Against the Labouring Classes: Identity Politics in the New Victorian Age
The New Victorianism serves to not only divert politics into issues of morality and identity, it works to obfuscate the bases of increasing inequality. Focusing on the Democratic Party, and its abandonment of the working class over the past forty years, Adolph Reed Jr. (professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania) would appear to have seen from early on how these issues are linked—though he does not use the phrase “New Victorianism,” he describes it in other words. Speaking of Democrats and liberals in general, he wrote of,
“their capacity for high-minded fervor for the emptiest and sappiest platitudes; their tendencies to make a fetish of procedure over substance and to look for technical fixes to political problems; their ability to screen out the mounting carnage in the cities they inhabit as they seek pleasant venues for ingesting good coffee and scones; their propensity for aestheticizing other people’s oppression and calling that activism; their reflex to wring their hands and look constipated in the face of conflict; and, most of all, their spinelessness and undependability in crises”. (Reed, 1996)
Twenty years ago he criticized “their refusal to face up to the class realities of American politics” and how liberals “avoid any linkage of inequality with corporations’ use of public policy to drive down living standards and enhance their plunder”. Instead, when it comes to the marginalized within the US they opt for a maudlin “save-the-babies politics” that demonizes working-class parents, much the same way that the right-wing has done. He concluded that liberal politics are “motivated by the desire for proximity to the ruling class and a belief in the basic legitimacy of its power and prerogative. It is a politics which, despite all its idealist puffery and feigned nobility, will sell out any allies or egalitarian objectives in pursuit of gaining the Prince’s ear” (Reed, 1996).
Reed’s critique later expanded beyond the confines of the Democratic party, moving to include left activists and the labour movement, raising an issue that I recently touched upon when I wrote that, “it now seems clear that every single sector and shade of the US left has made some sort of peace with neoliberalism, with the basic structure of the status quo, from which their hopes hang even if by the thinnest of humanitarian, cosmopolitan and reformist threads”. This is how Reed argued the point:
“the labor movement has been largely subdued, and social activists have made their peace with neoliberalism and adjusted their horizons accordingly. Within the women’s movement, goals have shifted from practical objectives such as comparable worth and universal child care in the 1980s to celebrating appointments of individual women to public office and challenging the corporate glass ceiling. Dominant figures in the antiwar movement have long since accepted the framework of American military interventionism. The movement for racial justice has shifted its focus from inequality to ‘disparity,’ while neatly evading any critique of the structures that produce inequality”. (Reed, 2014)
On Obama, Reed commented on how he is largely a figment of identity politics: “Obama is the pure product of this hollowed-out politics. He is a triumph of image and identity over content; indeed, he is the triumph of identity as content” (Reed, 2014). Just as Obama as a mere image was meant to perform a domestic counterinsurgency function—pacification—identity politics was meant to suffocate class divisions:
“The assertion of a fundamentally antagonistic history between labour and social movements, particularly those based on ascriptive identities like race, gender or sexual orientation, is a reflex in the discourse of the identitarian left fuelled by liberal stereotypes of the organized working class as definitively white, male and conservative. This political lore, despite having some basis in historical fact, has hardened into unexamined folk knowledge among many activists”. (Dudzic & Reed, 2015, p. 361)
We have now reached the astounding point where those supporting the working-class are seen as being, at best, closet racists. That is not the triumph of the New Victorians, rather it’s a sign of them desperately digging in their heels as their project begins to collapse under the weight of resentment, revolt, and even ridicule. What is a sign of the success of the New Victorians, however, is the extent to which “the left” has been emptied of meaning or practical force, edging it closer to becoming a fiction.
Understanding History and the New Victorianism
One of the persisting problems with speaking of an Old and New Victorianism, is the timing of the height of the phenomena. The older, British one marked a confident period of economic and territorial expansion. The newer, American one comes also during a period of expanding and multiplying wars, but also with a sense of persistent and worsening crisis and insecurity at home. For now, I cannot go further with this problem, if it is a problem.
There are other key differences: since Old Victorian times, there has been a great decline of the illusion of certainty and order in nature; our understanding of nature has become one that increasingly sees it as messy and unpredictable (Hewitt, 2006, p. 418-419). Another major difference is that Victorian culture was not a consumer culture—there was a general awareness of scarcity, of limited luxuries of life, and there was a limited range of consumer goods (Hewitt, 2006, pp. 415-416).
On the other hand, I think the North American “New Victorianism” marks an actual decline in and of itself, and is thus quite distinct from Victorianism. Most of our politicians, journalists and academics could not survive a five-minute interview with one of their Victorian ancestors. To be blunt and entirely subjective, I think our Victorianism is a dumber version: less articulate, challenged when it comes to vocabulary and grammar, and more importantly, lacking sufficiently developed logical and analytical capacities. We seem to be especially plagued by a generalized problem: the inability to understand that wishful thinking is not analysis, that what we think the world ought to be cannot describe the world as it is.
One of the other issues that troubles me about drawing parallels between the present and the 19th century, is the risk of reinforcing the tendency to see the present, and the future, as a mere re-run of the past. The historicist mistake is to think that no new history is possible, that it really did terminate in the 19th century, the same century in which Hegel was proclaiming the end of history. The main advantage in thinking of “Victorianism” (old or new) is not to suggest that Western culture endlessly repeats itself, but how two culturally, ideologically, and technologically proximate empires share a similarity in decline, and how the New Victorianism marks not the height but the start of the dissolution of the New Imperialism. This seems to be especially the case as the latter begins to devour its own at home.
Another question has to do with how we measure periods, and how we treat periods (the arbitrary construction of analysts) as if they were facts. We thus risk treating time measurements as if they were social realities, and treat chronology as if it were history. One way to deal with this problem is to see the 19th century as much longer in duration that we actually thought, with the discontinuities and changes not substantial enough to justify abrupt demarcations in time. In that case the Old Victorianism might represent the high point of hegemony, and the New Victorianism a point lower down the slope, as unresolved contradictions plunge us into a post-imperial world, post-Western world. I doubt this will mean the end of all Western civilization and capitalism, just that they may serve less and less as the focus of a unitary global order. Again, this cannot be developed further for now.
We are also hampered by those who have written about empires and imperialism. Many who have written about the British empire, do not see imperialism continuing after the end of British colonialism—because they conflate imperialism with colonialism, when colonialism might instead be seen as one mode among many for achieving empire. On the other hand, there are those who view contemporary imperialism as an abrupt departure from the British, and reduce British imperialism to a single, stereotypical mode of colonization.
Also not addressed here is why Victorianism emerged as such. Why the emphases on trade, philanthropy, and good governance? I think this has to do in large part with the need for capital to expand. Pursuit of free trade requires standardization, undermining rivals through propaganda campaigns and policies of emancipation (anti-slavery then, anti-homophobia now). Such imperial “freedom” campaigns, which perform a service for capitalist growth, also bring in surrogates recruited through soft power and enchantment, even as horrible violence is unleashed. However, the risk here is that of arguing that all of this is purely, ultimately, or mostly the product of the determinations of capital. Capital, on its own, is a pile of inanimate junk (to paraphrase a colleague). Capital needs to interact with ideas, motivations, compulsions, and practice. But when, how, and why the ideas of liberalism took shape and gained ascendancy is a much bigger project and requires further research on my part.
Even with these difficulties and problems with Victorianism, it is a useful means of doing the following:
understanding how disparate parts of a social and cultural formation fit together, how they form durable patterns, and how they reinforce each other;
providing an historical basis for perceiving the contemporary culture of imperialism;
raising the question of cyclical history and how we might envision “what is coming next”; and,
shining a light on the historical and cultural origins of the ideas framing current political debates.
* * *
Read Part 1: The New Victorianism
Read Part 2: The New Victorianism, Imperialism, and Identity Politics
Read Part 3: Social Imperialism and New Victorian Identity Politics
Download the complete paper (PDF).
* * *
References (for Parts 1-4)
Agathocleous, Tanya, & Rudy, Jason R. (2010). “Victorian Cosmopolitanisms: Introduction”. Victorian Literature and Culture, 38(2), 389-397.
Barone, Michael. (2015). “Is America entering a new Victorian Era?” The Washington Examiner, July 27.
Buffett, Peter. (2013). “The Charitable-Industrial Complex”. The New York Times, July 26.
Burleigh, Nina. (2016). “The Battle Against ‘Hate Speech’ on College Campuses Gives Rise to a Generation that Hates Speech”. Newsweek, May 26.
CBC. (2016). “Black Lives Matter Toronto stalls Pride parade”. CBC News, July 3.
CBC Radio. (2016). “Welcome to the ‘Falsa Boda’: Why fake weddings are big business in Argentina”. CBC, June 3.
CJAD. (2016). “Hundreds come out in support of Montreal Black Lives Matter demonstration”. CJAD, July 16.
Covington, Coline. (2009). “The New Trend in Beards Raises Awkward Questions”. The Week, October 21.
Dudzic, Mark, & Reed, Adolph, Jr. (2015). “The Crisis of Labour and the Left in the United States”. Socialist Register, 51, 351-375.
Einspruch, Franklin. (2015). “Oops, I Guess I Just Raped Emma Sulkowicz”. The Federalist, June 15.
