My favorite Jordan Peterson quote: "The logical conclusion of intersectionality is individuality. There are so many different ways of categorizing people, if you take that all the way out to the end, you find the individual is the ultimate minority. The intersectionalists will get there... if they don't kill everyone first."
(I would link to the video, but YouTube apparently deleted the account, probably for posting videos of Jordan Peterson, who is, obviously, a Nazi who must be deplatformed to protect the rest of us from his vile hatred. So you'll have to take my word for the fact that he really said it, since YouTube won't allow anyone to show that he said it. But remember, you live in a totally free society.)
There's an actual academic paper exploring this point, then saying something along the lines that this conclusion of individualism shows that this interpretation of intersectionality should be rejected...
At the ultimate, individual level, the sum of intersectional possibilities ALWAYS produces an idiosyncratic result, even in the case of identical twins raised in the same household who go on to pursue careers in the same field of study.
I'm happy to learn of an academic paper that outlines why that's the case, even though it's a conclusion that's intuitively obvious to me. But then I can also imagine someone being so misled- whether by pseudo-scholastic pettifoggery or social pressures- that they construct their identity robotically, entirely from role categories, which is a pursuit that works to extinguish the conscious expression of a self-concept of unique individuality. (Non-sociopathic individualists understand collective and other-directed concerns as a valid part of social existence, subject to negotiation and contest. But they don't let themselves get carried away to the point of getting submerged.)
Coincidentally, the paradigm of collective determinism also imbues the social realm with an obsession regarding issue of Power; it's conducive to the sort of narratives of domination and submission favored in S&M "power play" dungeon scripts, for example. But even in that case, Individuality isn't to be escaped entirely: the collective archetype roles may be rote and trite, but those dynamics ultimately shift at an individual level, and some amount of self-selected assent, subjective agency and individual gratification is always involved. Humans can deny individual agency intellectually, but their experiential realm remains uniquely their own. The problems arise when the particular intellectual Theorist of Collectivist Supremacy (the individual dominator) insists that everyone partakes of collective roles that they've decreed (personally, in their own mind) as universally determinative. The Theorist only gets their Reality confirmed if everyone in their social orbit assents to the same paradigm and conforms to it without making trouble for them. (i.e, dissent and doubts can conceivably be harbored by others, but never pursued or expressed.)
At the level of historical example, this explains how the Soviet model of government began making the Purge its main mission focus so soon after the Paradigm assumed the reins of political Power. Meanwhile, the extreme Right rhetorically exalts the personalist Ideal of the heroic individualist Superman- but it's all lip service. As soon as one particular exponent comes along with an especially persuasive narrative of collective destiny and militarist parochial altruism in the name of Egoism, the adherents fall into lockstep behind him. Hoping for a feudal boon- a cascade of Individual benefits, in return for being born within the bounds of the approved ancestral lineage.
One of the weirder things about today's Racialized Leftism is the way that it combines the worst features of the two bogus paradigms. A wrong approach. There's a place in social relations beyond submission or domination; that's the place to get to.
Aug 24, 2023·edited Aug 24, 2023Liked by Rona Dinur
"[1] I put 'theory(s)' in scare quotes here because, similarly to other works associated with the 'Critical Legal Studies' genre, intersectionality is, well, not really a theory. It’s also not really critical, and its usage of the term 'framework' (as in 'theoretical framework', or “analytical framework”) is highly misleading. Essentially, what the terms 'theory' and 'framework' actually refer to when used in this context is a dogma, not all of these things. I might address these issues in a separate essay."
Please do address those issues, preferably sooner rather than later. I have been railing for years against the undeserved elevation of opinion and untested assertions to the level of "theory" and the promotion of ideologues to the status of "theorists." This usage gives the public the mistaken impression that a "theory" in a field such as gender studies is based on observational study and has an empirical basis that can be proven. In truth, it's much more likely made from whole cloth in order to advance the originator's activist agenda.
In my view, intersectionality symbolizes the intellectual sterility of black feminism.
Thanks Ollie! Glad that this interests you, your suggestion does help me direct my writing and I'll try to get to this soon.
At base, the CRT genre is entirely circular and self-confirming. It's not only that it lacks substantial support (as with opinions/untested assertions,), or that its basic concepts are obscure (as with many things going on with gender ideology), but that the whole thing is built such that every possible observation supports its pre-existing assertions (combined with a slew of manipulation tactics designed to discredit anyone pointing that out).
They're actually saying that everything is racist and all we need is to point out the individual instances. One should ask, then, what is the point of saying, e.g., that roads/the outdoors/ dogs are racist? What contribution does that make, and what's the point of engaging this "theory" if it doesn't help us understand the world (e.g., by separating things that *are* racist from things that aren't, so we can better address racism)? and what role, exactly, do real-world observations even play here, if everything is interpreted such that it aligns with the "theory's" claims to begin with?
(It's worth noting that this is of course a theory that also contains *moral* claims, not just empirical ones, albeit this is often obscured on purpose, of course. But such theories are also subject to scrutiny of the kind pointed out here).
