What do you think?
Rate this book
Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics
A powerful indictment of the ways elites have co-opted radical critiques of racial capitalism to serve their own ends.
“Identity politics” is everywhere, polarizing discourse from the campaign trail to the classroom and amplifying antagonisms in the media, both online and off. But the compulsively referenced phrase bears little resemblance to the concept as first introduced by the radical Black feminist Combahee River Collective. While the Collective articulated a political viewpoint grounded in their own position as Black lesbians with the explicit aim of building solidarity across lines of difference, identity politics is now frequently weaponized as a means of closing ranks around ever-narrower conceptions of group interests.
But the trouble, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò deftly argues, is not with identity politics itself. Through a substantive engagement with the global Black radical tradition and a critical understanding of racial capitalism, Táíwò identifies the process by which a radical concept can be stripped of its political substance and liberatory potential by becoming the victim of elite capture—deployed by political, social, and economic elites in the service of their own interests.
Táíwò’s crucial intervention both elucidates this complex process and helps us move beyond a binary of “class” vs. “race.” By rejecting elitist identity politics in favor of a constructive politics of radical solidarity, he advances the possibility of organizing across our differences in the urgent struggle for a better world.
“Identity politics” is everywhere, polarizing discourse from the campaign trail to the classroom and amplifying antagonisms in the media, both online and off. But the compulsively referenced phrase bears little resemblance to the concept as first introduced by the radical Black feminist Combahee River Collective. While the Collective articulated a political viewpoint grounded in their own position as Black lesbians with the explicit aim of building solidarity across lines of difference, identity politics is now frequently weaponized as a means of closing ranks around ever-narrower conceptions of group interests.
But the trouble, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò deftly argues, is not with identity politics itself. Through a substantive engagement with the global Black radical tradition and a critical understanding of racial capitalism, Táíwò identifies the process by which a radical concept can be stripped of its political substance and liberatory potential by becoming the victim of elite capture—deployed by political, social, and economic elites in the service of their own interests.
Táíwò’s crucial intervention both elucidates this complex process and helps us move beyond a binary of “class” vs. “race.” By rejecting elitist identity politics in favor of a constructive politics of radical solidarity, he advances the possibility of organizing across our differences in the urgent struggle for a better world.
157 pages, Paperback
First published May 3, 2022
482 people are currently reading
16087 people want to read
About the author
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
12 books243 followersDr. Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University. He completed his Ph.D. at University of California, Los Angeles. Before that, he completed BAs in Philosophy and Political Science at Indiana University.
His theoretical work draws liberally from German transcendental philosophy, contemporary philosophy of language, contemporary social science, histories of activism and activist thinkers, and the Black radical tradition. He is currently writing a book entitled Reconsidering Reparations that considers a novel philosophical argument for reparations and explores links with environmental justice. He also is committed to public engagement and is publishing articles in popular outlets with general readership (e.g. Slate, Pacific Standard) exploring intersections between climate justice and colonialism.
His theoretical work draws liberally from German transcendental philosophy, contemporary philosophy of language, contemporary social science, histories of activism and activist thinkers, and the Black radical tradition. He is currently writing a book entitled Reconsidering Reparations that considers a novel philosophical argument for reparations and explores links with environmental justice. He also is committed to public engagement and is publishing articles in popular outlets with general readership (e.g. Slate, Pacific Standard) exploring intersections between climate justice and colonialism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 584 reviews
May 16, 2024
I overall really liked the message of this book and how we need to focus less on attention and representation and more on redistributing social power and resources. There’s great writing here about how the elite class – and the elite class can be comprised of people of many identities, including people of color, women, etc. – can coopt liberation struggles and make social justice more about we just need X number of Y group in the room instead of changing the room altogether. Speaking from my own experience as a queer Asian American I’ve definitely seen both heterosexual and queer Asian Americans I know align themselves with white supremacy and other systems of power while claiming the benefits of being “represented” in a majority white context.
Even though the writing at times felt a bit academic and jargony, the overall thesis is a great reminder to stay aware of one’s power and to focus on redistributing that power (and conditions in which that power is created) in tangible and meaningful ways.
Even though the writing at times felt a bit academic and jargony, the overall thesis is a great reminder to stay aware of one’s power and to focus on redistributing that power (and conditions in which that power is created) in tangible and meaningful ways.
March 9, 2024
Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò's short but passionately argued treatise should perhaps have been titled Elite Capture: Don't Trust Anyone Who Is an Elite and That Most Definitely Includes People of Color. But that's less punchy and, more importantly, it's a tough message to package for identitarian progressive activists (and diversity/inclusion personnel), who often promote the idea that immutable characteristics like race or sex automatically equals progressive credentials that command deference. Which of course is laughably reductive. POCs are not a progressive monolith by any means; they aren't any kind of monolith. Nor should they ever be viewed as such because, well, that would be racist.
The subtitle "How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics" is unfortunate because it leads potential readers astray. This book is not a guide or an overview on "how" elites have co-opted supposedly progressive institutions. Its reasoning for such capture is certainly correct, but quite basic: people who gain power are often corrupted by that power because that power ends up serving their own interests. A person who has bootstrapped themselves up from a background of poverty may find that they would like to make sure their new middle or upper class status remains in place, and so will promote policies that support their continued enfranchisement and level of wealth, rather than supporting policies that would help uplift their former lower-classmates.
'Tis human nature, I suppose. I've seen it happen many times over the years while at the nonprofit where I work: passionate, activist POCs (comfortable with delivering angry lived-experience testimonials and, nowadays, weepy land acknowledgments) who rise in the ranks and/or get what they want (whatever that may be) and who then begin supporting hierarchical systems of control in an almost knee-jerk fashion. Rather than continuing the questioning of authority they once espoused from positions that had less authority. As a POC myself, I should be mad at the hypocrisy, but I can only shrug. Well, I'm in a position of authority too. Er, welcome to the club, my fellow sellouts! LOL?
Táíwò's prime example of a POC who embodies "elite capture" and that fooled progressive identitarians into thinking his platform is likewise progressive - by sophisticated use of progressive messaging and branding - is of course Obama. He calls this tendency to "center the most marginalized" - whether or not they actually believe in progressive or leftist policies - deference politics and he too-gently connects it to standpoint epistemology (the belief that those groups most affected by challenges are those who understand those challenges the best, and therefore should have their perspectives centralized). And so Obama - mixed-race but viewed as black - came to be seen as someone who embodies progressive values, simply because of his status as a black man, and so ignoring his actual upper-middle class background and his very clearly centrist and neoliberal political stances. I really appreciated that Táíwò also used himself as an example of this tendency, and how his identity as a black American would often trump consideration of his actual ethnicity and class background (Nigerian-American, presumably middle class).
This short book is also rather thin in terms of ideas; deconstructing deference politics appears to be Táíwò's primary aim, yet he handles his topic perhaps too gingerly. That said, there were quite a few things that I enjoyed and/or learned about. Individuals and activist groups like Carter G. Woodson, Lilica Boal, the PAIGC; the idea that Portugal was the world's first superpower (not sure that I agree, but it's fascinating to consider); "A constructive political culture would focus on outcome over process" (I fully endorse that!); game theory as a way to understand both politics and personal decision-making in terms of identity and claiming identity; the idea that trauma does not teach and is not about life lessons, but is rather about the nobility of survival. On that last idea, I particularly loved Táíwò's critique of "when trauma's importance and prevalence are framed as positive bases for social credentials and deference behaviors, rather than primarily as problems to deal with collectively." Of course, he's completely in error looking at trauma from a sociopolitical rather than a psychological perspective - trauma is an inherently individual experience - but he makes a good point when it comes to the fact that experiencing trauma does not mean that one is now an expert on the source of that trauma.
Unfortunately, a big issue came early for me in the book, and it cast rather a shadow over all that followed: Táíwò's odd misreading of the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. The author posits that fable as an allegory of power and how power is expressed; per Táíwò, everyone sees that the emperor has power and so of course they will want to join that power base (or at least not be threatened by it) by pretending to see and then exalt those imaginary new clothes that he now has on. What Táíwò overlooks is the basic moral of that tale. The merchants were able to fool the emperor because they played on his vanity and insecurity, telling him that only the stupid or the foolish would be unable to see his new finery; the emperor did not want to be seen as foolish or stupid, and so he pretended that he saw and then put on some amazing clothes. And so everyone else did likewise, pretending to see a fabulous outfit - because who wants to be perceived as stupid or foolish? The fable is a psychological analysis highlighting a key part of human nature; it is not a sociopolitical evaluation of how systems of power are enacted. Can't believe the author didn't see that!
The subtitle "How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics" is unfortunate because it leads potential readers astray. This book is not a guide or an overview on "how" elites have co-opted supposedly progressive institutions. Its reasoning for such capture is certainly correct, but quite basic: people who gain power are often corrupted by that power because that power ends up serving their own interests. A person who has bootstrapped themselves up from a background of poverty may find that they would like to make sure their new middle or upper class status remains in place, and so will promote policies that support their continued enfranchisement and level of wealth, rather than supporting policies that would help uplift their former lower-classmates.
'Tis human nature, I suppose. I've seen it happen many times over the years while at the nonprofit where I work: passionate, activist POCs (comfortable with delivering angry lived-experience testimonials and, nowadays, weepy land acknowledgments) who rise in the ranks and/or get what they want (whatever that may be) and who then begin supporting hierarchical systems of control in an almost knee-jerk fashion. Rather than continuing the questioning of authority they once espoused from positions that had less authority. As a POC myself, I should be mad at the hypocrisy, but I can only shrug. Well, I'm in a position of authority too. Er, welcome to the club, my fellow sellouts! LOL?
