Last week I was at Kings Cross station in London waiting for a train when a middle-aged man called Martin approached me begging for cash.
I explained that I did not give money but would be happy to buy him something to eat and drink. Martin accepted this offer and as we walked to a cafe and queued up he told me about his situation.
He explained that he was sleeping rough in Walthamstow after being evicted from his accommodation due to rent arrears. He had worked for many years for a delivery company contracted to a major supermarket and had always had steady work and a decent income.
Slide into homelessness
But he told me that over recent years he had faced more and more competition for work from men from Eastern Europe and his shifts became fewer. He said things particularly changed when someone from that background was given a management position and the shifts he was offered almost completely stopped.
Martin said all this in a matter of fact way without bitterness and no hint of any xenophobia or racism. He was just explaining what triggered his slide into homelessness. He said:
“I’ve got nothing against them you know, most are good chaps and I would do the same if I was in their position. It just kinda stuffed me up.”
I listened to more of his story and gave him advice about connecting with the local rough sleeping outreach team. But I had to get my train, so we shook hands and said goodbye.
Liberal antennae
But as I walked away, what Martin had said really struck me. Instinctively, my liberal antennae was discomforted by him saying he lost his job due to immigrants. Talking negatively about immigration can feel taboo because of how easy it is to be labelled as bigoted.
And this is understandable because racism and xenophobia are powerful and dangerous. We should never legitimize discrimination, scapegoating or hatred.
But what Martin said did not sound like any of those. And as I reflected I thought how important it is that we listen to people’s honest thoughts about factors that have affected their lives.
Validity of experience
For a middle class person like me, it is easy to be positive about economic migration because I am only positively affected by it. I get cheaper builders and quicker deliveries. But for many in working class jobs there is a real cost. And we need to listen to them and their experiences.
If we deny the validity of these concerns or dismiss their legitimacy we are suppressing the lived experience of fellow citizens. This suppression is dangerous because it fuels resentment and alienation.
Globalisation
The late Labour MP Frank Field warned about the impact of mass immigration on poor communities 20 years ago.
In 2004, Tony Blair’s government set no limits on the number of migrants who could enter the UK from the new EU member countries. They predicted 13,000 would come but actually 329,000 arrived in just the first 18 months. It was the largest ever migration into the UK and in 2006, Frank Field said:
“This is the most massive transformation of our population. Do we just merely accept this as another form of globalisation? If we are not careful, we will be transformed into a global traffic station and that is not what most people mean by being part of a country.”
This is what London has increasingly become: a playground for the global super-rich served by a market of low paid workers competing for zero hours contracts; a platform for economic activity that has no regard for community life.
Respect
Its important to understand that concerns about immigration is not the same as negativity or antipathy toward immigrants. This is what struck me about Martin’s views – he had only respect for the individual immigrants he knew but was concerned about the impact migration had (for more see this paper Hating Immigration, Loving immigrants).
And its important to refer to the problems faced by migrant workers too. EU migration has been a huge factor in my work with people who are homeless and rough sleeping. In the 2010s, I helped establish two church-based night shelters in London and in both 70-80% of the guests were EU migrants. I continue to see first hand the vulnerability they face and the tragic destitution they often become trapped in.
‘Scaremongering’
As this BBC article of 2006 shows, Frank was accused of ‘scaremongering’ and few on the left openly agreed with him. But our current situation shows that he is a voice that should have been listened to.
As Frank predicted, this failure of politicians on both the left and the right, to recognise the human consequences of globalisation, has led to a huge disconnect between the ordinary people and the governing class. This failure has fed the rise of right-leaning parties across the West. It is why politicians such as Nigel Farage and his Reform party have gained traction. It also accounts for the success of new media channels such as GB News, Unherd and the Joe Rogan podcast.
Too often all concerns about migration are dismissed as “far right” but these media platforms have gained large audiences because they have been willing to openly discuss these issues.
Underlying problem
An underlying problem for the left in the last 20 years is the way that social justice has increasingly been seen as a matter of identity politics rather than in terms of the political economy.
The essence of being ‘progressive’ has come to be defined through an identitarian lens – whether it is stances on feminism, racism, homophobia or transphobia – rather than through the concrete matters of health, housing, wages, working conditions and wealth distribution.
Social media has increased this tendency: the public discourse has become obsessed with identity politics but bored with concrete policy.
This is why so many within Labour heartlands have deserted the left. We need to re-evaluate the popular misunderstanding that liberalism is good for the poor.
