The Struggle of Intersectional Logic: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Approaches

In a previous blog, I highlighted the pitfalls of employing ceteris paribus logic within social contexts. This type of logic, though prevalent in scientific inquiry for isolating variables, falters in social analysis by its very nature of holding factors constant, inadvertently obscuring the multifaceted oppression experienced by marginalized groups.

The dilemma emerges starkly when we consider isolated variables separately—gender and race, for instance. At first glance, in a given context, it may appear that women, as a broad category, do not face oppression in comparison to men, and similarly, people of colour might not seem oppressed when compared to their white counterparts. However, this perspective fails to illuminate the unique struggles of women of colour, who endure oppression at the intersection of both race and gender—a reality that remains hidden under the ceteris paribus approach.

This brings us to an important realization: in the realm of social sciences, there are no universal generalizations. Nancy Cartwright's analysis underscores that generalizations in science, at best, are ceteris paribus—yet even these are inadequate, as they erase the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups.

So, what path should we tread? One strategy involves subdividing our categories further to acknowledge and compare subgroups, such as women of colour, against others. This method, however, quickly becomes unwieldy due to the sheer number of potential comparisons—growing exponentially with each additional variable considered, thereby multiplying the complexity of addressing each axis of oppression.

An alternate approach seeks broader variables that capture patterns of oppression transcending specific axes, such as gender or race. Here, the work of Val Plumwood offers a beacon of hope. Plumwood's analysis of dualities through conditions like backgrounding and maximal separation aims at a holistic understanding of oppression's patterns, beyond the binary oppositions like master/slave, man/woman, or human/nature.

Yet, this quest for a generalized understanding of oppression confronts its own set of challenges. Achieving a non-trivial consensus that respects the nuances of critical theories—including feminism, queer theory, and gender studies—risks ending in overly simplistic solutions that scarcely address the complexity of intersectional oppression.

The predicament is both difficult and uncomfortable: segmenting into narrower groups risks fragmenting potential alliances, while seeking unity can lead to a superficial grasp of the issues at hand. This delicate balancing act between division and unity underscores the ongoing struggle to find meaningful ways to confront and dismantle intersectional oppression, fostering a dialogue that acknowledges the full spectrum of human experience.

The WSCM Equation: A Hermeneutical Perspective on Intersectionality and Unity in Social Critique

In this exploration, I aim to apply what I refer to as upward-downward hermeneutics to the WSCM equation. Hermeneutics, traditionally understood as the art and science of interpretation, is used to explore and elaborate on the meaning of complex layers of social dynamics and power structures. By 'upward-downward,' I refer to the process of distinguishing between the impacts of societal structures on individuals (downward) and how individual actions and perceptions in turn shape these structures (upward). This method is pivotal in clarifying the distinct roles that macro-level societal forces and micro-level personal actions play, addressing the often misleading conflation of these levels in public discourse.

The concept of "downward" dynamics focuses on intersectional concerns of oppression, highlighting how these forces compound along their intersections. For instance, within a patriarchal society, women face a certain degree of oppression, as do people of colour. However, women of colour encounter a unique form of oppression that goes beyond the mere sum (addition) of their identities; they experience "multiplicative oppression" – an enhanced burden specific to their intersectional identity as women of colour.

Conversely, "upward" dynamics involve the reactions from dominant groups who, enjoying privileges associated with being white, straight, cisgender, and male, may feel a compounded sense of guilt from each axis of oppression. This guilt manifests in defensive responses, exemplified by slogans such as #AllLivesMatter and #NotAllMen. A potential limitation of framing the issue in terms of upward and downward dynamics is that it may oversimplify the complex interplay of power, suggesting oppression is merely an issue of direct interactions between individuals, like Bill oppressing Joe. However, my aim is to elevate the discussion to a group level, where intersectional concerns underscore that addressing axes of oppression in isolation (ceteris paribus) inadvertently sidelines some marginalized groups.

This idea is encapsulated in the slogan "feminism is for white women, race theory for black men," indicating that when feminist and race theory critiques are pursued in parallel without considering their intersections, the unique challenges faced by groups like women of colour remain overlooked.

The term "intersection" itself, while commonly used to describe these dynamics, may inadvertently support a divisive, "divide and conquer" approach to social justice. Instead, I propose viewing the WSCM equation as a representation of the union of critical theories—including post-colonial studies (W), queer theory (S), trans theory (C), and feminism (M)—each a specialization within social discourse and academic research that often operates in silos, with minimal cross-pollination.

The WSCM equation seeks to amalgamate the insights gleaned from critiques of social oppression across these fields, pointing to a shared critique in the distribution of power within society. This, in turn, suggests a path towards a more generalized and unified action against social injustice.

Shattering Myths of Intellect: Insights from Intersectionality

It's a common, yet profoundly mistaken belief that people from marginalized groups have lesser intellects. This misconception has roots that run deep, tracing back to historical figures like Aristotle, who erroneously claimed women were less rational than men. This belief persisted through the centuries, finding refuge in religious institutions, academia, and even within the confines of home.