Táíwò's prime example of a POC who embodies "elite capture" and that fooled progressive identitarians into thinking his platform is likewise progressive - by sophisticated use of progressive messaging and branding - is of course Obama. He calls this tendency to "center the most marginalized" - whether or not they actually believe in progressive or leftist policies - deference politics and he too-gently connects it to standpoint epistemology (the belief that those groups most affected by challenges are those who understand those challenges the best, and therefore should have their perspectives centralized). And so Obama - mixed-race but viewed as black - came to be seen as someone who embodies progressive values, simply because of his status as a black man, and so ignoring his actual upper-middle class background and his very clearly centrist and neoliberal political stances. I really appreciated that Táíwò also used himself as an example of this tendency, and how his identity as a black American would often trump consideration of his actual ethnicity and class background (Nigerian-American, presumably middle class).
This short book is also rather thin in terms of ideas; deconstructing deference politics appears to be Táíwò's primary aim, yet he handles his topic perhaps too gingerly. That said, there were quite a few things that I enjoyed and/or learned about. Individuals and activist groups like Carter G. Woodson, Lilica Boal, the PAIGC; the idea that Portugal was the world's first superpower (not sure that I agree, but it's fascinating to consider); "A constructive political culture would focus on outcome over process" (I fully endorse that!); game theory as a way to understand both politics and personal decision-making in terms of identity and claiming identity; the idea that trauma does not teach and is not about life lessons, but is rather about the nobility of survival. On that last idea, I particularly loved Táíwò's critique of "when trauma's importance and prevalence are framed as positive bases for social credentials and deference behaviors, rather than primarily as problems to deal with collectively." Of course, he's completely in error looking at trauma from a sociopolitical rather than a psychological perspective - trauma is an inherently individual experience - but he makes a good point when it comes to the fact that experiencing trauma does not mean that one is now an expert on the source of that trauma.
Unfortunately, a big issue came early for me in the book, and it cast rather a shadow over all that followed: Táíwò's odd misreading of the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. The author posits that fable as an allegory of power and how power is expressed; per Táíwò, everyone sees that the emperor has power and so of course they will want to join that power base (or at least not be threatened by it) by pretending to see and then exalt those imaginary new clothes that he now has on. What Táíwò overlooks is the basic moral of that tale. The merchants were able to fool the emperor because they played on his vanity and insecurity, telling him that only the stupid or the foolish would be unable to see his new finery; the emperor did not want to be seen as foolish or stupid, and so he pretended that he saw and then put on some amazing clothes. And so everyone else did likewise, pretending to see a fabulous outfit - because who wants to be perceived as stupid or foolish? The fable is a psychological analysis highlighting a key part of human nature; it is not a sociopolitical evaluation of how systems of power are enacted. Can't believe the author didn't see that!
July 16, 2022
The second book by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò my latest intellectual crush (I quickly checked in the acknowledgment section whether he thanked his girlfriend. He did not!).
This builds very much on his 2020 essay " Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference" (The Philosopher) and although it has some interesting insights, I think I have literally EXHAUSTED the subject of identity politics. LOL. According to Táíwò the issue is not identity politics per se but the elite capture of the latter. That's fine too but also not entirely new. As far I can see, no Marxist critique of identity politics ever said that these 'identity issues" (gender, race, sexuality whatever) were not crucial but that they were being appropriated in defense of 'intersectional empire' (how much I love this expression).
Side note: Also, if I read correctly, a Trump return (yes, the guy who was just proved to have launched a coup d'etat) is fairly inevitable as is Cold War II at best or WW III at worst, global hunger, not to mention inevitable climate change disaster. I am five minutes away from retreating into hedonism, maybe I am halfway there (going to watch the Kardashians right after summarizing this book). OR I quit my job and join armed struggle. But this current state of collective sleepwalking into catastrophe unbearable.
I did enjoy the 'epistemic deference' critique though, you know, the specific form of standpoint epistemology when white folks pass the mic to (equally elite) brown folks lol. To say something in support of the already agreed upon discourse. So, how his essay started was when a white chick reached out to him to write a certain piece about racial injustice since he was black not knowing that he wasn’t your 'typical African American' but an offspring of the Nigerian diaspora elite in the US 😊 I also like when he goes like, sure, diversity in podcast is important but don’t confuse this project with addressing racial capitalism. There is no relationship between these projects ❤ The answer, of course, is real solidarity not some tokenistic identity politics crap (although I feel like liberal feminism is so much grosser than liberal anti-racism).
I am going to put a pin in this identity politics stuff for now and focus on matters of war and peace. I suppose.
July 30, 2022
Taiwo's arguments are clunky as he juggles trying to define identity politics as a concept for himself, and struggles generally define the phenomenon of elite capture. He does not explain the history behind the dominant identity politics today, which was disappointing (we really need a book that does this). His book is not accessible to or comprehensible to the majority of liberals and radical liberals that actually need to read this book. I will use this book as a tool when dealing with obnoxious identity politics academics, but the working class comrades I know who are intellectual enough to understand this book are already either Marxists or anarchists.
I do appreciate the articulations of the terms deference politics, standpoint epistemology, and constructive politics. I do appreciate the idea that identity politics can be practiced towards solidaristic, constructive ends, and separates out deference from identity politics. I like the argument that deference politics is the result of the elite capture of identity politics. I like a lot of his callouts of the woke olympics and trauma social clout fragile narcissistic radical liberalism that dominates today, his arguments for real relationship building and real material change, and his stories about a diversity of tactics and relationships in revolutions and anti-colonial struggles.
But he is such an academic and philosopher and clearly not as much of an organizer, most sadly revealed in an interview where he said building up the Stalinist cult "PSL" and the DSA were the answer/step forward for constructive politics. I do appreciate though just how sassy his callouts can be- for example saying that people in Flint don't need their "voices centered" but need their water cleaned.
A solid 3 stars.
I do appreciate the articulations of the terms deference politics, standpoint epistemology, and constructive politics. I do appreciate the idea that identity politics can be practiced towards solidaristic, constructive ends, and separates out deference from identity politics. I like the argument that deference politics is the result of the elite capture of identity politics. I like a lot of his callouts of the woke olympics and trauma social clout fragile narcissistic radical liberalism that dominates today, his arguments for real relationship building and real material change, and his stories about a diversity of tactics and relationships in revolutions and anti-colonial struggles.
But he is such an academic and philosopher and clearly not as much of an organizer, most sadly revealed in an interview where he said building up the Stalinist cult "PSL" and the DSA were the answer/step forward for constructive politics. I do appreciate though just how sassy his callouts can be- for example saying that people in Flint don't need their "voices centered" but need their water cleaned.
A solid 3 stars.
February 21, 2025
Elites running the world is nothing new---but with the ever-monopolizing big tech companies, climate change fueled by centuries of settler colonialism/exploitation, and racial capitalism, I know many people feel the intensification of the 'elite capture.'
Táíwò's strength is weaving these major issues together, and explaining why our approaches to global crises must change.
The first chapters are the most incredible, in my opinion. Especially when Táíwò ties in insights/stories from Carter G. Woodson, author of The Mis-Education of the Negro.
However, I suppose the weaknesses of this book boils down to how short this book was (121 pages not including notes/footnotes).
Each time Táíwò offered a specific example, (whether it was PAIGC'S fight against Portugal imperialism, Flint, Michigan citizens fight against the MDEQ, or Adaiye collaborating with Walter Rodney), the information was both digestible and thought-provoking.
Where Táíwò awry, in my opinion, was when he relied too often on metaphorical anecdotes (such as the Emperor's invisible clothes), or the idea of "building a new room."
I think the Emperor's invisible clothes is an interesting story, and I agree with the concept of "building a new room." I believe, however, that this text space could've been replaced with concrete examples on how it is possible to abolish racial capitalism, or why undoing 'elite capture' is crucial.
The last thing I want to touch on is Táíwò qualms about standpoint epistemology and deferential politics.
What I took away from these qualms is what I like to call positioning the mic, rather than passing the mic. It is important, in other words, to position the mic in an accessible space, opening the conversation further.
But if all we do is "pass" the mic to a person who may experience the struggle, such as a trans person experiencing transphobia, then we may end up tokenizing/symbolizing the new speaker, and centering the guilt of the "passer."
However, if we position the mic, then there is no act of "passing." The so-called "savior" is taken out of the equation.
Positioning the mic may exist in safe spaces, sure, but positioning the mic to me mainly has to do with opening spaces, such as hiring a person (most likely BIPOC) to speak/teach about racism within the company, rather than just inviting this person to speak on one occasion.
The definition of standpoint epistemology is thorough, but while Táíwò mentions Liam Kofi Bright's work on understanding this epistemology, he does not mention Patricia Hill Collins. This is unfortunate because Patricia Hill Collins, a Black woman who was a pioneer in augmenting modern Black Feminist Thought, seems to be erased from present-day conversations on standpoint epistemology. And how can you talk about standpoint epistemology without talking about Patricia Hill Collins?
With that being said, this is a must-read-book. Very timely. I wonder if we will include the work of Eritean computer-scientist Timnit Gebru in his second edition. That would be amazing. I hope there is a second edition or a new book authored by Táíwò.
Táíwò's strength is weaving these major issues together, and explaining why our approaches to global crises must change.
The first chapters are the most incredible, in my opinion. Especially when Táíwò ties in insights/stories from Carter G. Woodson, author of The Mis-Education of the Negro.
However, I suppose the weaknesses of this book boils down to how short this book was (121 pages not including notes/footnotes).
Each time Táíwò offered a specific example, (whether it was PAIGC'S fight against Portugal imperialism, Flint, Michigan citizens fight against the MDEQ, or Adaiye collaborating with Walter Rodney), the information was both digestible and thought-provoking.
Where Táíwò awry, in my opinion, was when he relied too often on metaphorical anecdotes (such as the Emperor's invisible clothes), or the idea of "building a new room."
I think the Emperor's invisible clothes is an interesting story, and I agree with the concept of "building a new room." I believe, however, that this text space could've been replaced with concrete examples on how it is possible to abolish racial capitalism, or why undoing 'elite capture' is crucial.