Big business
The neo-liberal economics of globalization and its gig-economy has reduced human beings to units of labour which can be deployed in any way the employer sees fit with no regard for their welfare.
And big businesses have embraced identity politics because it provides them with a convenient means of parading their ‘social justice’ credentials without challenging their economic model.
Rather than focusing on the real issues about how much they pay their lowest wage earners and what rights they give to their employees, they can instead display a certain flag or kite-mark to show some theoretical solidarity with an identity cause.
This kind of ‘justice’ is just performative virtue signaling. Its why the term ‘social justice warrior’ has become a term of derision.
Reinvigorate democracy
Michael Sandel said this:
“Disentangling the intolerant aspects of populist protest from its legitimate grievances is no easy matter but it is important to try. Understanding these grievances and creating a politics that can respond to them, is the most pressing political challenge of our time.”
This ‘disentangling’ can start by reclaiming the concept of social justice from the toxic pit of identity politics. We need to re-focus instead on the concrete issues and the social and economic policies which affect our communities.
It will be through understanding the challenges facing people like Martin that we can reinvigorate trust in democracy, challenge the excesses of liberalism and recover a sense of the common good.
Last July, I gave this lecture for Together for the Common Good in memory of Frank Field: Grace, Truth & the Common Good: the future of Christian Social Action
Discover more from Grace + Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Grace + Truth 
Excellent article, your writing and insights are a light of truth shining in a very dark time. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thanks for reading and your comment!
LikeLike
Brilliant insight.
LikeLike
Thanks Chris
LikeLike
This is such a helpful analysis, disentangling what is currently obsessing ‘us’ from what the real issues are.
LikeLike
Thanks Gill – glad it was helpful and thanks for your encouragement
LikeLike
Brilliantly helpful article Jon. It’s easy to align ourselves with policies that suit us personally and are thought of as virtuous in our circles and be blind to those who are disadvantaged by them.
In the nineteenth century those who lived and worked in the countryside assumed the Corn Laws were righteous by protecting home farming from cheaper imports. Both poor farm labourers and rich landowners made common cause even though the rural poor were motivated by feeding their hungry families and the rich were motivated to keep their wealth and status. Industrialisation and the rapid growth of the urban working class meant demand for cheaper food and so workers united with the captains of industry who wanted free trade so as to maximise exports and profits.
Rather than the ‘left wing, right wing’ dichotomy we’ve got used to in the 20th century I think something similar to the older 19th century division between ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ has returned. Broadly speaking the ‘somewheres’ (old style Tories?) want protectionism, social conservatism, wage and price guarantees, and unembarassed patriotism. The ‘anywheres’ (Whigs?) want neo-liberal economics, social liberalism, free trade and movement and idealistic internationalism. There are rich and poor, exploiters and exploited on both sides. Christians will inevitably find it easier to identify with one side than another (perhaps at different times) but are called to see the fullness of truth and grace which transcend them.
LikeLike
Thanks Martin. Its interesting to see how the response to the neo-liberal stranglehold on economics challenges the traditional left-right axis of political debate. I have not thought about the Corn Laws since A Level history so you got me thinking…
LikeLike
John, I find this article lacking so much that I’m not sure really where to start.
Maybe a quick confession – I have no doubt that identity politics have always had limitations and a tendency to be reductionist in impact.
Nonetheless, I think its important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The gains acheived by social movements that were/are rooted in coalitions deeply connected to identity politics is unquestionable – Civil Rights; Womens voting and pay; Disability Rights; Gay marriage…..
These (ongoing) struggles came about from a recognition that class based politics had in some ways missed out the nuances of lived experience. That within, the undeniable, division of labour caused by class, there were other experiences that needed to be considered and heard. If emancipation was to be real it had to be for everyone – not just the working man!!
One of the first areas of my own political engagement, other than my own class struggle, was in solidarity with the identity politics of the disability rights movments. This whole movement was about access to the ‘concrete matters of health, housing, wages, working conditions and wealth distribution’. And this is true of all the other struggles that are termed by identity politics.
Some identity politics may have lost their connection with these roots, but history clearly shows a deep connection with multiple marginalised communities and the fight(s) for social justice.
Secondly, juxtaposing immigration and class, however sensitivily, is still in my view a very dangerous thing to do. The instrumentalisation of this connection by Reform and others (and the connection it is making with some ‘white working class communities’) does not mean we should simply follow suit. Particularly, not before setting out a much stronger context and connection that discusses and includes colonial power; British imperialism; corporate tax avoidance; collapse of USSR…the drivers of neoliberalism.
