Archives for category: Politics

Intersectionality is a word that my Chrome browser does not recognize. It offers internationalism, intersection, and internationalization as potential replacements for my incompetent typo. Intersectionality is a word, however, and my competency levels are indeed high enough that I am in fact spelling it correctly. And, as a real word, intersectionality describes possibly one of the most critically important sociological aspects of the world today.

It is the notion that when differing identity markers (race, class, gender, etc.) intersect, they offer a distinct experience from the possession of a single marker. For example, a white woman will have a different experience of the world than an aboriginal woman. If society uses broad strokes to address its ills (in the form of feminism, say), then those broad strokes will address them from the perspective of the most dominant marker of that group (upper-middle class white women). This means that those who possess multiple markers are pretty much ignored by the mainstream, and progress is somewhat glacial for the more oppressed minorities.

However, there is a bit of a catch. Perhaps you are a homosexual, and are furious that I put in an etcetera before including sexual orientation in my list. I am also ableist and ageist in my exclusions. Markers can carry on ad infinitum, and our aboriginal woman from earlier may also derive divergent experiences based on her height, weight, the marital status of her parents, her own marital status, abuse she may or may not have suffered as a child, abuse she may or may not suffer now, her social status among her peers, and now I will throw in the etcetera. We also can’t ignore the individual attitudes each person will adopt in the face of their experiences, which in turn will alter the experience of… their… experiences. Right. Anyway, if we rely on intersectionality to address the unique experiences of intersecting markers, then ignoring any marker will result in a generalization that intersectionality was theorized to prevent in the first place.

Which is fine. We’re all special snowflakes. No biggie. My mom and dad have been telling me that since I was a kid without the use of words Chrome doesn’t understand. Intersectionality is about addressing oppression, however. That’s why when I said gender, I picked female instead of male. Since we’ve determined intersectionality essentially divides us into our own singular selves, then oppression must split along the identity marker variances, and form unique pockets of oppression in each individual.

How does one address this? It’s pretty simple to make policy to take care of women (even if, you know, we still don’t), but policy that is directed toward the oppression of the unique individual is preposterous. Even the commonly held vision of intersectionality that addresses the relatively broader trends in race, gender, class (sexual orientation, mental and physical health, age…) leaves much to be desired in creating practical specifics that can lead to more fruitful progressive policies outside of adding a plus sign when writing out LGBTQ+. We all desire uniqueness, and luckily we possess it, but when addressing social ills, demanding the recognition of our partitions as separate from all the others is not the solution. Conquerors don’t need to do the dividing if the people are doing it to themselves.

Intersectionality looks at oppression from the top down. It sees the unique oppressions felt by minority groups and correctly establishes them as distinct in the way that they intersect. We see the effects of oppression in all their unique glory, but what about the cause? If I, as the infamous straight, white, male, look down at all the people I’m oppressing, I can see that uniqueness. What do those unique experiences see when they look at me? What does it look like from the bottom up?

Anne Bishop offers an interestingly Marxist analysis: class is the measure of oppression against all of the oppressed. This makes sense, to some degree. Racial minorities and women are statistically poorer than their counterparts, so identifying class as the root cause of oppression is often regarded as true, but sadly it’s not. Communist countries the world over have proven that eliminating class does little to eliminate oppression. Incidentally, it’s easier to figure this out without analyzing world politics, as a trans individual being beaten to death clearly isn’t being oppressed by class.

Bishop does raise a good point, however: there is a whole being ignored if we focus solely on the individual processes of oppression. It’s just not class. It’s power. Communist countries divert power from the class structure into the political structure, and bullies exert their dominant power in the form of violence. The cause of oppression is a power imbalance, and limiting ourselves to its effects can only treat the symptoms while the disease rages on.