The last thing I want to touch on is Táíwò qualms about standpoint epistemology and deferential politics.
What I took away from these qualms is what I like to call positioning the mic, rather than passing the mic. It is important, in other words, to position the mic in an accessible space, opening the conversation further.
But if all we do is "pass" the mic to a person who may experience the struggle, such as a trans person experiencing transphobia, then we may end up tokenizing/symbolizing the new speaker, and centering the guilt of the "passer."
However, if we position the mic, then there is no act of "passing." The so-called "savior" is taken out of the equation.
Positioning the mic may exist in safe spaces, sure, but positioning the mic to me mainly has to do with opening spaces, such as hiring a person (most likely BIPOC) to speak/teach about racism within the company, rather than just inviting this person to speak on one occasion.
The definition of standpoint epistemology is thorough, but while Táíwò mentions Liam Kofi Bright's work on understanding this epistemology, he does not mention Patricia Hill Collins. This is unfortunate because Patricia Hill Collins, a Black woman who was a pioneer in augmenting modern Black Feminist Thought, seems to be erased from present-day conversations on standpoint epistemology. And how can you talk about standpoint epistemology without talking about Patricia Hill Collins?
With that being said, this is a must-read-book. Very timely. I wonder if we will include the work of Eritean computer-scientist Timnit Gebru in his second edition. That would be amazing. I hope there is a second edition or a new book authored by Táíwò.
May 30, 2025
a persuasive argument for taking re-radicalizing identity politics and prioritizing liberation in organizing over anything else. lots of stuff i already kinda knew and had a hold of, but would be very useful for liberals i think
May 17, 2022
Elite Capture is a short but brilliant synthesis of the state of the struggle. The way Olufemi weaves history with present organizing allows you to see clearly how the elites have taken control of the terrain on which we think about and practice organizing. I particularly enjoyed the history of the PAIGC and Paulo Freire, and I often think back on Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a compass for my own thinking. Now I can add to that Olufemi Taiwo's concise and enlightening breakdown of constructive vs. deferential politics.
We're all sick and tired of hearing about the "culture wars," etc. Now we have a vocabulary to describe what it is that's actually happening: Elite Capture.
We're all sick and tired of hearing about the "culture wars," etc. Now we have a vocabulary to describe what it is that's actually happening: Elite Capture.
December 18, 2022
This is a difficult book to review because while it’s very smart in some parts, the parts are actually greater than the whole. And more than that, some of the brilliant insights get muddled when more stories and more examples are added on. I hope the author keeps writing about these issues. He’s absolutely right to call out the phenomenon of elite capture and identity based platforms but some of the later examples (Paulo Freire in Brazil for example) we’re not examples of the same thing, which made me wonder if what he’s writing about is the phenomenon of elite capture or is it the age-old
Problem of the sellout? Is that the same? I would love to read more by this author about that, actually.
Problem of the sellout? Is that the same? I would love to read more by this author about that, actually.
December 20, 2022
2.5 — not awful, but very meh / obvious to anyone who has any background in modern left political debates. lands in the awkward spot of not rigorous or complex enough for a full book, but much too long for an essay. structure and evidence felt scattered, and didn’t think alternative perspectives were taken seriously enough. kind of disappointed given how predisposed i should be to agree with this book
Read
April 19, 2023This is a book that wasn't very original for me, but I think a lot of well-meaning people should read it. Lemme 'splain.
I've always found identity politics as performed by guilty-conscience liberals to be mildly sus (if a natural reaction), while at the same time I do my best to recognize the struggles that marginalized groups have that can't necessarily be boiled down to the sort of class politics I generally engage in. Par instance, I'll probably never feel like my life is on the line when I get pulled over in a routine traffic stop, I'll never know what it's like for my family to reject me on the basis of my sexual orientation, I'll never look at an ordinary nighttime street and wonder whether I can safely walk down it alone.
And yet I also know that Kamala Harris, say, sitting in office does nothing to help out working class black women. I know that a land acknowledgment by an elite institution is little more than a pro forma apology that if anything runs cover for the companies that fund their endowments. I know that no matter how well Crazy Rich Asians did at the box office, the last thing I need is another cheesy, condescending piece of Hollywood trash about crazy rich anyone, made worse by how self-congratulatory it is in its "inclusiveness."
Point of the story? Less po-faced talk about bodies, spaces, and voices, more recognition of material conditions, and fuck any elite that tells you otherwise. Like I said these aren't new ideas to me, but to every nice middle-class American liberal that wants to "do better," as the saying among fragile online weirdos goes? Read this shit.
I've always found identity politics as performed by guilty-conscience liberals to be mildly sus (if a natural reaction), while at the same time I do my best to recognize the struggles that marginalized groups have that can't necessarily be boiled down to the sort of class politics I generally engage in. Par instance, I'll probably never feel like my life is on the line when I get pulled over in a routine traffic stop, I'll never know what it's like for my family to reject me on the basis of my sexual orientation, I'll never look at an ordinary nighttime street and wonder whether I can safely walk down it alone.
And yet I also know that Kamala Harris, say, sitting in office does nothing to help out working class black women. I know that a land acknowledgment by an elite institution is little more than a pro forma apology that if anything runs cover for the companies that fund their endowments. I know that no matter how well Crazy Rich Asians did at the box office, the last thing I need is another cheesy, condescending piece of Hollywood trash about crazy rich anyone, made worse by how self-congratulatory it is in its "inclusiveness."
Point of the story? Less po-faced talk about bodies, spaces, and voices, more recognition of material conditions, and fuck any elite that tells you otherwise. Like I said these aren't new ideas to me, but to every nice middle-class American liberal that wants to "do better," as the saying among fragile online weirdos goes? Read this shit.
November 17, 2024
This is a short read (3 hours in audio) and surprised me with its easily understood analogies and approachable language. The beginning idea is that of "elite capture"- the problem, experienced in many countries which receive foreign aid, of money or other resources meant for the general public being siphoned off or outright stolen by the class of elite citizens who are tasked with managing and distributing that aid. Táíwò then explains how this problem is seen in other social and political areas, including identity politics, specifically in whose voices get heard (and whose voices even get into the room to be heard in the first place). Táíwò is Nigerian-American, and included many examples from outside of the US, as well as referencing Black feminist movements from within the US. I was glad I read this and will definitely be taking some of the ideas from it away with me when I think about other things. I will also be keeping an eye out for other works by this author.
August 11, 2022
This really threw me for a loop. It is a pretty provocative book that challenges a lot of aspects of the social justice orthodoxy of today. It gives language and voice to a lot of the questions, confusions, and difficulties that many feel intuitively about “deference politics”: does focusing on identity markers or trauma histories actually get us closer to reshaping the material reality that created those traumas? Or is it just an easy way for people (or more specifically, elites) to feel like they are “good people” while not actually changing the status quo?
I really appreciate the sense in which Taiwo’s goal is to actually radically change the world, and he feels this is done at the institutional and societal level and less at the individual dialogue or small group “spaces”-level. As one review of the book put it, “While deference politics identifies the main problem as a lack of black female CEOs, constructive politics critiques the very existence of a CEO class.” I really resonate with his sense that communal organizing based around the liberative goal at hand ends up producing more results than policing who is in the room and how they exist there.
I always enjoy books that challenge all the usual “sides” of an issue. He’s saying a lot of the same things that, for example, a Tucker Carlson might say. From my right-leaning friends, family, and media sources, I have often heard these sorts of sentiments. “Focusing so much on different identity markers gets in the way of seeing us as just human—it just divides, it doesn’t unite us into a group that can do things.” “To whatever extent there are still problems among these groups, simply ‘representation’ isn’t going to fix it.” “Why would we want ourselves or our credentials to be defined by the worst thing that have ever happened to us or people like us?” “Why don’t we choose the best person or group to get the job done and less on all the identity markers?” “Can I only talk about an issue I’m concerned about if I am a marginalized member of that minority? I can’t have an opinion or say in this?” “The problem is more about class and economics, not race and identity.” Etc. Etc. Etc. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
However, I love that Taiwo can say things along these lines but then says them even as he promotes the black radical tradition, liberation politics, environmentalism, redistribution of material goods, and a Marxist seizing of the means of production by the organized common people.
It also matters that he is the one saying these things. Even if my gut agrees with much of what he is saying, I still don’t think it is my place to say it. I still think that my own intuitions are largely shaped by my limited cultural perspectives, so I do have to listen to others’ voices (also known as deferring to them) before my own in these matters. So, if there is any truth to these sentiments that roll around inside of me (and other white people) sometimes, that needs to be voiced from within that marginalized community and tradition and not from outside people like me.
I also really like how his account of the “elite” is more dynamic than the usual critique. While some people talk of this “elite” as almost an organized conspiracy trying to keep people down to maintain power, Taiwo talks more about eliteness as such. It almost sounds like the way many people speak of white supremacy and structural racism: you don’t have to be a racist to be perpetuating or acting out of racism and doing racist things. Similarly, in Taiwo’s account, the identity of the “elite” is slippery and shifting and can change context to context. It’s not always the rich white male at the top of an organization. It can be whoever is wielding power in a given space—including the marginalized individual that’s been given deference, the group microphone, and the authority to declare who is in and out of the “room”. “Eliteness”—and who benefits from identity and whatever space they’re in—shifts and morphs, perhaps even moment-by-moment, based on a lot of different factors. And there are no easy answers.
So Taiwo’s book is an excellent critique of the cultural situation as it is and gets us closer to having good guardrails on our justice efforts. Having his thinking in mind might give us at least a little more pause before abandoning a certain legislative effort because it doesn’t go far enough, or before declaring someone “lost” to the cause or “canceled”. I know my own privilege makes it too easy for me to say this, but I am all for anything that gets us more coalition building and less bitter division.
However, I’ve got a good number of questions, confusions, and critiques of this book that keeps me from going all in with Taiwo.