Anyway, I hope I'll soon get to write all of this in a clear piece that helps confront this misleading agenda-driven discourse.
Very well written and argued. I'll consider assigning this in my Social Stratification course next semester. I tend to allow students to select their own topic from the litany of topics covered in my courses. I might narrow down the topics, and pick lengthy rebuttals and responses, such as this one.
Thanks Richard! One of my goals in writing this is to contribute to initiatives like this.
An interesting point is that the broader "intersectional analysis" discussed in the paper--applying Crenshaw's “intersectional lens” to analyze general societal patterns--only makes initial (illusory) sense, and is practical to pursue if you're already assuming a very rigid background view of society: i.e., that society is necessarily and immutably organized along lines of group-based "victimhood hierarchy" governed by “systems of oppression”. Otherwise, you'd just have to take random classifications and "intersectionalize" them ad infinitum, with no organizing logic.
In her own version, of course, there's no room for questioning/refuting these broad presuppositions about society being thus organized based on, e.g., concrete data, or even starting the inquiry into things such as societal stratification, oppression, or the experiences of different groups from common sense observations that are not dictated by the principles of this rigid background view.
In my field, sociology, intersectionality is presumed as a social fact that exists in its own right, and it is treated as if it should be included in nearly any analysis due to it being (considered) a social fact, one that is essential for explaining social stratification and inequality. To demonstrate this, I was going to find one of the hundreds of quantitative studies using multiple regression on race, gender, class, etc., but the conceptual pieces cited below give a good outline of the role of intersectionality in the broad discipline of sociology in terms of research and teaching.
That is to say, sociologists take it as a fact that systems of oppression operate at the institutional, interactional, and symbolic levels of social stratification in society (P.H. Collins), and that intersections of statuses historically disadvantaged compared to their (alleged) counterparts compound inequalities experienced by individuals and groups (the later being a reified construct imbued and personified as an independently existing entity). At least, this is what I was taught in my BA, MA, and PhD in sociology (2002-2014) and what I taught as fact up to about 2013 or so. Over the past decade, I've strived more and more to balance out the reigning paradigmatic assumptions in sociology with sensible counterpoints. Not that most students actually do the reading anyway, but those who do typically read to bolster their own point of view, not challenge their POV or learn new ones.
That all being said, it is terribly difficult to get students to question intersectionality due to, as you pointed out, the obviousness of it on its face, and moreover, because it is considered politically incorrect to do so (it would be like silencing, marginalizing, or erasing voices, even though we're simply questioning the social construction of social categories, which shouldn't be problematic, but is...). So, Krenshaw, like other critical theorists, weaves an epistemological trap in which to dismiss their claims is supposed to be unthinkable or unconscionable. The marriage of Marx's "false consciousness" and Freud's "denialism" was a very crafty move on the part of the Frankfurt School in that it's impossible to argue against anything raised by critical theorists without coming across to them as the embodiment of an oppressor, consciously or not.
1. Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities
Hae Yeon Choo, Myra Marx Ferree
2. Intersectionality's Definitional Dilemmas
Patricia Hill Collins
3. An Intersectional Perspective in Introductory Sociology Textbooks and the Sociological Imagination: A Case Study
Adele N. Norris, Yvette Murphy-Erby, Anna M. Zajicek
Wow. Depressing that this is the situation and that students aren't exposed to alternatives. Thanks for sharing and stay strong :)
Thanks for the detailed references. I might write something where I analyze the fallacies of the presuppositions/argumentative moves that are going there in general. In many cases, I think it's possible to show that they appeal to a form of "social reasoning" (i.e., primitive/instinctual sociology that people use to reason about coalition building etc.) that makes superficial sense but is nevertheless fallacious. That might also show why these 'theories' have so many adherents: it's a form of pseudo-academic populism. In any case I'd probably dive into that at some point so thanks!
In my Globalization course today, I was telling my students about how I used to think and teach from the conflict/critical perspective, which in our textbooks is nearly always attributed to Marx, and which is the dominant perspective in the discipline today. I said, "that's when I was full of pessimism, anxiety, and hatred." One of them said, "It sounds depressing." "It was, but many people out there think that way," I said. I'm so much happier having come out of that worldview, now over a decade ago. I'm still quite disturbed about how the university system was able to take a know-nothing country boy like myself and turn him into a Marxist, critical race, feminist in the matter of six years. I have some atoning to do for how I misguided students all those years. So, I'm appreciative of people who provide me with resources to assign students as a counterpoint to their standard textbook material.
One idea that helped bring me out of my tunnel vision was Max Weber's critique of Marx's collectivism. I see this type of reasoning frequently, which is the reification of group and collective constructs, and then treating that construction as a moral category in which one must support justice for it lest they be a "bad" person. I like that you brought up "social reasoning," because I"ve been trying to find an analogue to pop psychology, like "reverse psychology." There is a lot of pop sociology that has very recently (5-10 years) made its way into our social institutions and organizations, albeit with a lot of push back from "right-wingers." So, yes, it IS pseudo-academic populism! Maybe we could coauthor a piece on this?
