Identity Politics and Sublation

'Identity Politics' signifies a prominent American political agenda that seeks to eliminate prejudice against an individual person on the basis of some type under which they are subsumed, usually a race, a gender, or a sexual orientation.  Often, the ideals guiding the agenda are Diversity and Equality.  However, the former is susceptible to tokenism, and the latter, to homogenization.  So, preferable to both might be Integration, but that condition does not necessarily preclude a suppressive factor.  In contrast, Sublation combines while preserving differences.  But, that process is a feature of Dialectical Logic, which, aside from being little known in America, is significantly associated elsewhere with Class-Conflict, a problem that Identity Politics neglects, perhaps, deliberately.

Communication, Unity, Equality

The World Wide Web is a communications medium, unprecedented in its extensiveness and simultaneity.  Now, the role of Communication in more fundamentally coordinating society than the Means of Production is missed by Marx, even as he publishes works exhorting the workers of the world to unite.  As is the case with any Network, the two fundamental characteristics of the WWW is quantitative Unity and Multiplicity, with whether or not there is a qualitative dimension to either an open question.  Thus, the nodes of any Network are Equal by virtue of the Unity that grounds it. Likewise, as the WWW illustrates, there is a fundamental Equality of the members of the human species that is derived from the Unity of the latter, and whether or not that Equality is more than quantitative is an open question.

World Wide Web and Political Philosophy

The World Wide Web, a more informative formulation than 'internet', manifests the current condition of the human species.  As an historical development, it is perhaps completely unprecedented, but also at least as plausible is that it makes explicit a species instinct that has determined that development from the outset.  What further development to which it itself might be a transitional stage, remains to be seen.  In the meantime, a Political Philosophy that takes the de-centralized Planetarism of the WWW as a fundamental premise thereby renders obsolete not only any particularistic models, e. g. Atomistic, Nationalistic, etc., but their currently pervasive actualizations, as well.

Coordination and Network

Over the centuries, there have been three main principles of Coordination in human societies: 1. Radial, i. e. from a central source, of which hierarchical organization is a variety; 2. Non-interference; and 3. Exchange.  Each can be found in contemporary America, #1 more covertly, e. g. corporate hierarchies, than the other two, which are overt features in economic activity, e. g. property and trade, respectively, and thereby influence most other modes of relation. Now, more recently, a fourth model has emerged--the Network, most concretely, the World Wide Web, and more abstractly, the telecommunications system.  But, there is a lack of coordination between the four, more precisely, an antithesis between the centralized #1 and the decentralized #4, which also entails one of Nationalism vs. Planetarism.  The ill-effects of this discordance are only becoming superficially, at best, recognized, e. g. protectionist reactions against Globalism.

Conversatility and Coordination

Versatility is typically diachronic, i. e. a multiplicity of potential functions that are actualized only one at a time. So 'conversatility' can connote synchronous multi-functioning, e. g. simple walking, the performance of an orchestra, etc.  Now, Conversatility requires the coordination of its various parts, the source of which can be an instinct, an articulated plan, a conductor, etc.  In other words, Coordination, as obtaining between Conversatile parts, is distinct from them.  So, an evaluation of some Polity in terms of Conversatility and Coordination is unthinkable if a Polity is conceived as an assemblage of Individuals, or of a Diversity of types of Individual, i. e. is unthinkable in the contemporary U. S.

Diversity, Individuality, Diversatility

In American society, 'diversity' is typically used in relation to certain types of person--ethnic, religious, gender, etc.  In contrast, 'individual' typically signifies a person in independence from any other.  Thus lacking is a term connoting variation at the personal level.  So, for want of a better alternative, 'Diversatility' can be used.  In other words, Diversatility connotes complexity of internal functions of a Society, with respect to which Type Diversity and Individuality, are limited and inert concepts, regardless of their ongoing prominence.

Versatility, Pluralism, Democracy

"A jack of all trades, a master of none" overlooks one mastery--what might be called Versatlity.  Such an ability, especially because it is not common, is usually appreciated as an asset.  It, thus, illustrates the value of Diversity, in which a variety of functions are incorporated into one Unity.  Likewise, the value of Pluralism is that it strengthens the Whole, a virtue that is difficult to appreciate in the concept of Society as a mere aggregate of discrete Individuals.  So, insofar as Democracy is the uniquely Pluralistic Political system, it is the only one capable of Versatility.