First, I think his account has a lot of internal contradictions. He’ll beautifully articulate how even in small groups this sort of eliteness and elite capture happens, but then doesn’t seem to recognize how this still exists within the examples he gives. Nearly every example and story of someone’s life who embodied these principles is the story of someone who at various times, in various settings, were themselves elites through whom good things were accomplished as a function and direct consequence of them being an elite.
Carter Woodson was able to be published and be in the leadership of numerous entities. The revolutionaries of the various countries he mentions all became the Presidents and leaders of those countries, and they had to force and coerce a lot of their changes onto citizens that may or may not have consented to that rule and those changes. In the Flint water crisis, they still had to form groups with leaders and PR representatives and lawyers—and even then, progress only happened by pressuring the existing power structures to use their power towards better ends, not by tearing down the power structures and creating an entirely different material world. Even the labor unions, which Taiwo speaks of as almost the purest form of coalition building and constructive politics, have many layers of bureaucracy, leadership, committees, and power. You simply cannot escape the existence of elites and the necessity to try and use it to better ends.
And I think this critique flows from maybe the essential, foundational difficulty I have with his entire view: his Anarcho-Marxist commitment to a materialist account and analysis to everything. That philosophical commitment guides the entire book. To him, the unequal material ordering of society is the problem and reordering those material conditions to a greater amount of equality is the solution—no matter how that comes about. In the book, there seems to be no difference in how he tells these “success stories”—whether a group educates kids into liberation or uses guerilla warfare to slaughter thousands of the “oppressors”. What seems to matter is “getting shit done” by whatever means seems most effective in bringing the redistribution of material resources.
I think this is why he almost rolls his eyes at all the “identity politics” and “deference” afforded to marginalized folks—it’s not about changing the material reality, but reordering society through changing immaterial structures, cultures, dynamics, and relationships.
And this is where I cannot follow Taiwo. My account of reality is wrapped up in both material and immaterial aspects of the world. In fact, I don’t think I can give a coherent account of why I would want to change material realities for others if it weren’t for immaterial aspects. And not just religious ones. Even abstract secular ideas of human rights and human dignity don’t get a lot of attention in Taiwo’s book, which is seeking a purely pragmatic and materialist politics.
He says in passing two times in the book, I believe, that a coalitional politics is inherently a moral politics because it would be about accomplishing moral ends, but he doesn’t go further than that. I think he anticipates people being like, “wait, you want me to have a coalition with that person who has done those things to people like me?”, and he seems to just sort of wave off the concern saying, “don’t worry—if we’re trying to accomplish good things, it’ll attract good people.”
But that’s not how it works. Human societies are greater than the sum of their materialist conditions. On Taiwo’s terms, we’ve had coalitional politics for most of this country’s history and it has not ended up more just or materially equal. That’s precisely what has given rise to “deference politics” in the first place. “Justice” is itself an immaterial, undefined value and good which you cannot pursue, give an account of, or fight for on purely materialist, pragmatic grounds. It is wrapped up in ethics and morality—ideas notably absent from Taiwo’s writing.
Taiwo’s account (and Marxism in general, I believe) has an incredibly deficient view of human psychology. Not only is it almost exclusively limited to material interests of people, but it narrows those interests too much. History has shown us that when you don’t give actual attention, focus, and intentionality to the makeup of “the room”, it’s almost always going to end up being powerful people that look like one another making decisions on behalf of others without that power who do not look like them. It seems like Taiwo would say this is fine as long as their goal is ultimately material justice and liberation. But humans (and groups) don’t have just one interest or goal at a time. That group may have come together to accomplish a good, liberative goal, but their individual beliefs on the why and how will differ greatly based on their interests, experience, and identities.
Within my faith tradition, it matters how and why good things are accomplished. It is simply not worth it to (as one writer once put in) “build God’s kingdom using the devil’s tools”. No matter the goal, the flow of power, dignity, and voice are foundational to the “goodness” of the good in question. I would love to see Taiwo engage Black liberation theology. There, he would find the idea of the “blackness of God”, where God is found in whatever group is marginalized, powerless, and in need of liberation. Power, then, flows from the bottom-up. On one hand it is, in a sense, uber-deference politics: we not only recognize authority based on identity, but we recognize God based on it. But at the same time, it emphasizes the suffering nature of history that brought us here. Divine deference to “the lowly” is not a gleeful, plundering, victorious process, but one where God has entered suffering to bring good from it, not to make the suffering itself good or a badge of honor. It is a deference borne of compassion, not privilege.
If I were to try and synthesize the good I take from Taiwo’s book with other convictions of mine, I would maybe go int his direction. Not a “coalitional politics”, but a “compassional politics”, where no one’s hands are clean and everyone requires compassion—even the oppressors (this is also Paulo Freire’s belief—an activist whom Taiwo endorses wholeheartedly without engaging the entire moral and ethical structure of this thinking). The “deference” in this case is not artificially lending expertise, power, or privilege to people based on trauma or identity, but is an exercise of love, lament, and recognition. But the slipperiness of this eliteness and privilege from which we need liberation means that this all needs to happen with a profound and difficult ethic of mutuality among us. The compassion has to be tenaciously from all sides, for all sides.
Thinking about this, I’m reminded of the idea of right-of-way in the law. My understanding is that, technically, no road laws say who “has” the right-of-way. No one ever has it; the laws only say who is supposed to yield it. That would be my view here with regard to privilege and power.
Especially in micro (and maybe even mezzo) contexts and interactions, privilege and eliteness are too shifting to say with confidence at any particular moment who has it, who doesn’t, and who needs to act differently based on it. Instead, in my view, we need a radical mutual commitment to yielding privilege one to another. I as a white straight cis male yield space and privilege to those marginalized so I can see divinity itself and integrate their experience into mine; but I also do this in hope that they can yield the privilege that affords them so they may also take in my experience and voice.
This mutual self-giving ethos is idealized and difficult, but shooting for it is a much better way, I think, than simply saying our stories and identities and histories just get in the way of making our lives better. Because honestly, my suspicion is that humans crave knowing and being known more than they long for better material circumstances. And frankly, I’m also guessing that sort of ethos would lend itself to even more fruitful coalitions that can change material reality more than Taiwo imagines.
So in the end, like I said, I really appreciate how Taiwo’s thinking complexifies these newish social justice norms that we’ve maybe implemented too simplistically. The world is simply not separated so neatly into good and bad people, or elites and regular people. Marginalization is not itself a privilege or qualification, and some ways of focusing on or emphasizing that can be performative and actually further entrench powerful interests. We definitely should have less policing of ever-more granular aspects of society, speech, intent, and position, and we should seek new kinds of coalitions with tangible goals in mind.
But to neglect these factors altogether is to go too far and to reduce reality even more simplistically than identity politics might. Human interests are far more complicated than arrangements of mere resources and materials. We ought not get inordinately focused or stuck on one side of that reality to the detriment of the other, but we should keep both in mind. We fight for and attend to material realities not as ends in and of themselves, but as ways to support immaterial human dignity and flourishing; and likewise, we attend to “identities” and privilege and oppression in order to see the effects of material reality as it is now and to imagine what it could be and how to get there—together.
I really appreciate the sense in which Taiwo’s goal is to actually radically change the world, and he feels this is done at the institutional and societal level and less at the individual dialogue or small group “spaces”-level. As one review of the book put it, “While deference politics identifies the main problem as a lack of black female CEOs, constructive politics critiques the very existence of a CEO class.” I really resonate with his sense that communal organizing based around the liberative goal at hand ends up producing more results than policing who is in the room and how they exist there.
I always enjoy books that challenge all the usual “sides” of an issue. He’s saying a lot of the same things that, for example, a Tucker Carlson might say. From my right-leaning friends, family, and media sources, I have often heard these sorts of sentiments. “Focusing so much on different identity markers gets in the way of seeing us as just human—it just divides, it doesn’t unite us into a group that can do things.” “To whatever extent there are still problems among these groups, simply ‘representation’ isn’t going to fix it.” “Why would we want ourselves or our credentials to be defined by the worst thing that have ever happened to us or people like us?” “Why don’t we choose the best person or group to get the job done and less on all the identity markers?” “Can I only talk about an issue I’m concerned about if I am a marginalized member of that minority? I can’t have an opinion or say in this?” “The problem is more about class and economics, not race and identity.” Etc. Etc. Etc. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
However, I love that Taiwo can say things along these lines but then says them even as he promotes the black radical tradition, liberation politics, environmentalism, redistribution of material goods, and a Marxist seizing of the means of production by the organized common people.
It also matters that he is the one saying these things. Even if my gut agrees with much of what he is saying, I still don’t think it is my place to say it. I still think that my own intuitions are largely shaped by my limited cultural perspectives, so I do have to listen to others’ voices (also known as deferring to them) before my own in these matters. So, if there is any truth to these sentiments that roll around inside of me (and other white people) sometimes, that needs to be voiced from within that marginalized community and tradition and not from outside people like me.
I also really like how his account of the “elite” is more dynamic than the usual critique. While some people talk of this “elite” as almost an organized conspiracy trying to keep people down to maintain power, Taiwo talks more about eliteness as such. It almost sounds like the way many people speak of white supremacy and structural racism: you don’t have to be a racist to be perpetuating or acting out of racism and doing racist things. Similarly, in Taiwo’s account, the identity of the “elite” is slippery and shifting and can change context to context. It’s not always the rich white male at the top of an organization. It can be whoever is wielding power in a given space—including the marginalized individual that’s been given deference, the group microphone, and the authority to declare who is in and out of the “room”. “Eliteness”—and who benefits from identity and whatever space they’re in—shifts and morphs, perhaps even moment-by-moment, based on a lot of different factors. And there are no easy answers.
So Taiwo’s book is an excellent critique of the cultural situation as it is and gets us closer to having good guardrails on our justice efforts. Having his thinking in mind might give us at least a little more pause before abandoning a certain legislative effort because it doesn’t go far enough, or before declaring someone “lost” to the cause or “canceled”. I know my own privilege makes it too easy for me to say this, but I am all for anything that gets us more coalition building and less bitter division.
