same as it ever was

Jerry asked me if I'd ever think of voting for the Respect party.

Well, firstly, it's hardly a party and more like a protest group. Secondly, it's too closely associated with Muslims and so the answer has to be no. Everyone nowadays, it seems, has a grievance, is a victim of some form of power or the other. Of course, it has to be said that in lots of cases there's a real cause for concern: there is sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia. But is the way out of that really to lay emphasis on each sub-group's rights, a politics based on difference?

Post-modernism, cultural relativism, respect for the 'otherness' of the other, a radical alterity that cannot be subsumed by the dominant tradition, that cannot be reduced to the Same. In the same vein, to ignore differences leads to homogenization or, even worse, to a deliberate policy of estrangement and marginalization. 'We, the people' soon becomes we, the upper classes, or we, the ruling elites, with all deviants and renegades consigned to the periphery or even worse...

One nation, one people.

Something troubling about that. The Palestinians are not a people and therefore not a nation. The state and money the only markers of identity (the only "gods", to use Simone Weil's words) and all resistance is about refusing the state's narrative and the false universalism and individualism of the market, a refusal to be incorporated into the 'subjectivization' of the State.

But surely there's a difference between the 'rebel citizen' and the person who falls back on to their local identities (race, religion, gender)? Is the entry of these factors the destruction of politics itself?

Well, it might be countered, this idea of citizenship itself is a partial viewpoint masquerading as the universal. It has a particular history, trajectory, context and texts.It is one view amongst many other views (or so the fundamentalist will argue). Why should it be given priority over others. What if we do want to organize society on the basis of religion? What if that's what the people want?Where's your freedom now?

I think this is mistaken (which is not to negate or forget the horrors of state power).

Firstly, universalim is not one view amongst others because whilst it allows space for other views (of course, some space, and on its own terms) the partial viewpoints set out from the beginning to restrict the freedoms of other groups. So, to the extent that a muslim politics favours the 'pure' over women, minorities, the heterodox and the infidels it veers, in my opinion, to something like the negation of the political. Which is not to say that a universal muslim perspective isn't possible (M.Taha).

Secondly, universalim isn't necessarily a negation of the particular. In fact, if one is concerned about equality then one has to take differences into account. If, say, one holds that disabled people should have the same capability set as abled-body people then one is asserting that equality is important at some fundamental level and at the same time that one may be required to treat them differently (in terms of resources allocated, for example) so that they can be afforded that equal respect.

The Same, then, is an aspiration and a move to it is surely the way forward for any progressive politics.