Against Purity

An Argument for Principles in the Age of Purity

Photo by Lian Lianna Begett on Unsplash

Let’s start off simple.

What is purity?

The Merriam-Webster definition defines purity as “the quality or state of being pure”.

But what is pure?

There are a few definitions for pure, but the first one that came up was “unmixed with any other matter”. It’s helpful to think about something that has been untouched by something else. In the realm of chemistry, this can be simply an element that has been untouched by another, a pure form of itself.

The concept of pure, uncontaminated form is nearly impossible in nature. Matter typically contaminates other matter, elements mix and create compounds, and those compounds can combine and develop products or reactions. The realm of human thought is even more contaminated.

Ideas are typically never pure; they find inspiration and influence from other ideas. Even if someone comes up with something we consider pure or uncontaminated and original, that idea is a product of the time, place, language, person, and society that produced it.

Why am I bringing these philosophical considerations up? Because the idea of ‘purity’ in political discourse makes little sense when uttered. There are no pure thoughts in politics and pure considerations. There can be standards, assumptions, principles, beliefs, etc. that play a role in one’s political worldview, but they’re hardly pure.

---

What is purity politics?

There are numerous discussions of purity politics and numerous definitions. Depending on who you ask, there will be a different definition and standard for what is meant by purity politics.

One article defines purity politics as:

A “purity spiral”, with the more extreme opinion the more rewarded in a pattern of increasing escalation. Nuance and debate are the casualties, and a kind of moral feeding frenzy results.

The bias in that article is obviously that the liberal ideals of liberty and equality should be upheld against ideological “purity”. But again even if we define purity politics within this idea of “purity spirals” who decides what is an extreme opinion?

For some in the U.S., having universal healthcare is an extreme opinion, having housing as a human right is an extreme opinion, and not supporting genocide is an extreme opinion. So, the framing of “purity” as “extreme” is questionable, as to who gets to define extreme and why they define it in those terms.

The U.S. Democratic Party seems to define “purity politics” by political purity ‘tests’. As another article puts it, “As they lose ground with key voting blocs, it not only becomes harder to defend a type of purity politics which shuns voters or candidates who are not 100% on board with party orthodoxy around issues including abortion, immigration, race and gender, but it also limits how much the party can expand the electoral map.”

So purity tests in this respect can mean accepting those who are against the Democratic Party’s stances on abortion, immigration, and race/gender. Does this mean the Democratic Party is trying to invite racist, xenophobic, sexist bigots to their party in a bid to win elections?

The answer is implicit, but we know what it is.

Purity politics in this regard means whatever the person wants it to mean. Being against ‘purity’ can serve whatever agenda the speaker wants it to serve.

Are you against genocide? That’s too pure.

Are you against racism? That’s too pure.

Are you against putting migrants in cages? That’s too pure.

The list can go on… Human lives are sacrificed on the political altar of purity or lack thereof.

Since it’s been established that the concept of ‘purity’ is unhelpful and, in fact, harmful in political discourse, what do we use instead?

We use principles.

---

Principles vs. Purity

Leftists have principles, principles which include bare minimum asks like don’t do genocide, no to settler colonialism, no to war and empire, prioritize people’s basic needs, etc. But apparently, this is too ‘pure’ for many liberals and folks who style themselves as ‘progressives’.

The difference between leftists and liberals, besides the obvious anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist stances, is that leftists have principles.

We have certain standards by which we want the world to operate so that other human beings can be treated. While our ideological lenses and the specifics on how we want to achieve a more egalitarian world might differ, the basic premise is the same… We ask for a world that liberalism cannot offer because it asks for peace in the absence of justice.

We have to criticize them because they represent the liaison between both groups, between the oppressed and the oppressor. The liberal tries to become an arbitrator, but he is incapable of solving the problems. He promises the oppressor that he can keep the oppressed under control; that he will stop them from becoming illegal (in this case illegal means violent). At the same time, he promises the oppressed that he will be able to alleviate their suffering — in due time. Historically, of course, we know this is impossible, and our era will not escape history.

The Pitfalls of Liberalism by Kwame Ture

The principle of revolution are also kept in mind for leftists, as liberals want a reformist approach that does not challenge the inherent power structures that cause oppression in the first place.

Principles are what distinguish those who want a better world from those who want the same one but slightly nicer.

And this is why “purity” becomes such a convenient smear. When liberals accuse the left of being too pure, what they are really saying is: your principles make us uncomfortable because they expose our complicity.

Liberals can call for “peace” while funding wars, call for “equity” while defending settler states, and call for “democracy” while backing coups and blockades. For them, politics is branding, a language of aspiration without the will to confront the structures that devour lives.

For leftists, principles are not optional. They are survival. They mean “no” to genocide even when it is politically inconvenient, “no” to settler colonialism even when the settler is our own state, “no” to ecological collapse even when it threatens profit. These are not luxuries, but the floor of any politics that dares to call itself emancipatory.

Kwame Ture was right: the liberal poses as a mediator but ends up as a guard. He tells the oppressed to wait and the oppressor to relax, promising both sides what he cannot deliver. This is why liberalism, in every era, becomes the velvet glove for the iron fist of empire.

The difference between principles and “purity” is the difference between life and death. Principles tell us that no child should starve, whether in Gaza under siege or in the U.S. under austerity. Principles tell us that survival cannot be negotiated for donor checks or electoral convenience.

Purity is their word. Principles are ours. And without them, there is no left, only a softer right wing.

In the end, the question is simple: Do we want to manage oppression, or do we want to end it?