However, I’ve got a good number of questions, confusions, and critiques of this book that keeps me from going all in with Taiwo.
First, I think his account has a lot of internal contradictions. He’ll beautifully articulate how even in small groups this sort of eliteness and elite capture happens, but then doesn’t seem to recognize how this still exists within the examples he gives. Nearly every example and story of someone’s life who embodied these principles is the story of someone who at various times, in various settings, were themselves elites through whom good things were accomplished as a function and direct consequence of them being an elite.
Carter Woodson was able to be published and be in the leadership of numerous entities. The revolutionaries of the various countries he mentions all became the Presidents and leaders of those countries, and they had to force and coerce a lot of their changes onto citizens that may or may not have consented to that rule and those changes. In the Flint water crisis, they still had to form groups with leaders and PR representatives and lawyers—and even then, progress only happened by pressuring the existing power structures to use their power towards better ends, not by tearing down the power structures and creating an entirely different material world. Even the labor unions, which Taiwo speaks of as almost the purest form of coalition building and constructive politics, have many layers of bureaucracy, leadership, committees, and power. You simply cannot escape the existence of elites and the necessity to try and use it to better ends.
And I think this critique flows from maybe the essential, foundational difficulty I have with his entire view: his Anarcho-Marxist commitment to a materialist account and analysis to everything. That philosophical commitment guides the entire book. To him, the unequal material ordering of society is the problem and reordering those material conditions to a greater amount of equality is the solution—no matter how that comes about. In the book, there seems to be no difference in how he tells these “success stories”—whether a group educates kids into liberation or uses guerilla warfare to slaughter thousands of the “oppressors”. What seems to matter is “getting shit done” by whatever means seems most effective in bringing the redistribution of material resources.
I think this is why he almost rolls his eyes at all the “identity politics” and “deference” afforded to marginalized folks—it’s not about changing the material reality, but reordering society through changing immaterial structures, cultures, dynamics, and relationships.
And this is where I cannot follow Taiwo. My account of reality is wrapped up in both material and immaterial aspects of the world. In fact, I don’t think I can give a coherent account of why I would want to change material realities for others if it weren’t for immaterial aspects. And not just religious ones. Even abstract secular ideas of human rights and human dignity don’t get a lot of attention in Taiwo’s book, which is seeking a purely pragmatic and materialist politics.
He says in passing two times in the book, I believe, that a coalitional politics is inherently a moral politics because it would be about accomplishing moral ends, but he doesn’t go further than that. I think he anticipates people being like, “wait, you want me to have a coalition with that person who has done those things to people like me?”, and he seems to just sort of wave off the concern saying, “don’t worry—if we’re trying to accomplish good things, it’ll attract good people.”
But that’s not how it works. Human societies are greater than the sum of their materialist conditions. On Taiwo’s terms, we’ve had coalitional politics for most of this country’s history and it has not ended up more just or materially equal. That’s precisely what has given rise to “deference politics” in the first place. “Justice” is itself an immaterial, undefined value and good which you cannot pursue, give an account of, or fight for on purely materialist, pragmatic grounds. It is wrapped up in ethics and morality—ideas notably absent from Taiwo’s writing.
Taiwo’s account (and Marxism in general, I believe) has an incredibly deficient view of human psychology. Not only is it almost exclusively limited to material interests of people, but it narrows those interests too much. History has shown us that when you don’t give actual attention, focus, and intentionality to the makeup of “the room”, it’s almost always going to end up being powerful people that look like one another making decisions on behalf of others without that power who do not look like them. It seems like Taiwo would say this is fine as long as their goal is ultimately material justice and liberation. But humans (and groups) don’t have just one interest or goal at a time. That group may have come together to accomplish a good, liberative goal, but their individual beliefs on the why and how will differ greatly based on their interests, experience, and identities.
Within my faith tradition, it matters how and why good things are accomplished. It is simply not worth it to (as one writer once put in) “build God’s kingdom using the devil’s tools”. No matter the goal, the flow of power, dignity, and voice are foundational to the “goodness” of the good in question. I would love to see Taiwo engage Black liberation theology. There, he would find the idea of the “blackness of God”, where God is found in whatever group is marginalized, powerless, and in need of liberation. Power, then, flows from the bottom-up. On one hand it is, in a sense, uber-deference politics: we not only recognize authority based on identity, but we recognize God based on it. But at the same time, it emphasizes the suffering nature of history that brought us here. Divine deference to “the lowly” is not a gleeful, plundering, victorious process, but one where God has entered suffering to bring good from it, not to make the suffering itself good or a badge of honor. It is a deference borne of compassion, not privilege.
If I were to try and synthesize the good I take from Taiwo’s book with other convictions of mine, I would maybe go int his direction. Not a “coalitional politics”, but a “compassional politics”, where no one’s hands are clean and everyone requires compassion—even the oppressors (this is also Paulo Freire’s belief—an activist whom Taiwo endorses wholeheartedly without engaging the entire moral and ethical structure of this thinking). The “deference” in this case is not artificially lending expertise, power, or privilege to people based on trauma or identity, but is an exercise of love, lament, and recognition. But the slipperiness of this eliteness and privilege from which we need liberation means that this all needs to happen with a profound and difficult ethic of mutuality among us. The compassion has to be tenaciously from all sides, for all sides.
Thinking about this, I’m reminded of the idea of right-of-way in the law. My understanding is that, technically, no road laws say who “has” the right-of-way. No one ever has it; the laws only say who is supposed to yield it. That would be my view here with regard to privilege and power.
Especially in micro (and maybe even mezzo) contexts and interactions, privilege and eliteness are too shifting to say with confidence at any particular moment who has it, who doesn’t, and who needs to act differently based on it. Instead, in my view, we need a radical mutual commitment to yielding privilege one to another. I as a white straight cis male yield space and privilege to those marginalized so I can see divinity itself and integrate their experience into mine; but I also do this in hope that they can yield the privilege that affords them so they may also take in my experience and voice.
This mutual self-giving ethos is idealized and difficult, but shooting for it is a much better way, I think, than simply saying our stories and identities and histories just get in the way of making our lives better. Because honestly, my suspicion is that humans crave knowing and being known more than they long for better material circumstances. And frankly, I’m also guessing that sort of ethos would lend itself to even more fruitful coalitions that can change material reality more than Taiwo imagines.
So in the end, like I said, I really appreciate how Taiwo’s thinking complexifies these newish social justice norms that we’ve maybe implemented too simplistically. The world is simply not separated so neatly into good and bad people, or elites and regular people. Marginalization is not itself a privilege or qualification, and some ways of focusing on or emphasizing that can be performative and actually further entrench powerful interests. We definitely should have less policing of ever-more granular aspects of society, speech, intent, and position, and we should seek new kinds of coalitions with tangible goals in mind.
But to neglect these factors altogether is to go too far and to reduce reality even more simplistically than identity politics might. Human interests are far more complicated than arrangements of mere resources and materials. We ought not get inordinately focused or stuck on one side of that reality to the detriment of the other, but we should keep both in mind. We fight for and attend to material realities not as ends in and of themselves, but as ways to support immaterial human dignity and flourishing; and likewise, we attend to “identities” and privilege and oppression in order to see the effects of material reality as it is now and to imagine what it could be and how to get there—together.
June 14, 2022
Excellent book all around, provocative and deep, I’ll have more to say later.
![Profile Image for [Name Redacted].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1347082397i%2F287915._UY200_CR0%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
February 16, 2024
Táíwò is clearly an intelligent man and a gifted writer. Thus, the worst thing about his brand of typical Communist twaddle is that he WILL make a good point or startling insight periodically... But he just can't follow them through to their logical conclusions or look beyond his monomaniacal foci because doing so would contravene Communist dogma.
Identity Politics, as originally envisioned and still practiced throughout much of the West, is fundamentally a form of Soviet-sponsored "Race Communism" (much as Nazism was a form of "Race Socialism"), and to his credit Táíwò WANTS to shave away that dimension, discarding the essential racism at the heart of Identity Politics, leaving only a universalist class-based revolutionary ideology. But he is so committed to his Communism that he cannot for a moment admit that Race Communism IS still a form of Communism or that this "taint" he rejects was NOT injected by malevolent outside forces seeking to pollute some pure revolutionary vision, instead effectively insisting on the by-now cliched Socialist & Communist excuses of "false consciousness" and "imperialist subversion." TRUE Communism could NEVER be so polluted, you see! TRUE Communists could never be so wrong! Surely the corruption must entirely prove the result of sinister capitalist forces and befuddled-but-well-meaning fellow travelers.
It's all so tiresome.
Identity Politics, as originally envisioned and still practiced throughout much of the West, is fundamentally a form of Soviet-sponsored "Race Communism" (much as Nazism was a form of "Race Socialism"), and to his credit Táíwò WANTS to shave away that dimension, discarding the essential racism at the heart of Identity Politics, leaving only a universalist class-based revolutionary ideology. But he is so committed to his Communism that he cannot for a moment admit that Race Communism IS still a form of Communism or that this "taint" he rejects was NOT injected by malevolent outside forces seeking to pollute some pure revolutionary vision, instead effectively insisting on the by-now cliched Socialist & Communist excuses of "false consciousness" and "imperialist subversion." TRUE Communism could NEVER be so polluted, you see! TRUE Communists could never be so wrong! Surely the corruption must entirely prove the result of sinister capitalist forces and befuddled-but-well-meaning fellow travelers.
It's all so tiresome.
September 7, 2023
Fantastic introduction to the concept of Elite capture and a critique of the deferential nature of identity politics. I was especially captured by Olufemi’s closing remarks about the limited role trauma can play in political decision making and spotlighting. The focus on what we want to achieve and build rather than what has been done or must be destroyed is an important point he brings across expertly.