Happy to hear that you've braved your way out of that. Your story can inspire your students. Sadly there's a mass deception going on and disordered people inflicting these unhealthy thought/emotion patterns on unsuspecting students that just want to learn, under the guise of "science" and "scholarship". Many of these things don't withstand scrutiny, in addition to being harmful in that way.
I'm happy to keep in touch and we can talk if/when I get to this particular topic! (I'll DM my email address)
Beyond the spurious logic of it, there's also a confusion of goals: a substantial difference between the explicitly stated goal- pursuing the ideal of Justice (and who can oppose that? only the Unjust)- versus the ramifications of how the conclusions are to be applied in practice: for the purpose of accumulating Power, both through legal leverage and through manipulation of language, with tactics like term redefinitions and "shifting the conversation" in ways that brook no challenge to the "new, improved" narrative favored by the manipulators.
It's also worth noting that while Neo-Justice Warriors typically frame their Power Goals as an increase in power for the (factional) collective*, the biggest beneficiaries from the success of the proposals are the individual private ends of the self-ordained Champions, in terms of both material fortune and egotistical status concerns like increasing public renown and/or professional acclaim. And also the prospect of personally wielding political Power (sometimes notwithstanding adverse impacts to the wider social justice movement of which they're ostensibly a part.) In terms of practical results, Ibram Kendi has almost certainly done more to increase knee-jerk antipathy to his ideas--including pushing a sizeable number of Americans to extreme opposition--than he has done to advance the ideals of equal rights and justice for black Americans. But in terms of how Kendi's "antiracist" prescription have benefited Kendi personally, he's already reaped a fortune.
[*The exponents of Critical Race Theory very often explicitly deny their interest in portraying a zero-sum narrative, or seeking zero-sum results. And then, with that disclaimer in place, they go on to advocate legal policies and social prescriptions that could not be anything other than advantaging their favored plaintiffs at the expense of everyone else- often with no expiration date on the recommendations.)
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023Liked by Rona Dinur
Once the premises of "critical theory" intersectionality begin confusing correlation with causation, every following conclusion is spurious.
I put "critical theory" in ironic air quotes because one of the hallmarks of contemporary critical theory is its reliance on (and coercive demand for) uncritical assent to its unexamined premises, and hostility to critical challenge of any of the data findings. At its worst, critical theory findings and conclusions are every bit as reductive as white supremacist narratives founded on cherry-picked and spotlighted anecdotal cases and pop-statistics data crumbs. The indulgence of logical fallacies is very similar in both cases. Both the "antiracist" critical theorists and the "contrarian" defenders of racist narratives are able to draw paragraphs of rhetorical high dudgeon and extravagantly sweeping conclusions from a single case that provides an excuse for their axe-grinding. And advocates for both narratives are very often so enthusiastic about the tactic that recurrent resort to the exercise provides the bulk of support for their "theory conclusions."
Familiarity with logical fallacies is only part of the battle in regard to mastering informal logic; competence in logical fallacy detection can't be claimed unless there's an emphasis and continual due diligence on applying the principles impartially and with integrity. I've read polemic after polemic that's capable of detecting logical flaws and hypocrisies when the opposing position is the target of criticism; but all too few of them exhibit the same incisive rigor in the task of turning skepticism toward the errors of the side to which they're more sympathetic.
Interesting article, thanks for writing. I have always just thought if intersectionality as a cheap way to get more supporters of your cause, by guilting supporters of some other cause and not offering any rhetorical reason why: “Hey feminists you have to support my specific anti-racism cause or else you’re not inter-sectionalist!”
That's definitely going on, along with many other manipulation tactics and politicking.
But many of intersectionality's supporters truly think of it as some kind of insightful and sophisticated theory interested in "deep structural and systemic questions about discrimination and inequality" (from the interview below) or some kind of sophisticated legal innovation. It's really not.
Crenshaw is also in the habit of saying that her critics haven't actually read her work, or can't understand it because they're not sophisticated/credentialed enough. Intersectionality gains a lot of legitimacy from this intellectual/legal facade.
I thought it's important to include all the details in one place even if it's a bit long/technical, so people can clearly see what's going on and refute the nonsensical claims masquerading under this faux technicality.
Intersectionality is a concept that's recently misconstrued, appropriated, and hoarded by axe-grinding passive-aggressive grievance mongers.
Interesectionality is definitely a valid concept. But only if it includes EVERY collective identity of importance: for example, the set of all people who suffer from an incurable disease or severe and intractable chronic medical condition. The set of all people who had to care for a family member with an intractable medical problem. The set of all people who found it necessary to flee from an abusive household. The set of all people who find a college education unaffordable. The set of all people with close relatives who have felony convictions.. The set of all offspring of people with felony convictions. The set of all people with profound hearing impairment.
