Maya The Politics of Identity

Globalization: The Politics of Identity and Social Hope
Richard Rorty

Does globalization and homogenization really begin to effect our identity? Do we feel lost in a a sea of brand names?

After world war II there were hopes of constructing a classless society. It is a utopian idealistic dream that everyone is equal, but that has not been realized. I was watching the news and they were saying that the gap between rich and poor is the largest it has ever been in the last 30 years.
Regarding globalization and its central question about the relationship between the rich and the poor. The problem now is that there is a global over class making all the economic decisions independent of government. There is not apparent solution. He suggested that Government would not do anything about it either because it would be “economically inefficient.”

Does individualization mean defining who we are based on deciding what we are not? If everyone was the same and equal, then I am sure that we would still find a way to judge one another. This reminds me of a similar question raised in art and architecture about determining what is good. It is difficult to decide what is ultimately good, instead there are just varying degrees of comparison over which is better than the other. Post modernism seemed to recognize the individual and an individuals thoughts; acknowledging that these thoughts don’t need to belong to a general ideology.

The theories of Marx’s as well as Hobbes’ and Locke’s based their analysis, critique and proposed solutions from the historical narrative. It is interesting to see that this referential system really depends on our cultures collective memory and places limitation of any possible solution within the framework of our collective history. Even though I think this grounds our culture and makes it easier for the collective to understand it suggests “history is doomed to repeat itself,” simple because things are based upon what we already know.

The alternative suggested take their starting points from philosophy of language, psychoanalysis or from traditional philosophical questions of identity, difference, self, subject, truth and reason. Rorty suggests that by using these reference points we are degrading our historical narrative and any possibility of progress. I disagree. By allowing for new reference points we are possibly able to rewrite our historical narrative and open up new possibilities for interpretation free of historical association.

These statements about “identity and difference” help to support my questions and reasoning behind our ability to self defines who we are.

Nietzche-Heidegger-Derrida criticism that there is no natural or intrinsic attribute to anything. “There is nothing vital to the self-identity of a being, independent of the descriptions we give of it.”

2. There is a question regarding the “preservation of cultural identity.”

If we are able to create a new framework or point of reference, or as Foucault says linguistic communication, identity issues regarding marginalized societies can be reframed within new boundaries.

There is less to be said about Identity and Difference. In order to address identity and difference you need to look at and reveal the flaws in the communication, economic or social framework that we work with in to construct our environments.