Social Justice, Intersectionality, and Privilege
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:50 pm
I came across this article recently and it really made me laugh.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12741562/ ... alifornia/
Leftists such as myself constantly deride the wealthy for attempting to co-opt social movements, and "woke" white liberals (usually women) for creating co-optable social movements in the first place and essentially ceding the seriousness of their goals to those who would co-opt it to increase the value of the personal or corporate brand.
So I figured this was as good as a catalyst as any to start a discussion on social justice, the "social justice movement," and what the role of intersectionality is on progressivism.
The intellectual argument — to the extent that there is one — for intersectionality is that fighting against a specific injustice requires "powerful allies" in order to be broadly successful in modern Western society. More specifically, the theory of social intersectionality (which, importantly, is distinct from feminist intersectionality, which is an unrelated although superficially similar concept) allows the existence of "ambassadors" for social change that are in some way privileged in order to help advance the progressive agenda more rapidly than would be possible without such "ambassadors."
The argument against this concept is that those who hold privilege in society cannot reasonably relate to the struggles of those being oppressed because they are not forced to live under oppressive conditions. This inability to relate to the struggle means that the "ambassador" is only taking up the progressive cause for selfish reasons (whether they know it or not) — to make more money, to get more publicity, or simply to help themselves feel better. In short, the "ambassador" does not need to support reform, they just want to, which means that when the cause becomes burdensome to support, the "ambassador" will abandon it and return to their privileged lifestyle — something the oppressed are physically not capable of doing.
What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you believe that it is worthwhile for progressive causes to seek allies among the media, celebrities, and politicians? Is Ms. Milano's ironic story emblematic of a fundamentally damaging phenomenon, or merely a unique expression of hypocrisy?
Personally I feel that intersectionality in social movements is entirely counter-productive and that people who hold positions of privilege in society should not attempt to insert themselves into the narrative of social change unless they actually are making a difference.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12741562/ ... alifornia/
Leftists such as myself constantly deride the wealthy for attempting to co-opt social movements, and "woke" white liberals (usually women) for creating co-optable social movements in the first place and essentially ceding the seriousness of their goals to those who would co-opt it to increase the value of the personal or corporate brand.
So I figured this was as good as a catalyst as any to start a discussion on social justice, the "social justice movement," and what the role of intersectionality is on progressivism.
The intellectual argument — to the extent that there is one — for intersectionality is that fighting against a specific injustice requires "powerful allies" in order to be broadly successful in modern Western society. More specifically, the theory of social intersectionality (which, importantly, is distinct from feminist intersectionality, which is an unrelated although superficially similar concept) allows the existence of "ambassadors" for social change that are in some way privileged in order to help advance the progressive agenda more rapidly than would be possible without such "ambassadors."
The argument against this concept is that those who hold privilege in society cannot reasonably relate to the struggles of those being oppressed because they are not forced to live under oppressive conditions. This inability to relate to the struggle means that the "ambassador" is only taking up the progressive cause for selfish reasons (whether they know it or not) — to make more money, to get more publicity, or simply to help themselves feel better. In short, the "ambassador" does not need to support reform, they just want to, which means that when the cause becomes burdensome to support, the "ambassador" will abandon it and return to their privileged lifestyle — something the oppressed are physically not capable of doing.
What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you believe that it is worthwhile for progressive causes to seek allies among the media, celebrities, and politicians? Is Ms. Milano's ironic story emblematic of a fundamentally damaging phenomenon, or merely a unique expression of hypocrisy?
Personally I feel that intersectionality in social movements is entirely counter-productive and that people who hold positions of privilege in society should not attempt to insert themselves into the narrative of social change unless they actually are making a difference.