Finally, to discuss representation-identity politics-immigration and class without deeply addressing the role of (social) media seems to be another lack in your thoughts. Our lives are radically bombarded by sophisticated, algorithms driven by AI programs rooted in the vested interests of the global rich! Not one working class person, regardless of where they were born are setting the dials on these programs.
In other words, rooting your reflections in ‘Martins’ thoughts, needs to be well and truly balanced with the toxic waters in which we all swim. That is not to say that Martin should not be listened to, but we should all be very careful not to reduce his opinions to a point where we negate the historical and ongoing impact of wider projective realities.
LikeLike
Hi Chris
The opening line of your comment made me think we would be on completely opposing stances but reflecting on what you have said, I think the key issue is how movements for justice stay rooted in reality and are embedded in local communities.
Of course those movements you refer to were expressions of identity – but they sought concrete change. The US civil rights movement’s success in the 50s and 60s was due to its rootedness in local communities and the collective articulation of local struggle. In the 70s so much of the movement lost its way as it disappeared into a ‘ethical stratosphere’ (to quote Charles Marsh) and became detached from concrete struggles and the communities in which change needed to happen. I think this is where many social movements have got to.
I have seen this tendency time and again – at university the volunteering I was involved in Hull was rooted and connected to real communities but in the student union there was a tendency to talk conceptually and theoretically in a way hopelessly disconnected from real life. This ‘dis-integration’ is why so much of that activism was shallow.
In the homeless sector too, there is safety in so many of the discussions at conferences and events which do not address the real tensions involved in the work. Over the last 15 years so much of my work has been supporting EU migrants, whether at WLM or in my government role – and my voluntary work at my church continues to be with these people – and I have always backed a ‘compassion toughness’ (AKA grace and truth) because I think this is what truly helps people.
This tension between what is happening on the ground and the theory of social movements has been the dynamic of so many of our debates over the years. I want all my reflections to be rooted in tangible work, to ‘theorise’ from action and services that I am involved in. When I speak and converse with you, I hear plenty of grand-sounding theory and analysis but I find it hard to see in practice what you are referring to.
I disagree about not talking about immigration juxtaposed with class. Of course its deeply sensitive but this is why it needs to be discussed well. Why concede all the ground to reactionary voices? I think this is the gift of someone like Frank Field – someone on the left who was willing to speak honestly about what he saw in his community about issues the left and its movements struggle to. I explicitly refer to the problems with neo-liberalism as I agree that the way this has twisted business is at the heart of the problem.
Also I did make reference to social media – but I would agree that its effect has been deeply negative in polarising debate and stoking division.
LikeLike
John thanks for sharing further thoughts. I’m still left feeling that much of what you’ve said is deeply lacking.
My life is not about grand-sounding theorising, but is not willing to negate the need for the use of the intellect. I have been involved in grassroots struggles all of my adult life. I tried to share from my involvement in the disability rights movment – that those struggles were without doubt about – ‘concrete matters of health, housing, wages, working conditions and wealth distribution’….and they continue to be. These struggles are systemic, so need multiple actions. The social model of disability was a game changer for this movement….and a theory set in lived experience.
As I said some identity politics do seem to have lost their connection to their roots, but honestly in my ongoing experience much of the work being done is ‘survival on the ground activities’. Theory should always be rooted in day-to-day lives and actions. The majority of people, groups and networks I work with are resource strapped, marginal and struggling.
Maybe some confusion results that I have sought to follow a practice of what I understand as true allyship – being involved in struggle(s) but not using it as a platform for my own identity agrandisement. This may result in seemingly not being involved in the real world ‘practice’? I would rather remain mainly hidden, than seduced by platforms of power.
In terms of class and immigration, I think I was calling for a much deeper analysis – not throw away comments – rooted in the real world impact of intersecting issues that are continually airbrushed out by popularist politics. I would say the same for the role of media…
I could say so much more….but in a nutshell I think the reality of Martin’s experience was/is formulated by a much more complex set of issues…that can be very difficult to see when considered from a individual perspective/narrative, not winning in this neoliberal nightmare.
So I think this leaves me wanting to cry out and continue to fight for unity, collaboration and further social movements, which are always made from multiple groupings. This is and has always been the challenge to identity politics….to fight for the issues they understand the most, whilst laying down their lives for the love of others. Identity politics and their theories are not toxic, but examples of such struggles, most of the time.
They are also usually without much resouce and political power….and against those that actually do have and have had these crucial elements for a very, very long time.