This book brings across Elite capture easily. Everyone will be familiar the basic principle, as we see it day to day when progressive ideals get captured and warped when liberals and corporations adopt them. Understanding the conditions this happens in, and the extent makes the world around me a little easier to understand, which is the outcome I look for when I read books like these. I also appreciate consistent use of real world examples to frame the arguments he makes.
Great read. I recommend to anyone.
This book brings across Elite capture easily. Everyone will be familiar the basic principle, as we see it day to day when progressive ideals get captured and warped when liberals and corporations adopt them. Understanding the conditions this happens in, and the extent makes the world around me a little easier to understand, which is the outcome I look for when I read books like these. I also appreciate consistent use of real world examples to frame the arguments he makes.
Great read. I recommend to anyone.
July 14, 2025
tl;dr Incredibly frustrating (non)book which gets some important things about politics correct but is otherwise deeply mistaken about the possibilities and purpose of politics.
In Elite Capture, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò argues that the language and aims of identity politics have been co-opted by elites, whereby elites are those with social, cultural, or economic power. Táíwò points out that this often isn't an intentional conspiracy but simply a natural social process where those who have power will tend to reinforce rather than challenge their status even when nominally or notionally allowing a challenge along a particular dimension of power. The stereotypical example of capture is elite university admission practices; Schools cite diversity but merely choose from the colorful palette of already in-place elites or elite aspirants rather re-working the university system altogether.
Táíwò argues necessary reform must get the disempowered into the rooms where power is exercised. He distinguishes between what he calls "deference politics," where symbolic gestures and representation dominate, and a more substantive, constructive approach he terms "constructive politics," which focuses on building institutions and redistributing power. Táíwò critiques how elite capture dilutes radical movements by redirecting attention away from systemic change and toward performative discourse, and he emphasizes the need for collective, forward-looking strategies that generate material transformation instead of providing mere rhetorical recognition.
Overall, there is nothing wrong with a political analysis that points out that elite interests and action are important to political outcomes. I favor political theories that put elite power at the center of things and emphasize that these processes are more organic or spontaneous than planned and intentional. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that symbolic and cultural political have recently gained supremacy relative to material politics in the West. However, I'm perturbed by the idea that someone who recognizes these dynamics still thinks there's a peaceful way to transcend the current political order. This is manifestly not the case, which is why many political thinkers following similar lines of thought say it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
In situations where a radical egalitarian has become wise to the actual processes that govern the use of political power and maintain political order but refuses to openly advocate brutal revolutionary violence, there are only two things that can be true. One, this person has failed to logically follow his or her ideas to their inevitable end point or he or she is deliberately misleading others about what's required to achieve egalitarian political ends and what the costs of those actions will be because such disclosures will be delegitimizing. In the former case, he or she is an unserious thinker whose failed to understand the dynamics of complex polities and the foundation role that the state's monopoly on legit violence plays in preserving the existing social order. In the latter case, he or she is a blood-thirsty, Machiavellian political radical who is strategically nudging well-meaning but otherwise docile and ignorant people into a position where the only choice left to them is violence.
Given the blinders that academic left-wingers tend to wear and Táíwò's sourcing in the book, I'm inclined to think its the former. Táíwò's commentary is informed by Marxist and decolonial perspectives, which are unsophisticated in 21st century discussions of political theory. It doesn't take much sociological or economic analysis to realizes that American class structure cannot be understood along Marxist lines. For instance, nearly two-thirds of Americans own property and/or financial instruments. Too many Americans are quite literally invested in the status quo to have any real desire to destroy it.
The hilarious aspect of Táíwò's sourcing is that he fails to reference any of the Italian school political theorists - the one who actually pioneered the ideas central to his analysis: Vilfred Pareto, Robert Michels, George Sorrel, or even Niccolo Machiavelli); nor does he even engage the more prominent 20th century thinkers who extended and elaborated Italian school theories in modern conditions: James Burnham (managerialism), George Orwell, or Pierre Bourdieu (symbolic capital). Instead we're treated to a lineup of historical figures/movements Táíwò is sympathetic to (E. Franklin Frazier, Carter G. Woodson, PAIGC) or the usual stable of left-wing thinkers (Paolo Freire, Franz Fanon, etc).
The reason this work has attracted a lot of praise is that it was one of the early, unimpeachably leftist thinkers to critique the Millennial brand of "identity politics," which is here used as a synonym with "woke" or social justice politicking, though none of these things are quite the same thing and the usage of these terms can vary widely, creating confusion and convenient rhetorical opportunities for obfuscation. After the events of the early 2020s, in the waning days of the first Trump administration and the first half of the Biden administration, it was becoming clear that Americans were souring on the tactics, rhetoric, and policy used by proponents of progressive political ideas. This required leftist to start thinker their way out of the political corner they'd painted themselves into. Táíwò's book (or long essay) provided a middle-way where they could start de-radicalize their political tactic while maintaining radical goals and the same reading of history. It turns out that the effort was an elaborate coping strategy as Táíwò's arguments are not sufficient to sustain a 21st century version of progressive politics nor respond to the political unpopularity of identity politics.
In Elite Capture, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò argues that the language and aims of identity politics have been co-opted by elites, whereby elites are those with social, cultural, or economic power. Táíwò points out that this often isn't an intentional conspiracy but simply a natural social process where those who have power will tend to reinforce rather than challenge their status even when nominally or notionally allowing a challenge along a particular dimension of power. The stereotypical example of capture is elite university admission practices; Schools cite diversity but merely choose from the colorful palette of already in-place elites or elite aspirants rather re-working the university system altogether.
Táíwò argues necessary reform must get the disempowered into the rooms where power is exercised. He distinguishes between what he calls "deference politics," where symbolic gestures and representation dominate, and a more substantive, constructive approach he terms "constructive politics," which focuses on building institutions and redistributing power. Táíwò critiques how elite capture dilutes radical movements by redirecting attention away from systemic change and toward performative discourse, and he emphasizes the need for collective, forward-looking strategies that generate material transformation instead of providing mere rhetorical recognition.
Overall, there is nothing wrong with a political analysis that points out that elite interests and action are important to political outcomes. I favor political theories that put elite power at the center of things and emphasize that these processes are more organic or spontaneous than planned and intentional. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that symbolic and cultural political have recently gained supremacy relative to material politics in the West. However, I'm perturbed by the idea that someone who recognizes these dynamics still thinks there's a peaceful way to transcend the current political order. This is manifestly not the case, which is why many political thinkers following similar lines of thought say it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
In situations where a radical egalitarian has become wise to the actual processes that govern the use of political power and maintain political order but refuses to openly advocate brutal revolutionary violence, there are only two things that can be true. One, this person has failed to logically follow his or her ideas to their inevitable end point or he or she is deliberately misleading others about what's required to achieve egalitarian political ends and what the costs of those actions will be because such disclosures will be delegitimizing. In the former case, he or she is an unserious thinker whose failed to understand the dynamics of complex polities and the foundation role that the state's monopoly on legit violence plays in preserving the existing social order. In the latter case, he or she is a blood-thirsty, Machiavellian political radical who is strategically nudging well-meaning but otherwise docile and ignorant people into a position where the only choice left to them is violence.
Given the blinders that academic left-wingers tend to wear and Táíwò's sourcing in the book, I'm inclined to think its the former. Táíwò's commentary is informed by Marxist and decolonial perspectives, which are unsophisticated in 21st century discussions of political theory. It doesn't take much sociological or economic analysis to realizes that American class structure cannot be understood along Marxist lines. For instance, nearly two-thirds of Americans own property and/or financial instruments. Too many Americans are quite literally invested in the status quo to have any real desire to destroy it.
The hilarious aspect of Táíwò's sourcing is that he fails to reference any of the Italian school political theorists - the one who actually pioneered the ideas central to his analysis: Vilfred Pareto, Robert Michels, George Sorrel, or even Niccolo Machiavelli); nor does he even engage the more prominent 20th century thinkers who extended and elaborated Italian school theories in modern conditions: James Burnham (managerialism), George Orwell, or Pierre Bourdieu (symbolic capital). Instead we're treated to a lineup of historical figures/movements Táíwò is sympathetic to (E. Franklin Frazier, Carter G. Woodson, PAIGC) or the usual stable of left-wing thinkers (Paolo Freire, Franz Fanon, etc).
The reason this work has attracted a lot of praise is that it was one of the early, unimpeachably leftist thinkers to critique the Millennial brand of "identity politics," which is here used as a synonym with "woke" or social justice politicking, though none of these things are quite the same thing and the usage of these terms can vary widely, creating confusion and convenient rhetorical opportunities for obfuscation. After the events of the early 2020s, in the waning days of the first Trump administration and the first half of the Biden administration, it was becoming clear that Americans were souring on the tactics, rhetoric, and policy used by proponents of progressive political ideas. This required leftist to start thinker their way out of the political corner they'd painted themselves into. Táíwò's book (or long essay) provided a middle-way where they could start de-radicalize their political tactic while maintaining radical goals and the same reading of history. It turns out that the effort was an elaborate coping strategy as Táíwò's arguments are not sufficient to sustain a 21st century version of progressive politics nor respond to the political unpopularity of identity politics.
May 13, 2022
Guy who has only read the emperor's new clothes, encountering complex social phenomena: Getting a lot of 'emperor's new clothes' vibes from this...
February 3, 2023
This short, powerful book is, I think, what most people on the left are looking for when they want a vocabulary for what makes them uneasy about current Twitter-ized manifestations of identity politics.
Taiwo's basic argument is simple: that the ideas of identity politics & intersectionality have been co-opted by powerful people and social groups to maintain their power; that, instead of these ideas being used to dismantle power and dominance, and solve the problems they were created to address, they are being used to change the aesthetics of power and dominance, to alter the language used to describe problems without solving them. It is, he says, a way of obsessing over "who gets to be in the room" and who gets to speak when they're in it, rather than questioning the existence of the room at all and building new ones with fewer gates and walls.