Does an intersectional ideology really distract from the root cause of oppression? Not inherently, but it certainly can. The idea of being an “ally” to an oppressed group means that sympathizers from outside of that group can only take a supportive secondary role rather than stand beside them as equals, thereby increasing the volume of the voice against greater inequality and oppression. It also seeks to enfranchise people into an already broken system. To go back to Marx, equality and equitable treatment of racial, gender, and sexual minorities in a system that necessitates oppression is not a success. It only further entrenches neoliberal ideology as the default.

Why would I start out by saying intersectionality is super important, and then write a whole bunch about how it’s divisive and counter-intuitive to solidarity? Well, mostly because it’s an accurate description of the way the world works. The language we use and the actions we take will always have an impact on the world around us, and possessing intersectional awareness will greatly improve our approach in those areas. We can’t ignore its truth, but we also can’t ignore the singular root that is responsible for the problems intersectionality identifies.

 

Regardless of whether you think he’s the only legitimate use of Godwin’s law, Donald Trump’s success has turned politics into the real-life circus that newspaper cartoonists have been prophetically satirizing for decades. I won’t bother explaining why Donald Trump is terrible. I figure if you’re a supporter of Trump and you’ve miraculously stumbled across this blog, your literacy levels would have prevented you from progressing past the word “legitimate”, and you have already given up reading. Thus it’s a safe bet we’re all in political agreement so far.

Where we might differ is that I don’t believe that Donald Trump is the failure of democracy, but the culmination of it. Plato in his Republic decries democracy as pandering to the masses, where the success of a leader is determined not by their ability to lead or their wisdom, but by their ability to appeal to the bulk of the people. Considering the Greeks invented the damn thing, it seems that even in its infancy democracy has borne the seed of the pupating Trump.

Donald Trump is unique among politicians in that he isn’t one. Trump is heralded as a man who brazenly speaks his mind among sleazy, lying politicians. Except Trump makes just as many false promises as those sleazy politicians and flip-flops on controversial topics depending on who he is speaking to. He is more overtly racist and misogynistic than his peers, but surely that can’t be his method of success.

Donald Trump is not a politician, but a salesman, and in a political system that inherently relies on image over substance, we see how his popularity is not an anomaly but is almost predestined by our adherence to it. And Trump is an amazing salesman. A linguist analyzed Trump’s response to a simple question, and found that he uses repetition, punchy, simplistic language, and a speaking style that subconsciously elicits agreement. Again, there is little of substance in what he says, but the way he says it manipulatively charms those who aren’t paying attention.

We live in an age where advertising has the finest tools of psychology behind it. I mean, ads directed to kids have so much psychological juju that they can sell cereal that is just a few grams away from being bowls of actual sugar under the guise of being a nutritionally healthy choice. Trump knows all these tricks; how else could it be explained that several bankruptcies, a grocery list of failed business plans, and pending lawsuits don’t dissuade people from associating the name Trump with success? John Oliver dedicated an entire segment to showcasing this phenomenon, and he concluded that the brand is so well marketed that disassociating Donald from the name Trump is the optimal solution since convincing people to rebel against their advertorial mind-control is a depressingly futile endeavour.

One might argue that the stupidification of the American public is more to blame than the problems inherent to the democratic system, and this is a fair point. A nation full of well-educated, critical thinking individuals would more than likely vote for someone better qualified than Trump. Though, a nation full of baboons would vote for someone better qualified than Trump, so maybe it’s a moot point. In any case, America exists in political and economic systems that profit from the pliability of its populace, and so dedicates its efforts to enforcing that attribute. As Plato predicts, any system existing under a democracy will eventually develop into one where someone like Trump will flourish.

In a bid to overthrow the democratic system, Republicans are actually contemplating blocking Trump’s nomination if he wins. Thwarting the will of the populace may become the last resort of a political party desperately clinging to shreds of sanity. And they are not alone. Isaac Asimov is floating around the internet as a bonafide meme, declaring that “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” This notion that intelligence or sanity supersedes another’s right to vote is thoroughly undemocratic, and suggests some kind of neo-aristocracy to rule over the vulgar masses.

Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” In the West, we started with democracy, and after a few affairs with some monarchies, theocracies, and the odd dictatorial despot, we decided to stick with it. Now we seem to be reaping what we’ve sewn. Trump would never be able to attain power in any other form of government outside of a democracy.

So now we are faced with a question: do we continue with Churchill’s worst form of government and just desperately hope that when the inevitable Trumps appear on the ballot that our nations have not reach Idiocratic levels of docility, or do we dream up a better way?

 

Nobody likes the concept of privilege. Being told you have privilege makes you feel like the person is calling you an entitled prick that has never had to work a day in their life. People are the heroes and heroines of their own story, and having someone claim that all of their tribulations weren’t that bad can come off as patronizing. Of course, not many people are aware of privilege because it’s invisible. It’s like a ghost, but not like some harmless Caspar bullshit, it’s some mean poltergeist asshole. It’s all up in everyone’s face, just wrecking their shit.

Now, I’m not going to list out privileges because fuck lists. If you like lists and are offended at my dismissal of them, you can look at Peggy McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack. It does a fair job of looking at white privilege and provides a good introduction to privilege in general. Since you’re a list-lover, I’ll even give you a fucking Buzzfeed page where you can do a quiz. What I’m going to do is examine a specific aspect of my life and see how privilege fits into it.

I am currently a university student studying social work. I am doing well because I’m a smart guy. I do all the reading in a timely fashion; I study hard; I have quality writing skills; some might say I earn my grades because of my effort and intellect.

How did my intellect develop? Well, I read lots and write lots. In fact, you’re reading some of my writing right now! How did I get into reading and writing though? I grew up in a home where my parents were both university educated, and they would read to me as a child. This instilled in me a love of reading that I have carried with me to this day. We also had enough wealth to place me in extracurricular activities that allowed me to focus on my personal development, allowing me to explore different paths my life could take. My intellect as it relates to my current grades is also affected by the amount of time I have to dedicate to studying. Again, through no contribution of my own, my parents had the economic foresight (and available resources) to invest in an RESP – which allowed me to graduate from my first post-secondary art degree without any debt, allowing me to collect enough money to pursue this second degree without a side-job interfering with my studying time.

Yes, I have exerted some willpower and made some choices in my life, and I could have just as easily chosen the much more fulfilling life path of a debilitating cocaine addiction, but my point is that the reason I even have the opportunities for choice that I do was foretold long before I contributed anything meaningful to it. I will likely succeed in my life goals, but certainly not due to any kind of meritocracy, even despite my genuine merits.

Does this mean that I am the result of my parents’ status and nothing more? Partly, but it would be naive to assume that my parents were not privy to privileges of their own. Class, and to an even greater extent racial, privilege is so entrenched in our genealogy that consequences from centuries ago can influence the lives we live today.

What does this mean for me and my classmates? We are graded on equal terms, yet compared to someone who had a much more tumultuous childhood, how is equal grading fair when one of us has had a significant head start? Let’s generalize this some more here. How is equal opportunity in any situation fair if there are those of us who start the race just a few feet from the finish line? Would a drive toward fairness not necessitate a redress of this discrepancy? Everyone seems to be in agreement that discrimination is, you know, bad, when it comes to hiring practices and so on: it’s in our Charter, but we seem to fall short when it comes to addressing the discrimination or privilege that is inherent in spewing out of our mothers’ vaj.

It’s like if we went into a store, and certain people were given a million bucks just for walking in the door. Nobody asked for the million bucks, but that does not negate the fact that they received it. Now, the store doesn’t charge more on any item for any particular person, so the prices themselves aren’t discriminatory, but the system itself of unequal distribution of privilege is.

This is a very brief example, examining only one aspect of one privilege out of the many that I possess. I do not feel guilty for my leg up; as I explained, I did not choose this life. I am, however, benefiting from this system of privilege at the cost that others pay for me, and I would be a massive asshole if I just settled in for the cushy ride.

What about you? What about your success? Where did it come from? It’s hard to tell because privilege is invisible. If only there were a list that could give people some insight…