And then there are the more advantaged collective identities: the set of all people who were given their own automobile by their affluent parents as soon as they became eligible to drive, for example. The set of all people who went to private school for pre-K. The set of all children of published authors. The set of all children of college professors, doctors, and lawyers. The set of all children who lived in a polluted environment. The set of all children who grew up near a body of water that was swimmable and fishable. The set of all children living in households that raised a part of the food they ate. The set of all physically imposing people. The set of all people living in the Intermountain West...
Also, the more ambiguous intersectional influences: the set of all people who lived in the same house from early childhood to the end of their teens. The set of all military brats, or offspring of other occupations that required serial relaocations. The set of all children of vegetarians. The set of all teenagers. The set of all nonagenarians....
Once you start in with the Venn diagrams, there's no end to it, potentially.
That doesn't make the methodology invalid. Although we all have to call a halt somewhere, there are practically always complex factors of upbringing, personal experience, and perspective that influence the life choices and life courses, fortunes and misfortunes of individuals. It's like the story that Paul Krassner used to tell in the 1980s, about a meeting of Left Activists that provided an open mic for people to speak their minds...one person after another was offering grievances, in a litany of pessimism. And then a guy started toward his turn at the mic. And he had some sort of spinal deformity that required him to use arm brace crutches, so it took him a little extra time to get to the podium to speak- and he said "I've heard nothing but negtivity here, and that isn't what I'm noticing at all..." and he starts talking about all these positive community efforts he's observed, or been involved in, no self-pity, just radiating fortitude and optimism...and the mutterings of discouragement in the crowd were silenced. And then someone in the audience weighed in with their take: "That's EASY for you to say. You're WHITE!"
It really isn't that simple, is it?
Confining intersectional factors to 1) Ethnic Ancestry, 2) Sex, 3) Sexual Orientation, and 4) subjectively perceived Gender Identity is dishonest. NONE of the factors I listed above are fit precisely within those categories.
I was listening to WPFW last Friday afternoon, and the announcer (great taste in music, btw) noted that 44% of African American children grow up without a father in the home. (corollary: 56% of black American kids do have a father in the home.) He also noted that 21% of American white kids live in a household where the father is absent. (i.e., 79% grow up in a household where the father is present.) The category of youth who are disadvantaged or at-risk from that circumstance is NOT confined to black American children! But the rhetoric of Oversimplified Woke Intersectionality encourages that false impression, with its tone-deaf pessimism and its tacit stereotyping.
The fact that some Wokists have recently made room for two more Intersectional categories- the Fat, and the Disabled- appears more like opportunism than sincerity, to me; the mere conferring of Intersectional Validity to those additional categories accomplishes nothing, as long as it merely increases bitterness and alienation. The American diet is plentiful in quantity but terrible in terms of its imbalances and temptations. The worst food is the easiest to find and the cheapest to pay for, in mass quantities. But I certainly don't want a bunch of browbeaters in charge of improving healthful nutrition....at any rate, the New Intersectionalists I've read about seem to be more bent on public announcements of Obesity Pride than on improving their cardiovascular health and preventing type II diabetes. As for Disability, I've also noticed entirely too much emphasis from Intersectional Activists on having conditions like Oppositional Defiant Disorder valorized, and not nearly enough on providing sufficient funding for research into healing traumatic injuries and degenerative conditions of the nervous system and brain.
Maybe I've been doing my reading in the wrong places. The fact is, I'd much prefer an Intersectional emphasis on returning susceptible metabolisms to a diet that won't kill them and research into healing therapies for major disabilities than on "restorative justice" policies that exclusively cater to abstracted identities like "race, ethnicity, and gender." I get that American history has kneecapped the fortunes of many of the forebears of the current generation of African-Americans, in the not-too-distant past. But prioritizing the healing of disabilities is a matter of triage. Not triage reserved for white people, at all, at all. And especially not about exclusively reserving access to such medical advances to the wealthy. It's time to do an honest inventory of priorities in that regard. People with serious disabilities often deal with intractable difficulties. The strongest among them do their utmost to achieve in spite of problem that present a much worse obstacle than the legacy of racism. I've witnessed the heroic efforts those folks make.( All sorts of ethnicities, etc. It sounds foolish to me to even mention that.)
Finally- when all of the sorting of categories, experience, perspective, advantage or disadvantage, and matters of physical fortune gets done, the ultimate result is that everyone's set of Intersectionality relations eventually leads to the Idiosyncratic level. You life is yours; it fits you like your skin. No one else has even been behind your eyes, ears, and nose. We also benefit from a helpful community. But any outside agency that seeks to replace you as the primary decisionmaker to guide your life is lying. And we also need to beware of programs that deliver a set of results that's very different from what was promised in order to justify them.
(A) Who cares that much about others ( certainly not Crenshaw); and (B) everyone must face the same existential questions to which no amount of “privilege”gives any protection
Some of the existential questions are not the same, and the challenges aren't posed to the same degree on an individual basis. Although some of them are.
My favorite Jordan Peterson quote: "The logical conclusion of intersectionality is individuality. There are so many different ways of categorizing people, if you take that all the way out to the end, you find the individual is the ultimate minority. The intersectionalists will get there... if they don't kill everyone first."
(I would link to the video, but YouTube apparently deleted the account, probably for posting videos of Jordan Peterson, who is, obviously, a Nazi who must be deplatformed to protect the rest of us from his vile hatred. So you'll have to take my word for the fact that he really said it, since YouTube won't allow anyone to show that he said it. But remember, you live in a totally free society.)
There's an actual academic paper exploring this point, then saying something along the lines that this conclusion of individualism shows that this interpretation of intersectionality should be rejected...
At the ultimate, individual level, the sum of intersectional possibilities ALWAYS produces an idiosyncratic result, even in the case of identical twins raised in the same household who go on to pursue careers in the same field of study.
I'm happy to learn of an academic paper that outlines why that's the case, even though it's a conclusion that's intuitively obvious to me. But then I can also imagine someone being so misled- whether by pseudo-scholastic pettifoggery or social pressures- that they construct their identity robotically, entirely from role categories, which is a pursuit that works to extinguish the conscious expression of a self-concept of unique individuality. (Non-sociopathic individualists understand collective and other-directed concerns as a valid part of social existence, subject to negotiation and contest. But they don't let themselves get carried away to the point of getting submerged.)
Coincidentally, the paradigm of collective determinism also imbues the social realm with an obsession regarding issue of Power; it's conducive to the sort of narratives of domination and submission favored in S&M "power play" dungeon scripts, for example. But even in that case, Individuality isn't to be escaped entirely: the collective archetype roles may be rote and trite, but those dynamics ultimately shift at an individual level, and some amount of self-selected assent, subjective agency and individual gratification is always involved. Humans can deny individual agency intellectually, but their experiential realm remains uniquely their own. The problems arise when the particular intellectual Theorist of Collectivist Supremacy (the individual dominator) insists that everyone partakes of collective roles that they've decreed (personally, in their own mind) as universally determinative. The Theorist only gets their Reality confirmed if everyone in their social orbit assents to the same paradigm and conforms to it without making trouble for them. (i.e, dissent and doubts can conceivably be harbored by others, but never pursued or expressed.)
At the level of historical example, this explains how the Soviet model of government began making the Purge its main mission focus so soon after the Paradigm assumed the reins of political Power. Meanwhile, the extreme Right rhetorically exalts the personalist Ideal of the heroic individualist Superman- but it's all lip service. As soon as one particular exponent comes along with an especially persuasive narrative of collective destiny and militarist parochial altruism in the name of Egoism, the adherents fall into lockstep behind him. Hoping for a feudal boon- a cascade of Individual benefits, in return for being born within the bounds of the approved ancestral lineage.
One of the weirder things about today's Racialized Leftism is the way that it combines the worst features of the two bogus paradigms. A wrong approach. There's a place in social relations beyond submission or domination; that's the place to get to.
ESG is leftist intersectionality for businesses. Buzzwords that push leftist social credit scores onto private companies. Calculate your score here: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-raise-your-esg-score
"[1] I put 'theory(s)' in scare quotes here because, similarly to other works associated with the 'Critical Legal Studies' genre, intersectionality is, well, not really a theory. It’s also not really critical, and its usage of the term 'framework' (as in 'theoretical framework', or “analytical framework”) is highly misleading. Essentially, what the terms 'theory' and 'framework' actually refer to when used in this context is a dogma, not all of these things. I might address these issues in a separate essay."
Please do address those issues, preferably sooner rather than later. I have been railing for years against the undeserved elevation of opinion and untested assertions to the level of "theory" and the promotion of ideologues to the status of "theorists." This usage gives the public the mistaken impression that a "theory" in a field such as gender studies is based on observational study and has an empirical basis that can be proven. In truth, it's much more likely made from whole cloth in order to advance the originator's activist agenda.
In my view, intersectionality symbolizes the intellectual sterility of black feminism.
Thanks Ollie! Glad that this interests you, your suggestion does help me direct my writing and I'll try to get to this soon.
At base, the CRT genre is entirely circular and self-confirming. It's not only that it lacks substantial support (as with opinions/untested assertions,), or that its basic concepts are obscure (as with many things going on with gender ideology), but that the whole thing is built such that every possible observation supports its pre-existing assertions (combined with a slew of manipulation tactics designed to discredit anyone pointing that out).
They're actually saying that everything is racist and all we need is to point out the individual instances. One should ask, then, what is the point of saying, e.g., that roads/the outdoors/ dogs are racist? What contribution does that make, and what's the point of engaging this "theory" if it doesn't help us understand the world (e.g., by separating things that *are* racist from things that aren't, so we can better address racism)? and what role, exactly, do real-world observations even play here, if everything is interpreted such that it aligns with the "theory's" claims to begin with?
(It's worth noting that this is of course a theory that also contains *moral* claims, not just empirical ones, albeit this is often obscured on purpose, of course. But such theories are also subject to scrutiny of the kind pointed out here).
Anyway, I hope I'll soon get to write all of this in a clear piece that helps confront this misleading agenda-driven discourse.
