I just read an opinion piece by Andrew Sullivan in the New York Magazine entitled: “Is Intersectionality a Religion?” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html. Sullivan discusses intersectionality because it was cited by the protestors of the Charles Murray speech at Middlebury. The Middlebury speech is the subject of another thread, so I’m hoping this thread focuses on intersectionality on college campuses, not on Murray or the specific Middlebury incident.
Intersectionality is an important concept to challenge ways of thinking, to check privilege, and to consider the different perspective of others. There’s a great TED talk by Kimberle Crenshaw about intersectionality and the overlapping levels of social justice issues: http://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality. Crenshaw uses intersectionality as a way to frame problems so that people better recognize them and address them. But I think Sullivan has a point that campus intersectionality can become its own orthodoxy that is often in direct conflict with concepts of free speech and open debate. In that sense, it seems that campus protestors weaponize intersectionality to do the opposite of what Crenshaw advocates.
In the New York magazine piece, Sullivan again quotes the students:
So what are your thoughts about intersectionality and its impact on college campuses?
Intersectionality is arguably one of the best things that’s happened to academia in the last 20 years. It’s a recognition that the human experience isn’t one-dimensional.
For the life of me, I do not understand his connection of intersectionality with the rejection and protests of Murray (which I have already said should never have turned violent).
Also he said that Murray is passionately against eugenics but a google search is failing me in proving that.
It is useful for political reason, but it is also intellectually dishonest.
If one takes intersectional arguments to their logical conclusion, the only possible solution one could arrive at is to advocate for individualism (identity and experience are unique for everyone up to the individual), which would defeat the purpose, since individualism is rarely a good source for collective action and activism. The political goals put a cap on the thinking and the logic.
I’m an African immigrant who moved to the U.S. to get a better education and I must say when it comes to the humanities here, I am often left very disappointed at how, due mostly to politics, how willing many of your intellectuals are willing to embrace poorly reasoned theories in the name of achieving social justice and political change. For that reason alone, I am not surprised that violence ensues, and those who are in support of such ideas, are unaware as to why violence is not inevitable.
Intersectionality is the belief that all bad things anywhere in the world always have and ever will come from the intersection of white, male, cis and hetero.
Then please educate us on the matter. From the perspective of this layman, intersectionality just seems to be a point system for determining who can can claim to the title of “Most Aggrieved Victim.”
Well I get the analogy to religion and yes i agree that as a theory it carries little weight outside of academia. It might over time have some ‘meaning’ to the populace, but right now the perception is that it is some rationalization by people who feel, for some reason ostracized from life goes on. Add that to the perception that people that ascribe to the theory are narrow minded… like fundamentalist religions or other religions that assume if you are not a member of said religion you are blank blank pick your adjective. I don’t know how you can look at what happened at Middlebury as anything but narrow-minded - our view or no view pretty much sums up narrow-mindedness. That group had a blind inability to see any other point of view or to even have any intellectual interest in another point of view. They saw themselves as right, what they believed in was right and everyone else could go you know where. So sure, I get the religion analogy.
When I listen to Kimberle Crenshaw’s TED talk, her explanation of intersectionality makes perfect sense to me. (@Zinhead I gave the link above.)
My college kid loved doing public forum debate in high school, which required learning both sides of argument – how to support the argument and how to attack it, because you never knew until you got into a round which side you’d have to argue. And because everyone had to argue both sides, people didn’t personalize it much. It was more of an intellectual exercise. I think she imagined that college would consist of lots of lively late night debates in the dorm about the topics of the day. Freshmen orientation certainly raised her awareness of issues like white privilege and intersectionality, which necessarily bring a greater awareness of personal perspective to the issues. It’s not so theoretical any more. That should be a formula for taking debate to an elevated, more aware level, right?
But that’s where it seems that college administrations and students have more work to do to turn this awareness into reasoned discourse, especially outside the classroom. Inside the classroom, the professor can (hopefully) act as a moderator to keep the discussion flowing. But outside the classroom, disagreements about topics start, and often abruptly stop, with your identity: i.e., a cis-gendered straight white feminist. The problem I perceive doesn’t come from intersectionality. Rather, my impression is that it’s partially “white fragility” or hypersensitivity to charges of racism. But also an activist culture that invokes certain tropes to deflect debate: that using facts and evidence is “silencing” or “erasing” the other person’s “lived experience,” and that facts basically aren’t facts because they come from the dominant culture. That asking, no matter how genuinely, that the other person explain his/her/their/zir perspective is burdensome, oppressive and unfair to the other person who is “exhausted” just trying to “survive” the day. The conversation often founders at the beginning and goes no further. Students sometimes seem to lack the tools and inclination to keep the dialogue going.
