Category Archive 'Intersectionality'
19 Jul 2017
Elizabeth C. Corey, at First Things, describes the First Church of Intersectionality.
In 1968, the political philosopher Eric Voegelin published a little book called Science, Politics and Gnosticism. In a section of that book entitled â€œErsatz Religion,â€ he argued that modern ideologies are very much like ancient Gnostic movements. Certain fundamental assumptions, Voegelin wrote, characterize both ancient and modern Gnosticism.
The gnostic, Voegelin observed, is fundamentally dissatisfied with his situation and believes that the world is â€œintrinsically poorly organizedâ€ and that salvation from the worldâ€™s evils is possible. The gnostic further thinks that â€œthe order of being will have to be changed in an historical processâ€ and that this is possible through human effort. Finally, the gnostic looks for a prophet who shares saving knowledge about how to make the transformation happen. It turns out that the intersectional project accords in every detail with Voegelinâ€™s description.
Intersectional scholars are, by definition, unhappy with their situations in life. From an outsiderâ€™s perspective, this seems more reasonable for some than for others, though itâ€™s apparent that everyone feels it to a greater or lesser extent. Most affectingly, at the Notre Dame conference, several black feminist scholars from South Africa described the explicitly repressive measures they had endured at their universities, where the prejudice against them is overt and sometimes results in violence. As one scholar put it, â€œItâ€™s not like Iâ€™m full of despair.â€ Then she paused and thought for a moment. â€œBut, of course, I am full of despair.â€
This nearly moved black American women to tears. They detailed their feelings of inadequacy in American universities, confessing that they feel they have no legitimate place, or that they are expected constantly to serve, because this is what has always been expected of black women. A young Hispanic assistant professor explained that United States immigration policy was a systematic attempt â€œto deny intimacy and familyâ€ to immigrants from Mexico. A self-identified â€œChicano gender non-conforming queer Latinxâ€ detailed the exclusion she had felt until she discovered a support group of other transgender people in Los Angeles. And the stories continued.
Expressions of hurt and exclusion were inevitably followed by anger at the systemâ€”at the patriarchy, racism, unjust institutions, and structural prejudiceâ€”and then by exhortations to do something about it. In Voegelinâ€™s terms, they were rebelling against the poor organization of the world, and maintained the hope of salvation through human effort.
Voegelinâ€™s idea that the order of being must be changed â€œin an historical processâ€ nicely captures the mandate of intersectionality. If schools, churches, and families are the primary institutions that have always formed people, and if they are fundamentally shot through with oppression and prejudice, then these institutions must themselves be thoroughly remade. In light of such an objective, the self-conscious deconstruction of what we take for granted makes sense. Gender, sexuality, family, Âhierarchy, capitalism, and, most of all, the university and its â€œpretenseâ€ to objective knowledge must be destroyed and reconstituted. Scholarship is secondary. Activism is what matters most.
30 May 2017
The College Fix:
â€˜Binary and absolute differencesâ€™ are â€˜exploitativeâ€™
A feminist academic affiliated with the University of Arizona has invented a new theory of â€œintersectional quantum physics,â€ and told the world about it in a journal published by Duke University Press.
Whitney Stark argues in support of â€œcombining intersectionality and quantum physicsâ€ to better understand â€œmarginalized peopleâ€ and to create â€œsafer spacesâ€ for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.
Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanityâ€™s understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in â€œAssembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities.â€
A researcher in culture and gender studies at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, Stark also holds an appointment in womenâ€™s and gender studies at the University of Arizona through its Institute for LGBT Studies.
She is a member of the Somatechnics Research Network, hosted by UA, whose scholars â€œreflect on the mutual inextricability of embodiment and technology.â€
Stark identifies Newtonian physics as one of the main culprits behind oppression. â€œNewtonian physics,â€ she writes, has â€œseparated beingsâ€ based on their â€œbinary and absolute differences.â€
â€œThis structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works is embedded in many structures of classification,â€ according to Stark.
These structures of classification, such as male/female, or living/non-living, are â€œhierarchical and exploitativeâ€ and are thusly â€œpart of the apparatus that enables oppression.â€
Therefore, Stark argues in favor of combining intersectionality and quantum physics theory to fight against the imperative to classify people based on hierarchical categories.
12 Mar 2017
Andrew Sullivan takes time off from crying over the election of Donald Trump to identify and explain the new religion that has taken charge on elite campuses all over the country.
Intersectionalityâ€ is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, itâ€™s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity â€” such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. â€” but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, thatâ€™s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.
It is operating, in Orwellâ€™s words, as a â€œsmelly little orthodoxy,â€ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained â€” and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., â€œcheck your privilege,â€ and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.
Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue â€” and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. Itâ€™s Marx without the final total liberation.
It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if youâ€™re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of â€œwhite supremacy,â€ you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You canâ€™t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate othersâ€™ souls, and wound them irreparably.
And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual â€” a secular exorcism, if you will â€” that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Hereâ€™s how they begin: â€œThis is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not â€˜representativeâ€™ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.â€ They never specify which of Murrayâ€™s ideas they are referring to. Nor do they explain why a lecture on a recent book about social inequality cannot be a â€œrespectful discourse.â€ The speaker is open to questions and there is a faculty member onstage to engage him afterward. She came prepared with tough questions forwarded from specialists in the field. And yet: â€œWe â€¦ cannot engage fully with Charles Murray, while he is known for readily quoting himself. Because of that, we see this talk as hate speech.â€ They know this before a single word of the speech has been spoken.
Read the whole thing.
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Intersectionality' Category.