Sorry, was just looking through my old posts and came across this response. There are many problems with the article, but a primary one is the author’s understanding of post-modernism’s relationship to identity. The author writes:
To be PC is to acknowledge and validate the identity of every social group
And says this is a post-modern understanding. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. Much post-modern philosophy seeks to undermine the ‘validity’ of social identities because such identities entail essentialist thinking. From Foucault:
If identity becomes the problem of sexual existence, and if people think they have to “uncover” their “own identity” and that their own identity has to become the law of the principle, the code of their existence; and if the perennial question they ask is “Does this thing conform to my identity?” then, I think, they will turn back to a kind of ethics which is very close to the old heterosexual virility.
I think this is about as clear a repudiation of identity politics as one can have; especially of the shape ID pol takes in contemporary political life.