By Nate Hochman
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
‘Intersectionality,” once an obscure academic theory, is
now the subject of widespread media coverage, homage in pop culture, and even
accolades in the tweets of fourth-rate presidential candidates. Merriam-Webster
added the word to its official dictionary in 2017, and the concept’s underlying
assumptions have become the basis for much of our contemporary identitypolitik.
Its sheer cultural influence is reason enough to take it seriously, so let’s do
so.
The theory was first introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a
law professor and critical race theorist at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia
Law School. Crenshaw attempted to demonstrate how different aspects of one’s
identity — race, gender, etc — intersect to affect one’s experience in
our society. The theory posits that one’s place and experience in the social
hierarchy can be understood through the intersection of their various
identifying characteristics — a black woman will have a different experience
from a white woman, who will have a different experience from a white man, etc.
Do group identities dictate, to some extent, one’s
experience in contemporary American culture? Undeniably. But intersectionality
goes a step further, positing that this results from any number of nefarious
power structures and systems of oppression — the patriarchy, institutional
racism, and so on — lurking beneath the surface of American society. These
oppressive structures are more difficult to locate than they once were; gone
are the days of Jim Crow. Intersectional scholars attempt to map out how our
culture subtly privileges certain identities over others.
One of the purposes of intersectionality, then, is to
fight discrimination that exists beyond the reach of our legal and political
framework. Even when society and its laws do not explicitly discriminate
against any one group, Crenshaw argues, discrimination and oppression are still
pervasive, sown into the very fabric of society itself. The merits of this
argument aside, the inherent difficulty in moving from fighting objective
discrimination to fighting subjective discrimination is that the latter is identified
largely through one’s personal “lived experience”: one of the biggest subjects
of intersectional scholarship.
Thus we begin to encounter the limits to
intersectionality theory, which lie not necessarily in the truth of its
assertions, but rather in the fact that its abstraction of social life leaves
much to be desired and unavoidably leads to a number of corrosive outcomes when
put into practice.
For instance, in assigning certain experiences to certain
groups, intersectionality’s advocates often, in effect, assert a monopoly on
the experiences of those groups. But intersectional feminists do not speak for
all women and critical race theorists do not speak for all black people;
indeed, many members of what intersectionality deems to be a victim class are
not convinced that they are as systematically oppressed as they are supposed to
be.
Further, to codify a hierarchy of identities and their
corresponding privileges is, as Michael Oakeshott wrote, to “reduce the tangle
and variety of experience to a set of principles . . .[with] no sense of the
cumulation of experience, only of the readiness of experience when it has been
converted into a formula.” As a result, intersectionality’s faithful must twist
the external world to fit the theory’s framework, which insists, for example,
that desperately poor rural white Appalachians are are somehow elevated in
societal privilege over the likes of Don Lemon, Oprah Winfrey, or Ta-Nehisi
Coates. This inevitably leads to a politics not just removed from reality, but
callous and tribal in its own right.
Finally, and perhaps most important, this new elevation
of identitarianism wreaks havoc on the values necessary to the cultivation of a
pluralistic society. Tolerance, individualism, and colorblindness are
“deconstructed” to reveal the oppressive power structures concealed beneath
their pretenses. Classically liberal values are revealed to be tyrannical, the
tools of the oppressor; the primacy of gender and racial status rules supreme.
Truth is reduced to subjective experience, something we
define for ourselves: We “speak our truth.” Yet we do not act; rather, we are
acted upon. We are subjected to the dispassionate will of power structures
beyond our control.
True liberation is not to remain chained to theoretical
abstractions, but to step outside and see the world for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment