rockaction
Footballguy
And you're a prima ballerina on a spring afternoon - Whoo Whoo Whoo Whoo Whoo Whoo
Changin' into the wolfman howlin' at the moon - Owooo - New York Dolls "Personality Crisis"
Intersectionality: A Definition and Basic Understanding
Time has come friends, to discuss intersectionality and its effects on the modern self. What is intersectionality? Intersectionality, as a concept, is a broad one, but is predicted on the idea of dispossessed classes and one's identity. It posits that certain qualities make up the self, and as we move through those qualities, that the self becomes either more or less dispossessed or oppressed within a heretofore dominant culture. The dominant culture, seen as male, heterosexual, white, European, able-bodied, cisgender (comfortable with the role assigned due to sex at birth), is contrasted against the oppressed female, darker, non-European, differently-abled, transgender qualities in persons. The self, in this construct, is a manifestation of all the differing qualities either assigned at birth or learned by role and position within society. The further one moves away from dominant culture, the more dispossessed of both earthly and spiritual equality within our Western systems.
That is the basic theory behind intersectionality. That within Enlightenment-influenced materialist cultures, there is a culture of domination and subjugation, and one generally need look no further than one's characteristics in order to determine who is a winner and who is a loser within our culture.
This intersectionality, it is argued, is necessarily understood in order to fully contemplate the equality of our culture and society for all beings. If one is a "black lesbian mother warrior poet," like Audrey Lorde once described herself, one has a set of characteristics or leanings that give a person their unique status within a particular society. Her blackness and lesbianism, not to mention her femaleness and role as mother and artist help define her against the dominant culture and present a different set a characteristics by which she should be viewed when viewed within the complex context of society.
Intersectionality and Society: A Primer
It therefore stands to reason that intersectionality posits that each characteristic and perspective is weighted in terms of how much of the dominant culture one is subjected to when one's qualities differ from that of the dominant culture. Those who have the qualities of the dispossessed or oppressed classes bring their own perspectives to bear on the dominant culture. It is through these qualities that they identify themselves, qualities that are traditionally thought of as group qualities (thus the name "group identity") and those qualities often thought of as individualized (personal sovereignty issues). What this presupposes, then, is that society is made up of both individual characteristics and group characteristics, depending on the topic at hand, often at times moving from individual to group, and group back to individual in heartbeat, often within the same conversation, often within the same postulation. The famous modern phrase, "As a woman, I..." is a perfect example of this. One talks about a group identity and then assigns one's self a personal characteristic as a member of a group's identity. "As a black man, I..." Again, an individual conclusion and postulated characteristic stemming from the acceptance of the membership as a group within a dominant culture, especially considering what that membership of a group means within the dominant culture. We no longer speak as citizens, as friends, Romans, countrymen. We speak of gay, white, transgender personas, each brining their individual experience to bear within society's framework.
So that is basically where we stand. Individual characteristics place us within a group identity, and we therefore can draw conclusions about the individual through the group identity's placement within the dominant framework of the dominant culture.
Intersectionality and Politics, Then:
From intersectionality and society to intersectionality and politics we see but a small jump. The pluralism of the twentieth century devolved or evolved government from the state of the individual conscience to the state of the political pressure group. Bear with me: In the nineteenth century, government was thought of on an individual and autonomous level. Autonomy, as described in the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy is "an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces, to be in this way independent...[a]utonomy has traditionally been thought to connote independence and hence to reflect assumptions of individualism in both moral thinking and designations of political status. For this reason, certain philosophical movements, such as certain strains of feminism, have resisted seeing autonomy as a value."
For a fuller discussion of autonomy as political principle, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/
Pluralism, on the other hand is the exact opposite. Pluralism holds that "liberal democracies power is (or should be) dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not (or should not be) held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities." https://www.britannica.com/topic/pluralism-politics
In other words, political pluralism within democracies is a construct where power is not devolved to individuals qua individuals, but rather, to a series of groups.
Given this, it is important here to see that there was a large change in our country from nineteenth century theories of autonomy and freedom and twentieth century notions of pluralism and power. There was a movement away from autonomy at the state, local, and federal level in the structure of political organizations, especially courts and executive branches. Power was removed from localities to more state and federal level court enforcement and modernization while power was concentrated in executive branches via executive agencies than legislative branches and legislative agencies. One only need list the three-letter acronyms. IRS, EPA, the old unconstitutional TVA, etc. These agencies were to modernize law by replacing legislative remedy with executive action. In other words, where legislatures and courts once determined amounts and weights and measures and trade, now executive agencies were charged with the task of implementing expert substantive guidelines for certain things.
But back to intersectionality. Intersectionality, then, is a modern movement where individual autonomy and group characteristics meet pluralism in politics. It is where the phrase "identity politics" arises from. It is a set of individual characteristics, forming an identity, using the group identity to bring pressure to bear on political structures and organization.
We see examples of this every day. Almost all our debates in the PSF are about it.
Intersectionality and The Struggle Of Self, Then:
The struggle of the self is probably the most thorny problem within intersectionality. At what point does fidelity to one's self become fidelity to the group? This is where I get theoretical and off-script in attempting to diagnose a modern conundrum. It would seem to me that the concept of self and identity lie at the heart of 21st Century politics.
