Video summary

Identität & Politik mit Gerhard Hanloser - 99 ZU EINS - Ep. 190

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Episode Overview

The episode is a discussion between the host Daniel and social scientist/publicist Gerhard Hanloser about Hanloser’s book “Identity and Politics” (Schmetterlingsverlag; an anthology volume that includes a text by Hanloser). The conversation focuses on how identity politics fits—or conflicts—with a leftist, Marxist, anti-exploitative critique.

1) What “identity politics” means—and why it’s not self-evidently “left”

  • The episode frames “identity politics” as a question of whether identity and politics belong together in a leftist sense.
  • Hanloser argues that “identity” is often treated like a shared subject-position—for example:
    • psychological/social selfhood,
    • authenticity,
    • religious or national identity.
  • He suggests this historically aligns more easily with conservative politics than with Marxist traditions.
  • He asks what, specifically, would make identity politics “left” from a Marxist theoretical standpoint.

2) Left political identity: based on experience, but not the same as oppression-identity politics

  • Hanloser distinguishes “left identity” as a political identity formed from experience, knowledge, and theory, sometimes even inherited (he notes it was historically more common in working-class families).
  • He describes left currents as differing by interpretive “lenses,” such as:
    • anti-fascism in some contexts,
    • anti-authoritarian frameworks in others.
  • He emphasizes that political identity can grow from suffering and oppression—but argues the overlap is not automatically identity politics itself.

3) Emancipation doesn’t have a single route—identity politics may sidestep the core social critique

Hanloser argues identity politics often focuses on:

  • recognition,
  • voice,
  • equal rights,
  • contesting a power imbalance,

but that this does not automatically become a critique of the social forms of society—such as:

  • capital,
  • state,
  • nation.

He gives examples meant to show emancipation can proceed through different frameworks—even inside capitalism, such as:

  • bourgeois women’s movements oriented toward inclusion/rights,
  • nation-state-centered anti-imperialism.

Central question: does identity politics maintain an elective affinity with a genuinely radical critique of capitalist social organization? Hanloser’s assessment is that it has increasingly diverged.

4) Class relations vs. “class as identity”; criticism of “borrowed identities”

  • A central Marxist claim presented is: class is not an identity but a social relation.
    • The goal is to dissolve class relations (including wage relation/exploitation), not to preserve “class pride” as an identity.
  • Hanloser criticizes the tendency to treat groups—possibly including the “working class”—as fetishized, simplified identity targets.
  • He introduces “borrowed identities”:
    • adopted identities inherited from historical left subcultures,
    • such as romanticized imagery of the male “blue-collar” worker.
  • He argues these borrowed identity frameworks can distort real class composition, emphasizing class has historically been “female” and globally diverse.
  • He links borrowed identity logic to anti-imperialist/left scenes (1970s/80s) and argues that contemporary identity politics often relies on categories tied to birth/physical traits, leading to repressive politics inside left milieus.

5) Universalism vs. privileging speech based on identity

Hanloser criticizes practices where only people from a certain identity category can speak authoritatively, such as:

  • “As a person of color you can comment; white people/others must be silent.”

He argues this undermines universalist premises:

  • in a global society, people can speak progressively or reactionarily about social conditions,
  • this is not determined by group membership.

6) Historical roots of identity-politics criticism and the danger of anti-history

  • Hanloser claims that by the 1990s, there was already backlash against identity politics (e.g., “identity perpetrator”), initially associated with anti-imperialist/autonomous milieus.
  • In his account, later “intellectual” critics reframed left identity talk as naïve or pathological.
  • He argues this historical break helped enable later media portrayals of “anti-German” politics—alliances that could oppose left positions while adopting reactionary positions.

7) “’68” and optimism vs. contemporary pessimistic identity politics

  • Against narratives blaming everything on the 1968 movement, Hanloser defends ’68 as a broad uprising against:
    • reification,
    • exploitation,
    • capitalism,
    • war and social structures.
  • He emphasizes this was global, not merely “art criticism.”
  • He argues ’68 carried revolutionary optimism, whereas today’s identity politics is depicted as:
    • pessimistic,
    • isolating.

8) Alleged rightward convergence: similarity in justification despite different goals

Hanloser argues modern left identity politics can structurally resemble right-wing approaches—even if motivated by “justice”—because both may use:

  • cultural essentialism,
  • isolation of groups,
  • deconstructive/linguistic policing.

He cites examples such as debates over who may wear certain styles (e.g., dreadlocks) as emblematic of culturalist rules and “appropriation” reasoning.

He also criticizes how language policing can:

  • conceal euphemisms,
  • avoid substantive material critique.

9) “Irrationalism” in identity-politics discourse and defeat logic

  • Hanloser traces “irrationalism” in left discourse to post-’68 theoretical developments (in his account, influenced by some radical-French New Left thinkers combining Marx and Freud in problematic ways).
  • He argues identity politics can treat gender/biology through an “irrational” claim that everything is merely interpretation/text (e.g., “everything is just a texture”).
  • He frames some identity-politics dynamics as a “theory of defeat”:
    • rather than transforming society,
    • politics becomes limited to manageable reforms for specific groups.

10) Deconstructivism, language as battleground, and limits of linguistic change

  • Hanloser argues identity politics strongly leans toward deconstructivist methods:
    • subversive language games,
    • irritating hegemonic language,
    • turning oneself into “text.”
  • He rejects the simplistic view that language changes alone transform society.
  • He argues material struggle and political practice remain primary (e.g., strikes).

11) Populism detour and critique of “identity politics vs capitalism”

  • A brief detour addresses left populism:
    • Hanloser suggests left populism can be useful insofar as it describes conditions rather than changing them.
  • He then critiques figures (e.g., Sarah Wagenknecht, mentioned by name) as blending critiques of identity politics with a pivot away from anti-capitalist critique—suggesting a drift toward national frameworks.

12) Practical political conclusion: rebuild the left around class relations and the system question

The discussion ends with a strong political prescription:

  • To avoid reducing everything to class while still confronting capitalism, the left should re-center the class question:
    • understood as capitalist social relations and exploitation,
    • with other struggles approached from within that structural analysis.
  • Hanloser references Italian operaismo and argues the left cannot primarily be constituted around biological/identity categories.
  • Instead, he calls for rebuilding around:
    • proletarian living conditions,
    • the profit principle.
  • He argues against focusing mainly on niche identity issues (he gives an example centered on transsexual-related emphases), claiming these do not address systemic drivers such as:
    • competition,
    • private labor,
    • profit.

13) Book promotion and additional themes in the anthology

Hanloser recommends further essays in the anthology beyond his own text, including:

  • identity-related debates concerning Israel/Palestine,
  • critiques of constructions like “shooting Islam” (France is mentioned),
  • conflicts around culture/identity in political movements.

Presenters / Contributors

  • Gerhard Hanloser — guest; social scientist/publicist; author/editor of contributions; wrote “Identity and Politics”
  • Daniel — host of “99 zu 1”

Mentioned figures (not present as speakers)

Karl Reiter; Christoph Jünke; Jasmina (appears as “Jasmina X” / “Manex”); Lee (in connection with Terry Rubin’s context); Terry Rubin; Wil(d)i Münzenberg; Mao (main contradiction concept); Lutz Schulenburg; Hans-Jürgen Krahl; Bernhard Schmidt; Moshe Zuckermann; Bologna (operaismo theorist); Sarah Wagenknecht; Christoph Maul; Adorno/Arendt (referenced); Jean-François Lyotard/Derrida-like theorists (referenced indirectly); “Schul”/“Minor” (mentioned by fragments).

Original video