LikeLike
Thanks Chris for the reply. I do appreciate the push-back and your engagement. I thought very carefully about this blog and its twice as long as my normal ones for this reason but I accept its only a brief article.
I think the key issue I reflect on after your response is around power. You present social movements around identity politics as mainly marginal but actually they have assumed very significant power, especially due to social media. And like all power, this tends to corrupt. And I think this is what we see in identity politics today where performative, surface statements or symbols are paraded as cheap forms of allyship.
This is a real problem – I have seen its excesses time and again – especially in conferences, academia and generally where theorising is detached from the irksome bother of actually running something. The social model of disability has been a game-changer but it also has proponents that have taken it too far. I have heard people say that steps only exist to exclude people with disabilities.
‘Social models’ of homelessness can do the same. I saw the other day someone say ‘there is no such thing as complex needs, just broken systems’ and I think this is just idealistic nonsense that forgoes any sense of personal agency.
Your critique of platforms and ‘making a name for yourself’ has been very significant and influential to me.. You have not sought ‘institutional power’ or to get profile, but power works in all sorts of ways and you have always wielded significant charismatic power and also have access to significant financial power.
LikeLike
Hey Jon I think the discussion is moving away from the initial points I raised, but maybe that’s ok.
The issues you raise are more about tokenism rather than identity politics. For years I have raised real concerns regarding the use of ‘social movement language’, by people, projects and networks that have very little clue what social movements are, how they’ve formulated, their impact, praxis etc.
So if you’re talking about tokenisation then we may agree on the work toxic. However, I think you still need to be careful in not conflating this with people, struggles and genuine resistance. I can honestly say that the people I live and work with are not tokenistic in their politics…that does not mean they are perfect either.
My suggestion would be stop going to conferences🙂 They are deeply performative in my view and have very little lasting impact in people’s lives (like most sermons🙂)..
I hear you regarding power coming in many shapes and sizes….without doubt I have lots of privilege and access to resources. But I hope my practice and movement contributions seek to not only acknowledge this but develop praxis which devolve this as quickly as possible – for example never trying to spend more than 5% of our resources on organisational logistics (including my own wages)…not taking any opportunities to speak in public platforms….to name a couple.
Social movements are always incomplete and hold contradictions, but it’s not hard to identify when people are truly fighting for theirs and others lives….it feels like you’ve been maybe spending too much time in places where these people and voices are not present?
All I can say is that they still exist, people are still fighting, but the reality is they are not winning. In fact they are losing, heavily. And not to be rude it’s not because of the influx of EU van drivers.
LikeLike
Thanks Chris – been good to dialogue and I knew this article would press some buttons which it has. I will reflect on how many conferences I go to as I do find them often a frustrating experience because of how anodyne and safe so many are – but then it can be a good opportunity to share genuine ideas. I chose not to call my blog ‘JonKuhrt.com’ but I am glad that 500+ come on each day and its an opportunity to share stuff that people find useful.
I think the flipside of the dangers of ‘platforms’ (whether at events, publishing or online) is the benefit of being willing to say stuff and stand by it publicly. I don’t want to just add to the noise but some messages are worth sharing.
And while we are on the subject I heard an excellent sermon this morning at my church which was really practical and helpful. I can picture you rolling your eyes as you read this! Take care and see you soon.
LikeLike
This is really worth reading from Ash Sarkar in The Guardian: The left keeps getting identity politics wrong – and the right is benefiting from that | Ash Sarkar | The Guardian
“Modern identity politics has set a comically low threshold for harm.
Competing in the attention economy incentivises us to turn molehills into mountains, and the cult of lived experience makes it hard to question proclamations of victimhood. The “I” has taken over identity politics: instead of striving for liberation from discrimination and material oppression, we just want to inflate the visibility value that’s attached to suffering. The retreat into subjective experience primes us for the politics of resentment, competitive grievance and weaponised victimhood. While the personal is political, the self is a dead-end if what you want is social change. It’s worth remembering the lesson of Narcissus: being too interested in your own reflection will kill you.”
LikeLike
An exceptionally articulate and well-reasoned critique of the intersection between social justice and identity politics. The author’s examination of the way social justice is often co-opted by narrow political agendas is both timely and essential. By presenting a more balanced approach, this piece challenges readers to reconsider the true purpose of social justice, unity, fairness, and empathy, beyond the divisive forces that sometimes distort it. A must-read for anyone seeking a more grounded and inclusive vision of justice.
LikeLike