and collective rights of historically oppressed groups is precisely an indispensable part of the struggle for a more just and civilized society (ultimate objectives of anyone who considers themselves authentically progressive). As can be seen, the danger of all this lies precisely in “essentializing” the other, taking him out of the way and highlighting his difference over “the common”. Today the left has forgotten that its political and social project is always collective. It should be remembered, since many have also forgotten it, that marginal positions have never allowed to dispute power, or in simple words, do not win elections.
In this sense, we must bear in mind the old phrase of “divide and conquer”, attributed to Emperor Julius Caesar, which represents the triumph of identity politics over collective wills that transcend the former. Let it not be uncommon then to see how neoliberalism (so criticized by the liberal left), enjoys full health thanks to the incorporation of a renewed progressive image.
“So what does identity politics have to do with the left? Let me say firmly what should not be repeated. The political project of the left is universalist: it is addressed to all human beings.”
Eric Hobsbawm.
I must once again reinforce the idea that the problem is not to be found in the defence of oppressed groups. On the contrary. The problem lies in having made identity politics the political centrality of the new left., that left that “enjoys” preserving a marginal position and is completely powerless when it comes to convening the majorities necessary to improve the material reality of the most dispossessed classes, the first political and historical subject of its struggle. It is essential then to re-tune in with the problems of the majority, reconnect with their domestic reality (spoiler: it is not that of twitter or that of the cafes in the university) and build a project that is capable of convening and at the same time representing all those who demand and need representation.
The pontificating, messianic and hyper-moralizing progressivism has contributed to driving away the masses, who are increasingly less represented by a discourse that invalidates, cancels and excludes. The dispute for cultural hegemony, by itself, will always be sterile if it is not accompanied by a strategy and proposal for structural change. These are the changes that the people demand and that they can no longer (and should not) continue to wait.
The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
