It took a long time before I realized how much the alleged specificity of Western philosophy was one of the most brutal colonial devices ever invented.
The notion of “identity” has managed to place itself at the center of the political clashes of our time. It brought new problems and new sensitivities with which we will need to deal within contemporary social struggles for recognition. For her, complex practical and theoretical issues that concern the subjects' integralities converge, as they touch the social grammar in what it has most structuring, namely, in its dynamics of relationship and unity.
Many use “identity” to disqualify struggles that question secular practices of naturalized exclusion under the garb of universalist discourses. Thus, in the perspective of these critics, the struggles linked to feminist, black, LGBT + movements would be largely “identity” because they were intended, in fact, to create a new watertight geography of places of power. These places are indexed by specific identities.
Many of the subjects organically linked to such struggles remember, however, that even for non-Christians the saying of the Gospel is valid: “First remove the beam your eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to remove the speck your brother's eye”. In other words, before accusing anyone of identity regression, it would be the case to begin by asking about identity as naturalized by the hegemony of a violent history of conquests and subjection operated, mainly, by white Europeans.