1
Until several months before I started writing this book, I was convinced that being tolerant was the most crucial trait someone who identified with left-wing political ideology could espouse. I am not in alignment with all the ideas associated with the Left, but if you asked me before I wrote this book whether I would choose the Right or the Left, I would have gone for the latter under the assumption that the Left is more inclusive. However, I no longer identify with either of these two options because I see only dichotomous solutions proposed by political camps that omit other, more creative possibilities and inhibit questioning the fixed frame of a system I find fundamentally incompatible with human thriving.
I would like to reiterate: Sharing my disappointment with the Left does not mean that I turned to the opposite side. I just would not identify the Leftist category as my own. Indeed, it is thanks to my disillusionment (and subsequent disappointment) with the Left that I find myself courageous enough to define my ideological self around a third option, which I will detail later on.
I have been reprimanded for posting an article including a reference to the American podcaster Joe Rogan’s interview on Facebook. The person worried about my post wanted to enlighten me that Rogan is “neoliberal” and has “quite a few far-right ‘friends’ comparatively to any legitimate left-wing intellectual.” However, it is not so clear that Joe Rogan embraces neoliberalism based on his discussion in the interviews. On his platform, he also gave provided outlets for 2020 Presidential Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to say their piece and present their political cases. He invited the team of The Hill, which espouses an anti-neoliberal agenda.
However, what most interested me in my friend’s concerned comment was the underlying assumption that allowing far-right voices into political discourse disqualifies one from credibility of argument. I find this to be an oppressive example of ideological purity of the type frequently seen across social media platforms. Should we unfriend anyone who may endanger our ideological purity? Whom does ideological purity benefit? In my mind, having friends of distinct and different political leanings is a sign that a person might have had an opportunity to think their opinions through by being exposed to different angles of viewing an issue.
Feminists have often struggled to include women in public life and bring in female points of view. However, being a member of one oppressed group does not mean that one would not be engaged in exclusionary tactics against narratives that did not confirm their core ideologies. The incident Ivan Illich took part in in the 1980s provides a good illustration of such behavior. In an interview with David Cayley, Ivan Illich shared how his book, Gender, evoked backlash after presenting it to an audience composed mainly of feminist scholars. He received many hate letters for repor