Intersectionality and The Struggle For Representation, Also:
More TK when I get a chance
Changin' into the wolfman howlin' at the moon - Owooo - New York Dolls "Personality Crisis"
Intersectionality: A Definition and Basic Understanding
Time has come friends, to discuss intersectionality and its effects on the modern self. What is intersectionality? Intersectionality, as a concept, is a broad one, but is predicted on the idea of dispossessed classes and one's identity. It posits that certain qualities make up the self, and as we move through those qualities, that the self becomes either more or less dispossessed or oppressed within a heretofore dominant culture. The dominant culture, seen as male, heterosexual, white, European, able-bodied, cisgender (comfortable with the role assigned due to sex at birth), is contrasted against the oppressed female, darker, non-European, differently-abled, transgender qualities in persons. The self, in this construct, is a manifestation of all the differing qualities either assigned at birth or learned by role and position within society. The further one moves away from dominant culture, the more dispossessed of both earthly and spiritual equality within our Western systems.
That is the basic theory behind intersectionality. That within Enlightenment-influenced materialist cultures, there is a culture of domination and subjugation, and one generally need look no further than one's characteristics in order to determine who is a winner and who is a loser within our culture.
This intersectionality, it is argued, is necessarily understood in order to fully contemplate the equality of our culture and society for all beings. If one is a "black lesbian mother warrior poet," like Audrey Lorde once described herself, one has a set of characteristics or leanings that give a person their unique status within a particular society. Her blackness and lesbianism, not to mention her femaleness and role as mother and artist help define her against the dominant culture and present a different set a characteristics by which she should be viewed when viewed within the complex context of society.
Intersectionality and Society: A Primer
It therefore stands to reason that intersectionality posits that each characteristic and perspective is weighted in terms of how much of the dominant culture one is subjected to when one's qualities differ from that of the dominant culture. Those who have the qualities of the dispossessed or oppressed classes bring their own perspectives to bear on the dominant culture. It is through these qualities that they identify themselves, qualities that are traditionally thought of as group qualities (thus the name "group identity") and those qualities often thought of as individualized (personal sovereignty issues). What this presupposes, then, is that society is made up of both individual characteristics and group characteristics, depending on the topic at hand, often at times moving from individual to group, and group back to individual in heartbeat, often within the same conversation, often within the same postulation. The famous modern phrase, "As a woman, I..." is a perfect example of this. One talks about a group identity and then assigns one's self a personal characteristic as a member of a group's identity. "As a black man, I..." Again, an individual conclusion and postulated characteristic stemming from the acceptance of the membership as a group within a dominant culture, especially considering what that membership of a group means within the dominant culture. We no longer speak as citizens, as friends, Romans, countrymen. We speak of gay, white, transgender personas, each brining their individual experience to bear within society's framework.
So that is basically where we stand. Individual characteristics place us within a group identity, and we therefore can draw conclusions about the individual through the group identity's placement within the dominant framework of the dominant culture.
Intersectionality and Politics, Then:
From intersectionality and society to intersectionality and politics we see but a small jump. The pluralism of the twentieth century devolved or evolved government from the state of the individual conscience to the state of the political pressure group. Bear with me: In the nineteenth century, government was thought of on an individual and autonomous level. Autonomy, as described in the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy is "an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces, to be in this way independent...[a]utonomy has traditionally been thought to connote independence and hence to reflect assumptions of individualism in both moral thinking and designations of political status. For this reason, certain philosophical movements, such as certain strains of feminism, have resisted seeing autonomy as a value."
For a fuller discussion of autonomy as political principle, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/
Pluralism, on the other hand is the exact opposite. Pluralism holds that "liberal democracies power is (or should be) dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not (or should not be) held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities." https://www.britannica.com/topic/pluralism-politics
In other words, political pluralism within democracies is a construct where power is not devolved to individuals qua individuals, but rather, to a series of groups.
Given this, it is important here to see that there was a large change in our country from nineteenth century theories of autonomy and freedom and twentieth century notions of pluralism and power. There was a movement away from autonomy at the state, local, and federal level in the structure of political organizations, especially courts and executive branches. Power was removed from localities to more state and federal level court enforcement and modernization while power was concentrated in executive branches via executive agencies than legislative branches and legislative agencies. One only need list the three-letter acronyms. IRS, EPA, the old unconstitutional TVA, etc. These agencies were to modernize law by replacing legislative remedy with executive action. In other words, where legislatures and courts once determined amounts and weights and measures and trade, now executive agencies were charged with the task of implementing expert substantive guidelines for certain things.
But back to intersectionality. Intersectionality, then, is a modern movement where individual autonomy and group characteristics meet pluralism in politics. It is where the phrase "identity politics" arises from. It is a set of individual characteristics, forming an identity, using the group identity to bring pressure to bear on political structures and organization.
We see examples of this every day. Almost all our debates in the PSF are about it.
Intersectionality and The Struggle Of Self, Then:
The struggle of the self is probably the most thorny problem within intersectionality. At what point does fidelity to one's self become fidelity to the group? This is where I get theoretical and off-script in attempting to diagnose a modern conundrum. It would seem to me that the concept of self and identity lie at the heart of 21st Century politics.
Intersectionality and The Struggle For Representation, Also:
More TK when I get a chance
Last edited by a moderator:
