Discussing identity politics : How lived experiences disrupt debate

By Freddy Bin Yusuf

In Hippias Major, one of the dialogues of Plato, Socrates and Hippias set out to find out what is the definition of beauty. Hippias offers definitions, and Socrates counters with four arguments, concluding beauty is difficult to define, something no doubt he knew before posing the question to Hippias. This is one of the great dialogues of Plato about Socrates, and these dialogues shape much of how the West define concepts, and form arguments.

Socrates was an ugly man, his statues affirming this, and with that in mind I’ll attempt to link it to this. The adherents of identity politics have laid a new card on the table, one which they use to silence debate and twist questions into attacks. This is the concept of “lived experience”

The term lived experience is used to describe the first-hand accounts and impressions of living as a member of a minority or oppressed group. 

Essentially this original definition was that you cannot discount an experience and you should listen, as in the example in the link, a male in tech cannot comment on what is is like for a female tech, only listen to her lived experience. This, on face value, is simply common sense, get as many different viewpoints as you can.

However, it has been twisted further. I spotted this in a tweet on Twitter and have seen similar across social media:

“white people can’t decide what’s racist, straight people can’t decide what’s homophobic, cis people can’t decide what’s transphobic”

This is essentially used to close down debate as its used as a counterpoint to questions and criticism. It is often demanded that you cannot engage in an argument on certain issues unless you are part of the minority that is being oppressed.  This concept is used to reinforce claims and statements that are not derived not from data, or from evidence, but from feelings of the individual who is able to provide evidence of lived experience.

Lived experiences derive from postmodern critical theory, which politicises social problems by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, but takes it one step further in ignoring historical reality in favour of a self-affirmative reality.

This defies belief, and ignores history. The banning of slavery could not be debated by non-slaves? The argument for the vote for women could not be debated by men? What happens if the viewpoint is from an intersection of identities that form a sum of one person? No one can debate at all? This has even been applied to jokes and comments on various identities, with attempts to control the speech of everyone, not just those party to the conversation.

The ground rules for debate cannot be set by one side alone, they cannot decide what can be debated, what can be questioned or what can be disproved. It is fair to reject the basic foundations of debate within a closed community, but this is not the case as they are insisting that their concepts are now the universal societal rules which must not be broken, and they seek to enforce their domination of all culture by any means necessary.

Socrates: because they do not seem so to people; but that is not what I asked, what seems to most people to be beautiful, but what is so.” We shall, then, I fancy, say, as we suggested, “We say that that part of the pleasant which comes by sight and hearing is beautiful.” Do you think the statement is of any use, Hippias, or shall we say something else?

Socjus: As an ugly man you are not allowed to comment on beauty. Blocked. 

4 thoughts on “Discussing identity politics : How lived experiences disrupt debate

  1. The criterion of “lived experience” is applied very selectively, however – the antisemitism that Jews experience from people on the left is dismissed as being not really antisemitic. Jewish “lived experience” doesn’t count.


    • Oh absolutely, the identity warriors have declared Jews are white, and hold privilege and power. It usually goes a bit like this…

      “When a LGB says it is homophobic we must listen and believe
      When a non-white says something is racist then that is a fact and cannot be argued
      When a trans says it is transphobic we cannot deny this and erase their experiences
      When a Jew says something is anti-Semitic then these are hasbara lies, and a neoliberal Zionist conspiracy from the Zionist controlled media protecting their fascist invasion of Palestine.”


  2. I’d take the argument, with which I agree, even further. The conclusion of guarding one’s own lived experience so fanatically would be the end of most cultural transmission and human communication. If I can’t talk with you about what it is like being me, if I won’t let you question me, challenge me, empathize with me, or even wander off scratching your head because you just don’t get it, then human intercourse is diminished. One’s lived experience is only meaningful in relation to other people. And this is without considering forms of literature, music, and art which are connections based on difference, enhanced by it.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. By this logic, the oppressed have no true knowledge of the oppressors lived experience and therefore can not say with any certainty whether they are the oppressed or oppressors.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s