Very well written and argued. I'll consider assigning this in my Social Stratification course next semester. I tend to allow students to select their own topic from the litany of topics covered in my courses. I might narrow down the topics, and pick lengthy rebuttals and responses, such as this one.
Thanks Richard! One of my goals in writing this is to contribute to initiatives like this.
An interesting point is that the broader "intersectional analysis" discussed in the paper--applying Crenshaw's “intersectional lens” to analyze general societal patterns--only makes initial (illusory) sense, and is practical to pursue if you're already assuming a very rigid background view of society: i.e., that society is necessarily and immutably organized along lines of group-based "victimhood hierarchy" governed by “systems of oppression”. Otherwise, you'd just have to take random classifications and "intersectionalize" them ad infinitum, with no organizing logic.
In her own version, of course, there's no room for questioning/refuting these broad presuppositions about society being thus organized based on, e.g., concrete data, or even starting the inquiry into things such as societal stratification, oppression, or the experiences of different groups from common sense observations that are not dictated by the principles of this rigid background view.
In my field, sociology, intersectionality is presumed as a social fact that exists in its own right, and it is treated as if it should be included in nearly any analysis due to it being (considered) a social fact, one that is essential for explaining social stratification and inequality. To demonstrate this, I was going to find one of the hundreds of quantitative studies using multiple regression on race, gender, class, etc., but the conceptual pieces cited below give a good outline of the role of intersectionality in the broad discipline of sociology in terms of research and teaching.
That is to say, sociologists take it as a fact that systems of oppression operate at the institutional, interactional, and symbolic levels of social stratification in society (P.H. Collins), and that intersections of statuses historically disadvantaged compared to their (alleged) counterparts compound inequalities experienced by individuals and groups (the later being a reified construct imbued and personified as an independently existing entity). At least, this is what I was taught in my BA, MA, and PhD in sociology (2002-2014) and what I taught as fact up to about 2013 or so. Over the past decade, I've strived more and more to balance out the reigning paradigmatic assumptions in sociology with sensible counterpoints. Not that most students actually do the reading anyway, but those who do typically read to bolster their own point of view, not challenge their POV or learn new ones.
That all being said, it is terribly difficult to get students to question intersectionality due to, as you pointed out, the obviousness of it on its face, and moreover, because it is considered politically incorrect to do so (it would be like silencing, marginalizing, or erasing voices, even though we're simply questioning the social construction of social categories, which shouldn't be problematic, but is...). So, Krenshaw, like other critical theorists, weaves an epistemological trap in which to dismiss their claims is supposed to be unthinkable or unconscionable. The marriage of Marx's "false consciousness" and Freud's "denialism" was a very crafty move on the part of the Frankfurt School in that it's impossible to argue against anything raised by critical theorists without coming across to them as the embodiment of an oppressor, consciously or not.
1. Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities
Hae Yeon Choo, Myra Marx Ferree
2. Intersectionality's Definitional Dilemmas
Patricia Hill Collins
3. An Intersectional Perspective in Introductory Sociology Textbooks and the Sociological Imagination: A Case Study
Adele N. Norris, Yvette Murphy-Erby, Anna M. Zajicek
Wow. Depressing that this is the situation and that students aren't exposed to alternatives. Thanks for sharing and stay strong :)
Thanks for the detailed references. I might write something where I analyze the fallacies of the presuppositions/argumentative moves that are going there in general. In many cases, I think it's possible to show that they appeal to a form of "social reasoning" (i.e., primitive/instinctual sociology that people use to reason about coalition building etc.) that makes superficial sense but is nevertheless fallacious. That might also show why these 'theories' have so many adherents: it's a form of pseudo-academic populism. In any case I'd probably dive into that at some point so thanks!
In my Globalization course today, I was telling my students about how I used to think and teach from the conflict/critical perspective, which in our textbooks is nearly always attributed to Marx, and which is the dominant perspective in the discipline today. I said, "that's when I was full of pessimism, anxiety, and hatred." One of them said, "It sounds depressing." "It was, but many people out there think that way," I said. I'm so much happier having come out of that worldview, now over a decade ago. I'm still quite disturbed about how the university system was able to take a know-nothing country boy like myself and turn him into a Marxist, critical race, feminist in the matter of six years. I have some atoning to do for how I misguided students all those years. So, I'm appreciative of people who provide me with resources to assign students as a counterpoint to their standard textbook material.
One idea that helped bring me out of my tunnel vision was Max Weber's critique of Marx's collectivism. I see this type of reasoning frequently, which is the reification of group and collective constructs, and then treating that construction as a moral category in which one must support justice for it lest they be a "bad" person. I like that you brought up "social reasoning," because I"ve been trying to find an analogue to pop psychology, like "reverse psychology." There is a lot of pop sociology that has very recently (5-10 years) made its way into our social institutions and organizations, albeit with a lot of push back from "right-wingers." So, yes, it IS pseudo-academic populism! Maybe we could coauthor a piece on this?
Happy to hear that you've braved your way out of that. Your story can inspire your students. Sadly there's a mass deception going on and disordered people inflicting these unhealthy thought/emotion patterns on unsuspecting students that just want to learn, under the guise of "science" and "scholarship". Many of these things don't withstand scrutiny, in addition to being harmful in that way.
I'm happy to keep in touch and we can talk if/when I get to this particular topic! (I'll DM my email address)
Beyond the spurious logic of it, there's also a confusion of goals: a substantial difference between the explicitly stated goal- pursuing the ideal of Justice (and who can oppose that? only the Unjust)- versus the ramifications of how the conclusions are to be applied in practice: for the purpose of accumulating Power, both through legal leverage and through manipulation of language, with tactics like term redefinitions and "shifting the conversation" in ways that brook no challenge to the "new, improved" narrative favored by the manipulators.
It's also worth noting that while Neo-Justice Warriors typically frame their Power Goals as an increase in power for the (factional) collective*, the biggest beneficiaries from the success of the proposals are the individual private ends of the self-ordained Champions, in terms of both material fortune and egotistical status concerns like increasing public renown and/or professional acclaim. And also the prospect of personally wielding political Power (sometimes notwithstanding adverse impacts to the wider social justice movement of which they're ostensibly a part.) In terms of practical results, Ibram Kendi has almost certainly done more to increase knee-jerk antipathy to his ideas--including pushing a sizeable number of Americans to extreme opposition--than he has done to advance the ideals of equal rights and justice for black Americans. But in terms of how Kendi's "antiracist" prescription have benefited Kendi personally, he's already reaped a fortune.
[*The exponents of Critical Race Theory very often explicitly deny their interest in portraying a zero-sum narrative, or seeking zero-sum results. And then, with that disclaimer in place, they go on to advocate legal policies and social prescriptions that could not be anything other than advantaging their favored plaintiffs at the expense of everyone else- often with no expiration date on the recommendations.)
Once the premises of "critical theory" intersectionality begin confusing correlation with causation, every following conclusion is spurious.
I put "critical theory" in ironic air quotes because one of the hallmarks of contemporary critical theory is its reliance on (and coercive demand for) uncritical assent to its unexamined premises, and hostility to critical challenge of any of the data findings. At its worst, critical theory findings and conclusions are every bit as reductive as white supremacist narratives founded on cherry-picked and spotlighted anecdotal cases and pop-statistics data crumbs. The indulgence of logical fallacies is very similar in both cases. Both the "antiracist" critical theorists and the "contrarian" defenders of racist narratives are able to draw paragraphs of rhetorical high dudgeon and extravagantly sweeping conclusions from a single case that provides an excuse for their axe-grinding. And advocates for both narratives are very often so enthusiastic about the tactic that recurrent resort to the exercise provides the bulk of support for their "theory conclusions."
Familiarity with logical fallacies is only part of the battle in regard to mastering informal logic; competence in logical fallacy detection can't be claimed unless there's an emphasis and continual due diligence on applying the principles impartially and with integrity. I've read polemic after polemic that's capable of detecting logical flaws and hypocrisies when the opposing position is the target of criticism; but all too few of them exhibit the same incisive rigor in the task of turning skepticism toward the errors of the side to which they're more sympathetic.
Interesting article, thanks for writing. I have always just thought if intersectionality as a cheap way to get more supporters of your cause, by guilting supporters of some other cause and not offering any rhetorical reason why: “Hey feminists you have to support my specific anti-racism cause or else you’re not inter-sectionalist!”
That's definitely going on, along with many other manipulation tactics and politicking.
But many of intersectionality's supporters truly think of it as some kind of insightful and sophisticated theory interested in "deep structural and systemic questions about discrimination and inequality" (from the interview below) or some kind of sophisticated legal innovation. It's really not.
Crenshaw is also in the habit of saying that her critics haven't actually read her work, or can't understand it because they're not sophisticated/credentialed enough. Intersectionality gains a lot of legitimacy from this intellectual/legal facade.
(Here's a 2019 interview: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination)
This is a really important and persuasive analysis. I don’t think Humpty Dumpty can recover from this.
There's a lot of Humpty Dumptism going on there for sure :)
Great explainer, thanks
I thought it's important to include all the details in one place even if it's a bit long/technical, so people can clearly see what's going on and refute the nonsensical claims masquerading under this faux technicality.
It's quite readable for legal analysis. don't sweat the length.
Wonderful! Thanks!
Not a problem. More like exactly what I'm looking for, regarding this subject.
Intersectionality is a concept that's recently misconstrued, appropriated, and hoarded by axe-grinding passive-aggressive grievance mongers.
Interesectionality is definitely a valid concept. But only if it includes EVERY collective identity of importance: for example, the set of all people who suffer from an incurable disease or severe and intractable chronic medical condition. The set of all people who had to care for a family member with an intractable medical problem. The set of all people who found it necessary to flee from an abusive household. The set of all people who find a college education unaffordable. The set of all people with close relatives who have felony convictions.. The set of all offspring of people with felony convictions. The set of all people with profound hearing impairment.