Some things are, I think, glossed over a little simplistically (his argument that power dynamics can explain social interactions without any reference to the beliefs of the oppressed is an example of this), but on the whole his argument is worth considering, particularly if you participate in politics mostly via social media.
The most obvious room, and the one he doesn't really touch on, is America itself: who gets to be American, to have a say in American politics, even just to vote for the American president and political order, has an immense influence on global politics that is not shared by the citizen of any other country on earth. Consequently, what Americans say (internally and globally) about even discrimination and trauma has outsize effects on how other countries perceive the world and even themselves. What Black Americans understand about racism comes to be seen as "what racism is," how American women understand sexism and feminism comes to be seen as "what misogyny is about and how to fix it," how Americans see Democracy is how the world is expected to see and even compelled to enact Democracy, even if it's glaringly obvious to everyone (even a lot of Americans) that American society is not democratic. Yet American progressive politics, particularly on social media, has come to be seen as a game of who is in which chair speaking on what issue, rather than anything serious about dismantling the American empire -- at least not willingly -- for obvious reasons.
This use/abuse of identity politics, which he termed Deference Politics, he contrasts with Constructive Politics:
Essentially, if you are looking to build bridges with progressive types across difference (both ideological and demographic) and make a positive difference to solving real problems in the world rather than scoring points on Twitter or whatever, I recommend this book. It will at least introduce a new way of looking at and considering these perspectives that have seemed so intractable.
Taiwo's basic argument is simple: that the ideas of identity politics & intersectionality have been co-opted by powerful people and social groups to maintain their power; that, instead of these ideas being used to dismantle power and dominance, and solve the problems they were created to address, they are being used to change the aesthetics of power and dominance, to alter the language used to describe problems without solving them. It is, he says, a way of obsessing over "who gets to be in the room" and who gets to speak when they're in it, rather than questioning the existence of the room at all and building new ones with fewer gates and walls.
Some things are, I think, glossed over a little simplistically (his argument that power dynamics can explain social interactions without any reference to the beliefs of the oppressed is an example of this), but on the whole his argument is worth considering, particularly if you participate in politics mostly via social media.
From a structural perspective, the rooms we don't enter, the experiences we don't have (and the reasons we are able to avoid them) might have more to teach us about the world and our place in it than anything said inside. If so, the deferential approach to standpoint epistemology actually prevents "centering" or even hearing from the most marginalized, since it focuses on the interactions inside the rooms we occupy .... For those who defer, the habit can supercharge moral cowardice, as the norms of deference provide social cover for the abdication of responsibility. It displaces onto individual heroes, a hero class, or a mythicized past the work that is ours to do in the present. Their perspective may be clearer on this or that specific matter, but their overall point of view isn't any less particular or constrained by history than ours. More importantly, deference places the accountability that is all of ours to bear onto select people -- and, more often than not, a sanitized and thoroughly fictional caricature of them.
The most obvious room, and the one he doesn't really touch on, is America itself: who gets to be American, to have a say in American politics, even just to vote for the American president and political order, has an immense influence on global politics that is not shared by the citizen of any other country on earth. Consequently, what Americans say (internally and globally) about even discrimination and trauma has outsize effects on how other countries perceive the world and even themselves. What Black Americans understand about racism comes to be seen as "what racism is," how American women understand sexism and feminism comes to be seen as "what misogyny is about and how to fix it," how Americans see Democracy is how the world is expected to see and even compelled to enact Democracy, even if it's glaringly obvious to everyone (even a lot of Americans) that American society is not democratic. Yet American progressive politics, particularly on social media, has come to be seen as a game of who is in which chair speaking on what issue, rather than anything serious about dismantling the American empire -- at least not willingly -- for obvious reasons.
This use/abuse of identity politics, which he termed Deference Politics, he contrasts with Constructive Politics:
The constructive approach is, however, extremely demanding. It asks us to be planners and designers, to be accountable and responsive to people who aren't yet in the room. In addition to being architects, it asks us to become builders and construction workers: to actually build the kinds of rooms we could sit in together, rather than idly speculate about which rooms would be nice. ... The deferential approach to politics is worth praising because of its concern and attention to the importance of lived experience--especially traumatic experiences. But just as this virtue becomes a vice when "being in the room" effects are ignored, this virtue also becomes a vice when trauma's importance and prevalence are framed as positive bases for social credentials and deference behaviours, rather than primarily as problems to deal with collectively. ... That I have experienced my share of traumatic experiences, have survived abuse of various kinds, have faced near death from accidental circumstance and from violence (different as the particulars of these may be from those around me) is not a card to play in gamified social interaction or a weapon to wield in battles over prestige. It is not what gives me a special right to speak, to evaluate, or to decide for a group. It is a concrete, experiential manifestation of the vulnerability that connects me to most of the people on this earth. It comes between me and other people not as a wall, but as a bridge.
Essentially, if you are looking to build bridges with progressive types across difference (both ideological and demographic) and make a positive difference to solving real problems in the world rather than scoring points on Twitter or whatever, I recommend this book. It will at least introduce a new way of looking at and considering these perspectives that have seemed so intractable.
Want to read
April 15, 2025Madz rec
April 25, 2024
During the recent encampment at North American universities in support of Gaza, I found myself questioning the motivations behind Minouche Shafik's actions. As the president of Columbia University and a woman of colour with roots in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), specifically Egypt, her decision to exacerbate injustices and condemn peaceful protests—of her own students of all backgrounds, including Jewish students—against genocide puzzled me.
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's book, "Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else)," offers valuable insights into the complexities of identity politics and power dynamics. The book delves into how individuals in positions of power can co-opt identity-based movements or narratives to serve their own agendas, sometimes at the expense of the very communities they claim to represent.
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's book, "Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else)," offers valuable insights into the complexities of identity politics and power dynamics. The book delves into how individuals in positions of power can co-opt identity-based movements or narratives to serve their own agendas, sometimes at the expense of the very communities they claim to represent.
October 20, 2022
Really brilliant - brief and to the point. Echoes a lot of stuff I've thought about and argued for years. Táíwò is an unusually skilled writer for an academic and it makes this book a joy. He's a little more sanguine about the possibilities of the woke capital age than I am, but he's never not well-argued.
December 22, 2023
I’ve been thinking a lot about how people and communities can be oppressed when they seem to have the full support of major banks, corporations and governments behind them.
This short but thoughtful work uses well researched historical examples to illustrate “elite capture” this happens when the privileged and powerful usurp the position of an activist group and use it to place the group they represent in the role of perpetual victimhood and appear to champion it while actually making little to no actual change, in effect business as usual. They do this through the use of deference politics, basically handing the microscope to someone who physically represents the oppressed group but in actuality are a part of the same privileged elite.
He goes beyond race and into the darkness of human nature not to absolve races that have traditionally been oppressive but to illustrate that when rebellions lead to coups, the rebels themselves become oppressors when they take power.
His argument is for ground up change to a system designed to keep the 1% at the top and everyone else squabbling over identity politics and with no idea how to break the cycle they are in. This would be cooperative politics, including voices from the actual disadvantaged people of the world and not just the people in the room where decisions are made and solidarity among the non elites (I’m assuming he means as a class and not just race because the book doesn’t seem to be against any particular race in principle)
This really gave me a lot to think about, being a white, middle class dude it’s easy to not understand or think about these issues because we don’t notice them, it’s not our experience and we’re deliberately not taught this stuff.
I look for things like this to read outside of my wheelhouse but it often feels like an indictment of the entire white race instead of an attempt to educate from a different perspective. This was very eloquently done, I would have liked to hear more of an explanation of the current state of affairs though.
This short but thoughtful work uses well researched historical examples to illustrate “elite capture” this happens when the privileged and powerful usurp the position of an activist group and use it to place the group they represent in the role of perpetual victimhood and appear to champion it while actually making little to no actual change, in effect business as usual. They do this through the use of deference politics, basically handing the microscope to someone who physically represents the oppressed group but in actuality are a part of the same privileged elite.
He goes beyond race and into the darkness of human nature not to absolve races that have traditionally been oppressive but to illustrate that when rebellions lead to coups, the rebels themselves become oppressors when they take power.
His argument is for ground up change to a system designed to keep the 1% at the top and everyone else squabbling over identity politics and with no idea how to break the cycle they are in. This would be cooperative politics, including voices from the actual disadvantaged people of the world and not just the people in the room where decisions are made and solidarity among the non elites (I’m assuming he means as a class and not just race because the book doesn’t seem to be against any particular race in principle)
This really gave me a lot to think about, being a white, middle class dude it’s easy to not understand or think about these issues because we don’t notice them, it’s not our experience and we’re deliberately not taught this stuff.
I look for things like this to read outside of my wheelhouse but it often feels like an indictment of the entire white race instead of an attempt to educate from a different perspective. This was very eloquently done, I would have liked to hear more of an explanation of the current state of affairs though.
June 27, 2025
Continuing on my slow but steady ‘progressive’ reading spree – Elite Capture is a term used to describe a dynamic where those with power in any situation (ranging from the micro to the global) tend to use that power to enhance their own interests. Particular focus on this book is on racial dynamics particularly colonization and slavery however the theory applies to any grouping and structure.
I think I was drawn to this book because it tackles elements of wealth inequality (a particular area of interest of mine) but also because the analysis of the book was a little more in depth and challenging than your usual. Specifically the authors skewer what they call ‘deference’ politics (where people of certain identities are given seats at the ‘table’ however the system doesn’t change) and explained this in a way that I had been struggling with in my own head for some time but not really read much material on the topic.
There is also an interesting analysis on ‘gamification’ which at first seemed tangential but this was used as an explanation for how systems can be created and then sustained by everyday people allowing their attention to be gamified. For an example look no further than how social media has interacted with politics in the last decade or so – there is very little authentic information sharing and constructive nation running and a LOT of manipulation of social media to ‘win’ elections.
