Reframing the Concepts of Identity and Difference Through the Lens of Dialogical Transversal Politics

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 17, 1762 - 1785, 31.03.2019

Pelin Dinçer

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.509667

Öz

In this study, it is argued that identity politics produces a
misrecognition of differences. Even though identity politics purports to
support diversity, it actually tends to incarcerate groups within simplified
categories and reified identities, while assuming an illusionary homogeneity
within groups. Therefore, it has the tendency to ignore intra-group differences
and contributes to the perpetuation of existing stereotypes related to the
groups, which minimise the potential for interaction among those with different
identities. This paper aims to present a political and conceptual tool,
transversal politics, in which the emphasis is on the “message”, not the “messenger”,
as a form of dialogical politics and an alternative to the limitations of
identity politics. Transversal politics emphasises that it is not the identity
of the messenger that is important, but the message and the communication.
Establishing transversal dialogue among groups requires respecting groups’
multiple positionings and it allows us to examine those entangled issues individually
and collectively, which transcends one of the central drawbacks of both
identity politics and universalist ideologies. With a focus on dialogical
transversal politics, this study provides an alternative approach to understand
differences to some degree.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Identity, identity politics, transversal politics, dialogical politics

Kimlik ve Farklılık Kavramlarının Diyalog Temelli Çapraz Politika Üzerinden Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, kimlik
politikalarının farklılıkların yanlış tanımlamasını ürettiği tartışılmıştır.
Kimlik politikaları tartışmalarında çeşitliliğin desteklendiği savunulsa dahi,
gruplar içerisinde yanıltıcı bir homojenlik varsayılmakla birlikte, grupların
basitleştirilmiş kategoriler ve maddeleştirilmiş kimlikler içinde hapsedilmesi
eğilimi mevcuttur. Bu nedenle, kimlik politikalarının grup içi farklılıkları
görmezden gelme eğilimi bulunmakta, gruplarla ilgili var olan kalıp yargıların
sürekliliğine katkıda bulunmakta ve farklı kimlikleri olan kişiler ve gruplar
arasındaki etkileşim potansiyelini en aza indirmektedir. Bu çalışma, vurgunun
“mesajı ileten kişi” den ziyade “mesaj” da olduğu politik ve kavramsal bir araç
olan çapraz politikayı, bir diyalog politikası biçimi ve kimlik politikalarının
sınırlamalarına bir alternatif olarak sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çapraz politika,
önemli olanın mesajı iletenin kimliğinden ziyade mesajın kendisinde ve
iletişimde olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Gruplar arasında çapraz diyalog kurmak
grupların çoklu konumlarına saygı duymayı gerektirmekte ve bu, birbirine
geçişken sorunları hem ayrı ayrı hem de birlikte incelememize imkân vererek hem
kimlik politikalarının hem de evrensel ideolojilerin temel sakıncalarının
ötesine geçiş imkânı sağlamaktadır. Diyalog temelli çapraz politikaya dayanan
bu çalışma, farklılıkları anlamak için bir ölçüde alternatif bir yaklaşım
sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kimlik, kimlik politikaları, çapraz politika, diyalog politikası

Kaynakça

• Alcoff, L. M. (2006). Visible identities: Race, gender and the self. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Alcoff, L. M. & Mohanty, S. P. (2006). Reconsidering identity politics: An introduction. L. M. Alcoff, M. Harmes-García, S. P. Mohan-ty & P. M. L. Moya (Eds.), Identity politics reconsidered (pp. 1–10). New York: Palgrave.
• Allen, A. (1999). Solidarity after identity politics: Hannah Arendt and the power of feminist theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25(1), 97–118.
• Benhabib, S. (1995). From identity politics to social feminism: A plea for the nineties. Philosophy of Education Society 50th Annual Meet-ing, 22–36.
• Benhabib, S. (1999). Sexual difference and collective identities: The new global constellation. Signs, 24(2), 335–361.
• Brandt, N. (2015). Feminist practice and solidarity in secular societies: Case studies on feminists crossing religious–secular divides in politics and practice in Antwerp, Belgium. Social Movement Studies, 14(4), 493–508.
• Byrne, S. (2014). Troubled engagement in ethnicized conflict. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(1), 106–126.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
• Cockburn, C. & Hunter, L. (1999). Transversal politics and translating practices. Soundings, 12, 88–94.
• Cockburn, C. (2014). The dialogue that died. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(3), 430–447.
• Cole, S. & Phillips, L. (2008). The violence against women campaigns in Latin America. Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 145–168.
• Collins, P. H. (2009). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
• Collins, P. H. (2017). On violence, intersectionality and transversal politics. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(9), 1460–1473.
• della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: an introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
• Fominaya, C. F. (2010). Collective identity in social movements: central concepts and debates. Sociology Compass, 4(6), 393–404.
• Hekman, S. (2010). Beyond identity: feminism, identity, identity politics. Feminist Theory, 1(3), 289–308.
• Lim, A. (2015). Transnational feminism and women's movements in post-1997 Hong Kong: solidarity beyond the state. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
• Stoetzler, M. & Yuval-Davis, N. (2002). Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory, 3(3), 315–333.
• Weir, A. (2008). Global feminism and transformative identity politics. Hypatia, 23(4), 110–133.
• Young, I. M. (2006). The complexities of coalition. L. Burns (Ed.), Feminist alliances (pp. 11–19). Amsterdam: Radopi.
• Young, I. M. (2007). Structural injustice and the politics of difference. A. S. Laden & D. Owen (Eds.), Multiculturalism and political theo-ry (pp. 60–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender & Nation. London: Sage Publications.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (1999). What is transversal politics? Soundings, 12, 94–98.
• Yuval-Davis, N. & Stoetzler, M. (2002). Imagined boundaries and borders: a gendered gaze. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 9(3), 329–344.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2010). Theorizing identity: beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(3), 261–280.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging: intersectional contesta-tions. London: Sage Publications.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2012). Dialogical epistemology – an intersectional re-sistance to the “oppression olympics”. Gender and Society, 26(1), 46-54.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2016a). Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging. W. Harcout (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp.367–382). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2016b). A dialogical conversation: a response to the responses. W. Harcout (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp. 434–439). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2016c). A response to Aili Tripp. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(2), 344–346.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2017). Recognition, intersectionality and transversal politics. Y. Meital & P. Rayman (Eds.), Recognition as key for reconciliation: Israel, Palestine and beyond (pp. 157–168). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill.