‘Intersectionality’ – Part 2 Posted by Guest Author | Jan 7, 2021 | Debate | 3 |
Written by ‘Classical Liberal’~~~ *** ~~~
[Part 1 can be read here]
The prevailing leftist view that modern systems of oppression recapitulate the overt injustices of the past and therefore constrain black potential has been challenged by a positive and liberal message of black self-creation. 60% of black Americans without college degrees feel that race has not affected their chances of success. A view long shared by many black intellectuals belonging to the political centre and right. Indeed, if any group should be labelled ‘racist’ it is the intersectional activists themselves. They are obsessed with race, seeing people only for the colour of their skin, not as unique individuals, each with their talents and aspirations. To suggest that all black people suffer from oppression is also patronising – as it denies the agency of individuals to succeed or fail on their own merits.
Yet, intersectionalists refuse to listen to empirical counter-arguments and dismiss nuanced analyses because they presuppose that most people suffer from oppression, without listening to what the people in question think about their situation.
Intersectionality Encourages Ideological Uniformity and Groupthink
Intersectionality also holds that all forms of oppression overlap and are ‘inextricably linked’. As demonstrated above, the notion that most people suffer from oppression is incompatible with nuanced analysis.
Indeed, anyone who agrees with the intersectional framework, and further agrees that blacks are oppressed, must logically accept that women, gays, poor people, etc are also oppressed. Thus, the oppression axis of intersectionality enforces uniformity and renders it impossible to provide a nuanced analysis because intersectionalists are tied to the radical left’s interpretation of race and gender.
The claim that all systems of oppression are linked is also the driving force behind the coming together of nearly every leftist activist cause, from advocacy of Palestinian liberation to pro-choice feminism to LGBTQ+ activism. They have all coalesced under one huge banner, and all started to use the same Marxist rhetoric about systems of oppression and the need for revolution.
This rather awkward coalition building is reflected in the ideology of Black Lives Matter. A movement that supposedly formed to counter police brutality now claims that it ‘affirm[s] the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements’. Thus, the dynamics of intersectionality pushed Black Lives Matter into issues outside its original area of interest by committing the movement to far-left narratives of ‘marginalization’.
Intersectionality Necessitates Radicalism
Sharon Smith wrote a very revealing article in the International Socialist Review, opining that ‘As an additive to Marxist theory, intersectionality leads the way toward a much higher level of understanding of the character of oppression than that developed by classical Marxists, enabling the further development of the ways in which solidarity can be built between all those who suffer oppression and exploitation under capitalism to forge a unified movement’. This is a clear admission that intersectionality is a tool to further Marxist political goals.
In academia, where intersectionality is strongest, academics and student activists often harangue moderate progressives for not being radical enough. For example, when Mark Lilla, a professor of intellectual history at Columbia, spoke out against identity politics in the wake of Trump’s 2016 election, Katherine Franke, another Columbia academic, compared him to the white supremacist David Duke, arguing that ‘both men are underwriting the whitening of American nationalism, and the re-centering of white lives as lives that matter most in the U.S. Duke is happy to own the white supremacy of his statements, while Lilla’s op-ed does the more nefarious background work of making white supremacy respectable’. Franke’s argument is based upon the logic of intersectionality, which holds that any attempt to conceal the truth of oppression must also be an attempt to uphold white supremacy.
The disgusting behaviour of student activists, shouting down progressive speakers with torrents of abuse, and academics like Franke, comparing colleagues to neo-Nazis, is easily understood once one understands the foundations of intersectional theory. They believe that it is acceptable to shout down anyone who challenges their Marxist narratives because anyone who dares to disagree with them stands in the way of their supposed mission to remove all the oppression in the world. Lenin justified unimaginable suffering under this same pretext that the ends justify the means.
It is also clear that intersectionality’s focus on demanding immediate emancipation of the oppressed plays an obvious role in encouraging these tactics of radical rhetoric and calls for censorship. For example, an anti-free-speech activist justified shutting down a speaker by contending that they ‘now understand how language works, and how it can be used to reproduce the systems of oppression we know we must resist at all costs’. This demonstrates the inherent link between intersectionality and censorship.
Conclusion
Intersectionality is inherently illiberal. The inability of intersectional activists to engage in civilised debate with their opponents is curtailing the fundamental liberal right to freedom of speech and poisoning political discourse. Independence Daily - guest author.