Eley, Geoff. (1976). “Defining Social Imperialism: Use and Abuse of an Idea”. Social History, 1(3), 265-290.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2010). “The ‘New’ Imperialism of Militarization, Humanitarianism, and Occupation”. In Maximilian C. Forte, (Ed.), Militarism, Humanism, and Occupation (pp. 1-29). Montreal: Alert Press.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2014). “Introduction: Imperial Abduction Lore and Humanitarian Seduction”. In Maximilian C. Forte, (Ed.), Good Intentions: Norms and Practices of Imperial Humanitarianism (pp. 1-34). Montreal: Alert Press.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2015a). “Force Multipliers: Imperial Instrumentalism in Theory and Practice”. In Maximilian C. Forte, (Ed.), Force Multipliers: The Instrumentalities of Imperialism (pp. 1-87). Montreal: Alert Press.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2015b). “The Dismal ‘Physics’ of Blowback and Overstretch”. Zero Anthropology, November 8.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2016a). “Half-Heads: A Dominant Force in US Politics”. Zero Anthropology, April 30.
Forte, Maximilian C. (2016b). “The Ultimate Proletarian and the Neoliberal Condition”. Zero Anthropology, June 11.
Glubb, John. (1976). The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons Ltd.
Goodlad, Lauren M.E. (2009). “Trollopian ‘Foreign Policy’: Rootedness and Cosmopolitanism in the Mid-Victorian Global Imaginary”. PMLA, 124(2), 437-454.
Grueter, Cyril C.; Isler, Karin; & Dixson, Barnaby J. (2015). “Are Badges of Status Adaptive in Large Complex Primate Groups?” Evolution & Human Behavior, 36(5), 398-406.
Halstead, John P. (1983). The Second British Empire: Trade, Philanthropy, and Good Government, 1820-1890. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Harvey, David. (2014). Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Hewitt, Martin. (2006). “Why the Notion of Victorian Britain Does Make Sense”. Victorian Studies, 48(3), 395-438.
Jannuzzi, John. (2015). “See How Popular Beards Have Been Since Forever”. GQ, August 20.
Kipnis, Laura. (2015a). “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe”. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 27.
Kipnis, Laura. (2015b). “My Title IX Inquisition”. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29.
Lafeber, Walter. (1998 [1963]). The New Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ledbetter, Kathryn. (2004). “Bonnets and Rebellions: Imperialism in ‘The Lady’s Newspaper’”. Victorian Periodicals Review, 37(3), 252-272.
Lukianoff, Greg, & Haidt, Jonathan. (2015). “The Coddling of the American Mind”. The Atlantic, September.
MacDonald, Heather. (2014). “Neo-Victorianism on Campus”. The Weekly Standard, October 20.
Macphail, Cameron. (2015). “Science Explains Why Hipsters Grow Beards”. The Telegraph, October 5.
MacRaild, Donald. (2005). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group, Inc.
Mahan, Alfred Thayer. (1890). The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Morus, Iwan Rhys. (2000). “‘The Nervous System of Britain’: Space, Time and the Electric Telegraph in the Victorian Age”. The British Journal for the History of Science, 33(4), 455-475.
Mussmann, Anna. (2015). “Why Helicopter Parenting is the New Victorianism”. The Federalist, July 15.
Nader, Ralph. (2016). “An Election Season Conversation With Ralph Nader, the Nation’s No. 1 Public-Interest Crusader—Interview by Lydia DePillis”. Pacific Standard, June 6.
Obama, Barack. (2011). Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya, March 28. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.
Oldstone-Moore, Christopher. (2005). “The Beard Movement in Victorian Britain”. Victorian Studies, 48(1), 7-34.
Oremus, Will. (2014). “Here Are All the Different Genders You Can Be on Facebook”. Slate, February 13.
Ratner, Lizzy. (2007). “The New Victorians”. Observer, July 11.
Reed, Adolph, Jr. (1996). “Liberals, I Do Despise”. The Village Voice, November 12.
Reed, Adolph, Jr. (2014). “Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals”. Harper’s Magazine, March.
Renegade Inc. (2013). The Four Horsemen [documentary].
Simon, Roger L. (2016). “Moral Narcissism and the Least-Great Generation”. Commentary Magazine, May 16.
Snyder, Jeffrey Aaron, & Khalid, Amna. (2016). “The Rise of ‘Bias Response Teams’ on Campus”. New Republic, March 30.
Stacey, David. (2015). “Beards as Badges of Honour?” University News (University of Western Australia), March 25.
Suk, Jeannie. (2014). “The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law”. The New Yorker, December 15.
Tiernan, Laura. (2016). “Julian Assange Challenges Anti-Democratic ‘No Platform’ Campaign”. World Socialist Web Site, May 24.
Volokh, Eugene. (2016). “You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use”. The Washington Post, May 17.
Withey, Alun. (2014). “The Real Reason Why Beards Go In and Out of Fashion”. The Telegraph, October 28.
Young, Paul. (2009). Globalization and the Great Exhibition. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.
Filed under: CAPITALISM, CONCEPTS, ELITISM, GLOBALIZATION, IMPERIALISM, NEW VICTORIANISM Tagged: democratic party, Hillary Clinton, labour movement, neoliberalism, working class