The final parts of the book look at what can be done instead – the authors again intrigued me because unlike other progressive arguments such as abolitionist ones Elite Capture talks about focussing on building what you do want to happen. Obviously the two are not completely able to co-exist, we can’t just create our own justice system, but I liked the point of essentially not just trying to pull systems down, but actually work on what systems you do want constructively.
It's a comparatively short work, but I actually prefer that in non-fiction I’d rather read a useful and insightful short piece that a book that had been fleshed out to the mandatory 300 pages…
I think I was drawn to this book because it tackles elements of wealth inequality (a particular area of interest of mine) but also because the analysis of the book was a little more in depth and challenging than your usual. Specifically the authors skewer what they call ‘deference’ politics (where people of certain identities are given seats at the ‘table’ however the system doesn’t change) and explained this in a way that I had been struggling with in my own head for some time but not really read much material on the topic.
There is also an interesting analysis on ‘gamification’ which at first seemed tangential but this was used as an explanation for how systems can be created and then sustained by everyday people allowing their attention to be gamified. For an example look no further than how social media has interacted with politics in the last decade or so – there is very little authentic information sharing and constructive nation running and a LOT of manipulation of social media to ‘win’ elections.
The final parts of the book look at what can be done instead – the authors again intrigued me because unlike other progressive arguments such as abolitionist ones Elite Capture talks about focussing on building what you do want to happen. Obviously the two are not completely able to co-exist, we can’t just create our own justice system, but I liked the point of essentially not just trying to pull systems down, but actually work on what systems you do want constructively.
It's a comparatively short work, but I actually prefer that in non-fiction I’d rather read a useful and insightful short piece that a book that had been fleshed out to the mandatory 300 pages…
July 13, 2022
This is an important topic, and worthy of long-form treatment. Ironically, more time in this book is spent contemplating whether "centering" people with certain identities or experiences is helpful than discussing elite capture per se (though maybe the point is that this is a form of elite capture). For such a short book, there's also a lot of time spent profiling individuals involved in post-colonial struggles, and the rest is repetitive, belaboring the same points. Nevertheless, this book has some important things to say, especially for those involved in movement leadership and community organizing.
July 10, 2022
Essential! The point is to change the world. To do that, Olúfémi Táíwò argues, we need less focus on who to ‘center’ in the rooms we’re in and more focus on changing the rooms—the systems we’re scripted into.
Read
December 23, 2022A clear and helpful contribution to the long history of trying to parse out how our minds get seized and true change gets coopted and marketed out of meaning. I learned some background I did not know, and found the essay compelling.
January 12, 2023
This was a difficult one to rate. It’s an important concept and Olúfémi O. Táíwò tackles both the contemporary and historical aspects of identity politics brilliantly.
The elite ruling class will do anything in their power to hold onto and further their privileges. Olúfémi breaks down their playbook and exposes it for what it is.
He also does an exceptional job of setting out how to tackle it. My major problem with most non-fiction (especially anti-capitalist and anti-colonialism) is never the sentiment, it’s the lack of clear direction after setting out the issue. To a layman, understanding the issue is half the battle and most people would never dream of inventing the solutions. These institutions have set monoliths in our path that we don’t dream of moving, and for an expert to come along and actually give us advice and set out a plan is a welcome change.
However, this is a seriously academic piece of work. The language used and complexity of the subject could be a real deal breaker if you’re not already seriously interested in the subject.
I’d have liked it to be more accessible to the aforementioned layman, of which I consider myself, as this could be tricky to read at times. I often found myself at the bottom of a page and thinking “hang on, I don’t have a clue what I’ve just read”. A mass market paperback I feel should be more easily digestible than what felt like required academic reading.
That’s not to take anything away from Táíwò who has written brilliantly about a complex topic, and given me a far deeper understanding than if I hadn’t struggled through the odd paragraph.
The elite ruling class will do anything in their power to hold onto and further their privileges. Olúfémi breaks down their playbook and exposes it for what it is.
He also does an exceptional job of setting out how to tackle it. My major problem with most non-fiction (especially anti-capitalist and anti-colonialism) is never the sentiment, it’s the lack of clear direction after setting out the issue. To a layman, understanding the issue is half the battle and most people would never dream of inventing the solutions. These institutions have set monoliths in our path that we don’t dream of moving, and for an expert to come along and actually give us advice and set out a plan is a welcome change.
However, this is a seriously academic piece of work. The language used and complexity of the subject could be a real deal breaker if you’re not already seriously interested in the subject.
I’d have liked it to be more accessible to the aforementioned layman, of which I consider myself, as this could be tricky to read at times. I often found myself at the bottom of a page and thinking “hang on, I don’t have a clue what I’ve just read”. A mass market paperback I feel should be more easily digestible than what felt like required academic reading.
That’s not to take anything away from Táíwò who has written brilliantly about a complex topic, and given me a far deeper understanding than if I hadn’t struggled through the odd paragraph.
Read
April 27, 2023I thought this was very interesting! Táíwò uses historical anticolonial movements as examples of effective use of identity politics, contrasted with how they're commonly used to limit the scope and imagination of movements today. He doesn't talk about abolition extensively, but advocates for "constructive" or additive politics, which mirrors the abolitionist approach.
June 17, 2022
A relatively short, concise, well-written book. A lot of the ideas will seem familiar here for folks who have read Reconsidering Reparations.
I wish Taiwo had written more about examples of elite capture on the right - he definitely alluded to this taking place and argued that elite capture of identity politics is not exclusive to the left, but I would have loved to see more of his sharp cultural analysis of some concrete examples there.
I also wish elite capture had been more thoroughly theorized - it's kind of a really obvious thing to say that any time a subgroup is selected for benefits, the most advantaged within the subgroup will find a way to benefit the most from the benefit. It would've been cool to have a stronger theory of exactly how this happens and the outcomes.
I also thought that Taiwo could've written more clearly against deference politics. The parts I was primed to agree with the most were the ones I felt had the thinnest base in evidence / argumentation. Taiwo argues that deference politics are not as good as constructive politics, but the whole time I was thinking por que no los dos? How can we treat deference politics as a bridge to constructive politics? It seems possible but Taiwo seems pretty content to treat the two as two alternatives (with some hemming and hawing about how deference politics is full of good intent).
I was pleasantly surprised by the end - Taiwo basically says "it's time to build" in a very rebooty way! And Taiwo's thoughts on the "quiet nobility of survival" made me think a lot about my own family and various ideas from Chinese society like 吃苦 ("eating hardship").
I wish Taiwo had written more about examples of elite capture on the right - he definitely alluded to this taking place and argued that elite capture of identity politics is not exclusive to the left, but I would have loved to see more of his sharp cultural analysis of some concrete examples there.
I also wish elite capture had been more thoroughly theorized - it's kind of a really obvious thing to say that any time a subgroup is selected for benefits, the most advantaged within the subgroup will find a way to benefit the most from the benefit. It would've been cool to have a stronger theory of exactly how this happens and the outcomes.
I also thought that Taiwo could've written more clearly against deference politics. The parts I was primed to agree with the most were the ones I felt had the thinnest base in evidence / argumentation. Taiwo argues that deference politics are not as good as constructive politics, but the whole time I was thinking por que no los dos? How can we treat deference politics as a bridge to constructive politics? It seems possible but Taiwo seems pretty content to treat the two as two alternatives (with some hemming and hawing about how deference politics is full of good intent).
I was pleasantly surprised by the end - Taiwo basically says "it's time to build" in a very rebooty way! And Taiwo's thoughts on the "quiet nobility of survival" made me think a lot about my own family and various ideas from Chinese society like 吃苦 ("eating hardship").
October 22, 2023
"Elite Capture" is a difficult book to review for me but, in general, I think it would have been better in shorter form (despite the fact that it's already short). Not because it's bad, really, but because it feels a bit too much like kicking in open doors.
The gist of the book is simple, Elites will adapt and co-opt to just about anything as long as it maintains or increases their power. Full stop. Now, Táíwò obviously fleshes the message out a bit, but this is what it boils down to. It's kinda obvious, isn't it? And it results in him having to justify the existence of the book a bit too much, obfuscating the message somewhat.
That said, full props to Táíwò for both defining what he thinks of as "identity politics" in making his arguments, and a big kudos for stressing the relativity of what he means with "Elites" (acknowledging that intersectional factors are at play, he doesn't nail down a universal group). But this also poses a problem for him. With no universally defined bad guy, his argument feels forced and incredibly difficult to make stick. To me, the reason that it does work in the end, is because the central concept is such a "duh." Without the obvious and simple in the argument, it would sound an awful lot like simply blaming all bad bits on a fairy-tale bad-guy "elite" that we can't quite make out.
Despite this, Táíwò shows flashes of brilliance and insight in parts of the book, making it worth a read still. Unfortunately these did not make a better whole, but they do stand on their own. So despite my rather lackluster 2 stars, it's a strong 2-star book worth reading.
The gist of the book is simple, Elites will adapt and co-opt to just about anything as long as it maintains or increases their power. Full stop. Now, Táíwò obviously fleshes the message out a bit, but this is what it boils down to. It's kinda obvious, isn't it? And it results in him having to justify the existence of the book a bit too much, obfuscating the message somewhat.
That said, full props to Táíwò for both defining what he thinks of as "identity politics" in making his arguments, and a big kudos for stressing the relativity of what he means with "Elites" (acknowledging that intersectional factors are at play, he doesn't nail down a universal group). But this also poses a problem for him. With no universally defined bad guy, his argument feels forced and incredibly difficult to make stick. To me, the reason that it does work in the end, is because the central concept is such a "duh." Without the obvious and simple in the argument, it would sound an awful lot like simply blaming all bad bits on a fairy-tale bad-guy "elite" that we can't quite make out.
Despite this, Táíwò shows flashes of brilliance and insight in parts of the book, making it worth a read still. Unfortunately these did not make a better whole, but they do stand on their own. So despite my rather lackluster 2 stars, it's a strong 2-star book worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 584 reviews