Artwork:Monique WestermannCredit:Artwork:Monique Westermann
In those cases at least,the prevailing verdict seems clear. A steady stream of editorials and opinion pieces lament Payman’s embrace of identity politics. The prime minister didn’t use that specific phrase,but he struck the same pose in warning that “faith-based political parties” would “undermine social cohesion”,and a “faith-based party system” would simply cause “minority groups to isolate themselves”.
This echoes one of the most common criticisms of identity politics:that by organising groups around one or two identities,it can only lead ultimately to separatism;that it makes building broad coalitions across society just about impossible. It is precisely in this vein that Anthony Albanese celebrates the Labor Party,whose members come from many different religions,as a better model:“That’s the way you bring cohesion.”
Which is funny,because the government now faces precisely the same style of argument against its antisemitism envoy,most notably from the Australian Jewish Council. “What does it say when only Jews are singled out?” asked a spokesperson (rhetorically) in an ABCinterview earlier this week. “We really do have these concerns that this appointment will pit Jewish communities against other racialised groups and only cause further division.”
The council is,to be sure,a dissenting voice in Australian Jewry,but for now,I’m less interested in the merits of the argument than the form:it’s an argument against the idea that political decisions should be made on the basis of specifically Jewish claims and concerns. And it argues this on the idea that it compromises social cohesion.
The council fully accepts that antisemitism is on the rise;it just objects to it being treated separately. It takes the claim that antisemitism matters and replies that all racism matters – at least against minorities. That is,consciously or otherwise,an argument against Jewish identity politics. Especially since representatives from the Jewish community specificallyasked for the creation of this envoy.
Albanese,I’m sure,would reject that framing. He would note that both antisemitism and Islamophobia have surged since October,and argue that corresponding envoys are necessary to do something about it;that these are particular cases. But that raises an inevitable question:what counts as a special case such that resorting to specific measures isn’t merely identity politics? What if you or your friends are seeing scores of family members die in an overseas conflict,for example? Is that a particular case? Or is organising politically around that identity politics?