T+A=S: The end game for intersectionality is individualism
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Science, Technology, and Philosophy (Medium)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/04/11
Intersectionality as a theory may result in the practical realization of individualism. It’s seen as a means by which to view oppressive structures of society.
Oppressive structures including ableism, classism, homophobia, racism, sexism, and transphobia. These focus on groups. Groups bound by loose definitions.
This reduction of society into sections and their intersections summarizes the method. Intersectionality, as a method, cuts society into parts. Then those parts become examined based on their intersections.
A poor, disabled Canadian First Nations trans man sits at cross-sections. These cross-sections of society bring analysis on oppression.
Oppression against the person as a low socioeconomic status person and disabled person. And so on, these provide the framework and the method.
Within the farther Left social and political spectrum, intersectionality reigns. Left-Liberal types love it. Many Right-Conservative types hate it, or feel indifference, even ambivalence.
But since this method garners wide praise, it deserves attention. But let’s pause there, another idea comes from individualism. Or the individualist perspective, the emphasis on the person.
The person as sovereign, as unassailable. Individualism amounts to a focus on the independent individual. All gradations, nuances, and subtleties respected and honored.
Intersectionality, if taken to the limit, would imply individualism of a kind. Each person as a potential infinite set of intersections. But only a functional set of cross-sections, often.
Too many then the intersectional lens becomes cumbersome for the Left-Liberal types. It also becomes self-parodying for the Right-Conservative types. Both views valid.
Same with the intersectional view associated with the Left-Liberal spectrum. Identical with the individualism of the Right-Conservative range.
The main differences remain the focus on oppression and the level of analysis. The level of the analysis in popular discourse. Oppression as the focus for the intersectionalist view, not for the individualist.
The plane for scrutinizing the oppression are groups. Hence, the decrying of “neo-Nazi,” “racist,” on campuses. Campuses dominated by Left-Liberal administrators, faculty and staff, professors, and students.
Other terms include “sexist,” “Marxist,” “feminist,” “Men’s Rights Activist,” “Capitalist,” and so on. These are terms to defame to dismiss an opponent. They do not engage the empirical evidence or arguments.
On campuses, the Intersectional Central, the oppressors, by default, become Right-Conservative types. Insofar as I can tell, many claims against Right-Conservatives seem illegitimate.
Those Right-Conservative types tend to not like illegitimate claims of being oppressors. Of being unwitting sexists, racists, and so on, how would others feel? You become defensive. Imagine rampant declarations of Left-Liberal types as oppressors of various types.
It is not a fear of becoming called out as such. It amounts to indignation over often false claims about character: character assassination and attacks. If you want to critique someone, then look at the ideas and arguments.
Left-Liberal discourse continues to forget this. Sometimes, unquestionable assertions plus violent tactics replace conversation.
Right-Conservative types continue to dismiss legitimate philosophy of the Left-Liberal types. And that leads back to the intersectional views seen on the Left-Liberal spectrum. It brings back individualism of the Right-Conservative suasion too.
In the final claims of intersectionality, the individual will reign. The group broken down into constituents, into elements. That becomes an individual, a person. It remains in between groups and individuals at this time, in the academic and popular discourse, but this is progressing.
Each person brings different facets of a self, as individual human beings. Sometimes the oppressor; sometimes the oppressed. Group politics will dissolve into individual politics.
Individual politics means personal votes, translates into more democratic institutions. Those democratic institutions form the basis for proper democracy.
All votes count, not by group or cross-sectioned identity but, by individual. The relationship between fundamentals of Right-Conservative individualism and Left-Liberal intersectional philosophy sits idle.
This may be the future of the debate. A bridge between worlds opposed now, and more opposed soon. Besides, at the end of the day, most people want empowerment.
They want recognition as individuals. They want merit for their individual accomplishments, characters, efforts, and talents. Those will come hand-in-hand with recognition of their evil and good sides. The failures and accomplishments of theirs.
The vices and virtues of character of theirs. The efforts and lack thereof of theirs. The talents or failings of theirs. Every individual as a set of intersections. But acknowledged, they do not need excessive definitions.
Their names and regular language and talk can bridge that gap too. Many people do not like the disconnected and pompous rhetoric of the intersectionals. But they do not like the elitism of some of the individualists.
Simplify the language as much as need be, you can bridge the gap. The end game of intersectionality may be individualism. With this, the emphasis may be oppression.
At times, this new individualism will not be focused on oppressor-oppressed. It will be the empowerment of people with a non-victim (non-oppression focused) perspective.
That synthesis of these opposed ideologies and views. It will bring Left-Liberal and Right-Conservative types to the same table. We will be better for it; so with it, our public and academic discourses on persons and groups.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 
Comments are closed.