I get Sullivan’s argument about the religious-like aspect of some of the protests. I see a tendency to chant the same phrases that are just labels and conclusions, and a strong resistance to further discussion that resembles religious fundamentalism. But I don’t think it’s intersectionality at work. And I think more headway is made when speakers are brought in to campus debates who are not such high profile lightning rods for controversy. Pomona seems to me to be doing a good job of presenting qualified speakers of opposing viewpoints while avoiding speakers so high profile that they draw lots of outside forces to campus protests. https://www.pomona.edu/free-speech
Asking strangers on the internet to educate you and arguing demonstrably false misrepresentations from a position of aggressive ignorance is a weak and untenable position. Nobody here has to educate you. I have provided some links that may serve as a starting point if you actually do wish to learn about intersectionality (which has literally nothing to do with your mischaracterization). If you don’t wish to learn about intersectionality and prefer instead to stick to your mischaracterization, then it’s clear you’re not interested in educated, good faith discourse. Ball’s in your court.
My day job is the kind of thing which makes people ask lots of questions. Many of these questions can be answered by resources on the internet. And at a certain point I have to send folks to those resources because it would be impossible for me to respond individually.
For people who have a much bigger social media presence, that kind of burden can be overwhelming. It’s not just the cute adorable schoolkids writing to get information for a report, or college students looking for mentors, or interested adults honestly curious to find out more; it’s also the combative fringe looking to engage in argument. Not surprisingly, these experts have a fixed response that’s along the lines of “here are some places that can answer your questions. Thanks so much for your interest.”
My five cents worth of opinion: when people ask about an unfamiliar concept (and intersectionality IS an unfamiliar concept to many many people, even here on CC), especially one where you’re looking for allies, give people an entry point. Make it one which is accessible to all, which isn’t going to drive people away because of attitude or jargon.
I agree that “aggressive ignorance” is frustrating and doesn’t bring out the best response. Responding in kind never gets me anywhere.
I kind of thought that also Hunt the first time I heard the word in some article or blog or somewhere…it almost felt lke an in your face fancy word for the fact that people are all different with many things that combine to put you where you are in life, some you have control over and some you don’t.
And perhaps the “study” of intersectionality may never transfer to understandable reasoning embraced by the masses outside the hollowed halls of academia…or perhaps it will. Or it will show up on Lake Superior State’s list of bannished words. But how it’s being put forth and how it’s being ascribed is not transcending. I’m not sure I agree that only having moderate voices that don’t rattle brain cages on college campuses is in line with the type of education that I hope my kids got (and one is still “getting.”) or even supporting of the concept of intersectionality. I simply don’t think disruptive and perhaps criminal behavior is how I want my kids to react to people with opposing viewpoints and I hope that “love thy neighbor” is a sufficient enough religious foundation for them to be accepting and tolerate of all people, although I give them permission to be intolerant of people breaking the law.
The way I have heard it used is in the context of - white gay women need to remember that gay women of color have similar issues but also have dollops of racism in their experiences and communities that respond to queers differently. In other words, be conscious of not extrapolating ones experiences out to everyone.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I did not even know that word or theory/religion existed.
I learned something today. Not enough to discuss it but made aware of it.
If I could ask a newbie question.
This seems to run smack dab into elitism by itself. Do the believers not believe that their opinion is superior to all others and that all others should be shut down? Isn’t this the whole reason why our forefathers wanted the right of free speech? To protect of against this type of elitist thinking?
I have been hearing the term for a couple of years now, strictly in the sense of recognizing that shared experiences are not entirely the same. It does not have to be a liberal political concept. Think of it as demographics.
A conservative Christian voter who is very prolife voted for the republican candidate.
A libertarian who is concerned about smaller government voted for the republican candidate.
They intersected by voting for the same candidate but unified explanation does not cover them both