And then there are the more advantaged collective identities: the set of all people who were given their own automobile by their affluent parents as soon as they became eligible to drive, for example. The set of all people who went to private school for pre-K. The set of all children of published authors. The set of all children of college professors, doctors, and lawyers. The set of all children who lived in a polluted environment. The set of all children who grew up near a body of water that was swimmable and fishable. The set of all children living in households that raised a part of the food they ate. The set of all physically imposing people. The set of all people living in the Intermountain West...
Also, the more ambiguous intersectional influences: the set of all people who lived in the same house from early childhood to the end of their teens. The set of all military brats, or offspring of other occupations that required serial relaocations. The set of all children of vegetarians. The set of all teenagers. The set of all nonagenarians....
Once you start in with the Venn diagrams, there's no end to it, potentially.
That doesn't make the methodology invalid. Although we all have to call a halt somewhere, there are practically always complex factors of upbringing, personal experience, and perspective that influence the life choices and life courses, fortunes and misfortunes of individuals. It's like the story that Paul Krassner used to tell in the 1980s, about a meeting of Left Activists that provided an open mic for people to speak their minds...one person after another was offering grievances, in a litany of pessimism. And then a guy started toward his turn at the mic. And he had some sort of spinal deformity that required him to use arm brace crutches, so it took him a little extra time to get to the podium to speak- and he said "I've heard nothing but negtivity here, and that isn't what I'm noticing at all..." and he starts talking about all these positive community efforts he's observed, or been involved in, no self-pity, just radiating fortitude and optimism...and the mutterings of discouragement in the crowd were silenced. And then someone in the audience weighed in with their take: "That's EASY for you to say. You're WHITE!"
It really isn't that simple, is it?
Confining intersectional factors to 1) Ethnic Ancestry, 2) Sex, 3) Sexual Orientation, and 4) subjectively perceived Gender Identity is dishonest. NONE of the factors I listed above are fit precisely within those categories.
I was listening to WPFW last Friday afternoon, and the announcer (great taste in music, btw) noted that 44% of African American children grow up without a father in the home. (corollary: 56% of black American kids do have a father in the home.) He also noted that 21% of American white kids live in a household where the father is absent. (i.e., 79% grow up in a household where the father is present.) The category of youth who are disadvantaged or at-risk from that circumstance is NOT confined to black American children! But the rhetoric of Oversimplified Woke Intersectionality encourages that false impression, with its tone-deaf pessimism and its tacit stereotyping.
The fact that some Wokists have recently made room for two more Intersectional categories- the Fat, and the Disabled- appears more like opportunism than sincerity, to me; the mere conferring of Intersectional Validity to those additional categories accomplishes nothing, as long as it merely increases bitterness and alienation. The American diet is plentiful in quantity but terrible in terms of its imbalances and temptations. The worst food is the easiest to find and the cheapest to pay for, in mass quantities. But I certainly don't want a bunch of browbeaters in charge of improving healthful nutrition....at any rate, the New Intersectionalists I've read about seem to be more bent on public announcements of Obesity Pride than on improving their cardiovascular health and preventing type II diabetes. As for Disability, I've also noticed entirely too much emphasis from Intersectional Activists on having conditions like Oppositional Defiant Disorder valorized, and not nearly enough on providing sufficient funding for research into healing traumatic injuries and degenerative conditions of the nervous system and brain.
Maybe I've been doing my reading in the wrong places. The fact is, I'd much prefer an Intersectional emphasis on returning susceptible metabolisms to a diet that won't kill them and research into healing therapies for major disabilities than on "restorative justice" policies that exclusively cater to abstracted identities like "race, ethnicity, and gender." I get that American history has kneecapped the fortunes of many of the forebears of the current generation of African-Americans, in the not-too-distant past. But prioritizing the healing of disabilities is a matter of triage. Not triage reserved for white people, at all, at all. And especially not about exclusively reserving access to such medical advances to the wealthy. It's time to do an honest inventory of priorities in that regard. People with serious disabilities often deal with intractable difficulties. The strongest among them do their utmost to achieve in spite of problem that present a much worse obstacle than the legacy of racism. I've witnessed the heroic efforts those folks make.( All sorts of ethnicities, etc. It sounds foolish to me to even mention that.)
Finally- when all of the sorting of categories, experience, perspective, advantage or disadvantage, and matters of physical fortune gets done, the ultimate result is that everyone's set of Intersectionality relations eventually leads to the Idiosyncratic level. You life is yours; it fits you like your skin. No one else has even been behind your eyes, ears, and nose. We also benefit from a helpful community. But any outside agency that seeks to replace you as the primary decisionmaker to guide your life is lying. And we also need to beware of programs that deliver a set of results that's very different from what was promised in order to justify them.
(A) Who cares that much about others ( certainly not Crenshaw); and (B) everyone must face the same existential questions to which no amount of “privilege”gives any protection
Some of the existential questions are not the same, and the challenges aren't posed to the same degree on an individual basis. Although some of them are.