 |
| Isadore Johnson |
One buzzword in left-wing circles that’s been floating around recently is ‘intersectionality.’
Social justice types like to talk about intersectionality as if it’s some mystical treasure from an overtly social-justice laden Indiana Jones archetype. what can theoretically offend someone. This interpretation of Indiana Jones is not concerned with treasure, but instead with affirming some mysterious fully marginalized person, who only exists if the Bechdel test is passed by Latinx actors through reenacting tribal dances and reaffirming the wage gap.
While it is certainly possible to see the enthusiasm, and some of the more bizarre beliefs of social justice types as insane, it is not intellectually fair to do so. People can view intersectionality as a way to improve their empathy and concern for other people. Some followers care deeply about the plight of other social groups, and shaming them for an idea they hold is not likely to foster any form of reflection nor is it persuasive. Instead, expanding intersectionality can improve and expand upon the doctrine to make it coherent.
The basic idea behind intersectionality comes from Professor Kimberle Crenshaw in 1989 to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap. (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination) Thus, in terms of marginalization, race is always “gendered” and gender is always “raced.”
The original intersectional idea was to bridge the divide and build solidarity between different types of oppression. While building solidarity and empathy are good ends, intersectionality, in its current political home is limited to characteristics like race and gender as opposed to seeing members of different groups as individuals. Only by affirming individuality will intersectionality be applied consistently.
This idea that people are made up of more than one identity is not controversial. In fact, it seems unremarkable. Problems arise in how intersectionality is used and interacted with politically. Intersectionality is often used to dismiss dissenting voices because being white means that one cannot understand what it feels like to be black for instance. If this is the case, it follows that being black prevents one from understanding the ‘white’ experience, yes? While instinctively that second statement seems wrong, why is the same reasoning applicable to the first?
People are more than race, creed, and culture; instead they are individuals with independent ideas, goals, and desires. Treating others in a way that suggests an impossibility in understanding their human experience may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is a bias in social justice circles that certain identities are more foundational than others, and look to leaders to decide which identities are prioritized and focused on. Yet, practical restraints and the complexity of life make it impossible for leaders to adequately address and understand the human experience and how to improve it. Life is more complex than religion, skin color, sexuality, and level of ability. Also, the hypothesis that groups are either privileged or oppressed ignores the facts of real life. Since leaders have a limited amount of characteristics they can focus on, they are unable to appreciate a person as a human being.
Perhaps being a religious minority accrues benefits of community and the mystique of their faith. Identity is complex, and leaders, even those in good-faith may be constrained by seeing through the lens of marginalization. The very idea that the color of one’s skin, or who one loves are the most important aspects of character are limiting assumptions, and seeing hierarchies everywhere may blind people to inconvenient facts and personal responsibility. For instance, a Jewish student who’s rejected from an E-sports league may be far more upset about his lack of talent in World of Warcraft than how some people do not “get” yamakas.
Left-wing pro-government approaches face the inescapable problem of not being able to customize their views fairly and coherently. More importantly, perceiving people as part of a marginalized group prevents us from soberly comparing advantage and disadvantage. Women do not have to register for the draft, do significantly better in school, and are less likely to die on their job. Would that make men marginalized? Who determines what is fair? Should it be a government, an unaccountable group of people divorced from working-class struggles who decide how others should live their life?
Given that the government is limited in resources and understanding, and democrats (not the party) often vote to disenfranchise and weaken minorities, (like felons) it would clear that increased government regulation claiming to help one specific type of minority is oftentimes intrusive, and ineffective. Markets on the other hand promote social behavior and respect for one another, because one tolerates those who provide one's livelihood.
Whereas government fosters an attitude of dependency, charitable organizations are able to be personalized and voluntary. Whereas private property allows one to have his or her own visions and dreams, government restricts the limits of human capability.
Martin Luther King Jr. realized free speech sanitized the dark unholy bounds of hatred. By creating a libertarian society, we create a culture of consent, one where people rely on voluntary action and mutually beneficial deals, rather than asserting power over one another. A culture of consent becomes a place where people are free to make their own decisions about how to define their own joy and struggle. Their vision, goals, and dreams are unimpeded by bureaucrats believing that they know more about their life.