Sojourner Truth, in one of the most celebrated American speeches of the 19th century, employed logical reasoning to challenge this notion. She posited that if women truly had lesser minds, men ought not to fear their education. In Logic in the Wild, I delve into how Truth ingeniously used logic in a dialectical space of inquiry to make her point.

The accusation of lesser intellect has not been limited to women alone. Non-European peoples, people of color, indigenous populations, and, with the advent of psychiatry, queer individuals have all been unjustly placed on a hierarchical scale of intellect with European white men erroneously positioned at the top.

Each of these dismissals of marginalized groups' intellect represents a distinct chapter in European history, yet all share a common thread significant enough to transform these false beliefs into widely accepted tenets.

Reflecting on the accumulation of these accusations, one might wonder about the position of someone who intersects several oppressed groups, such as a queer woman of color. Where does she stand on this erroneous hierarchical scale of intellect? This question illuminates the issue brightly, emphasizing the absurdity of such arbitrary discrimination.

Intersectionality, a branch of critical theory, examines how considering sources of oppression in isolation—a ceteris paribus approach—tends to discriminate further against some individuals. For instance, addressing oppression towards women while holding other variables constant leaves women of color and queer women in a limbo of residual oppression, challenging to articulate and gain recognition for.

My argument is not merely that intersectional concerns unveil previously unnoticed types of oppression but that they also provide compelling counterexamples to the baseless claims that marginalized groups possess lesser intellect. If it were true that women, people of color, and queer individuals had lesser intellects, logic would dictate that those at the intersection of these identities would possess scarcely any intellect at all—an assertion that is not only false but patently absurd.

Therefore, intersectionality not only sheds light on the multifaceted nature of oppression but also offers potent insights into debunking discrimination based on intellect. By recognizing the complexity of individual identities, we can begin to dismantle the unfounded hierarchies that have plagued societal perceptions for far too long.

"Kiwi before iwi": Exploring Logic and Identity in New Zealand's Political Landscape

This weekend, a significant gathering occurred: a hui attended by 10,000 people, convened by Kiingi Tuheitia, the Māori King. The purpose was to address the Coalition Government's policies on te reo and the Treaty of Waitangi. NZ First MP Shane Jones made a statement to Newshub: "The Government is focused on the interests of every single Kiwi rather than every single iwi." This sentiment echoes the old dichotomy of “Kiwi vs iwi” or “Kiwi before iwi”.

In my book, "Logic in the Wild," I argue that logic provides a neutral space for dialectical inquiry. However, there's a darker aspect to this abstraction: it can lead to the erasure of individual identities. The National government's stance of governing for “every” Kiwi ostensibly aims to unite rather than divide, suggesting that equality at the individual level avoids exclusion or favouritism. In logical terms, when the government speaks of “every Kiwi”, they are quantifying over individuals. To attain equality at this granular level, individuals must be rendered as neutral as possible.

As a logician, I am well-versed in this practice of generalising across domains. Logic aims for such a degree of generality that the entities within its domains of quantification become arbitrary. This is akin to a method in science, which I discuss in "Logic in The Wild," called ceteris paribus reasoning. This method abstracts away from interfering factors when formulating laws. For example, when Newton formulated his laws of motion, he idealised the scenario to just two bodies, a “sun” and a “planet,” treating them as mathematical points rather than celestial bodies.

This approach, while achieving generality, necessitates the erasure of individual specificity, treating entities as mere points. Members of parliament who advocate for an individualistic neo-liberal society find comfort in this “every Kiwi” domain, as their identity and social circumstances already align with the required neutrality. However, the challenges faced by iwis and Māori in our society are not evenly distributed among individuals. Systemic oppression manifests in various forms – poverty, health issues, substance abuse, severe mental health problems – and these are not uniformly experienced. This oppression cannot be reduced to the sum of individual experiences; it operates at a group level.

Thus, striving for neutrality at the individual level, as encapsulated in the phrase “every Kiwi”, inadvertently suppresses the recognition of oppression that affects iwis. It erases identities that are crucial to understanding the lived experiences of those facing oppression, forcing them into a framework of neutrality that is alien to their reality.

Reference

Reevaluating the Slogan: The Pitfalls of 'Same Logic, Same Response’

It’s time we reconsider the slogan “same logic, same response”. Currently, it struggles to effectively communicate what I aim to express. When taken literally, albeit with necessary qualifications, the slogan is misleading. I fear an overreliance on numerous caveats might lead to ad hoc justifications, which is not ideal. Let's delve into this.

The statement is inaccurate when interpreted literally, as logic alone doesn’t encapsulate the entirety of an argument's quality. An argument can be logical yet still flawed due to its false premises. Consider a frivolous example: "All logicians are unicorns. Patrick is a logician. Therefore, Patrick is a unicorn." This represents a valid argument, hence logically impeccable, but it's fundamentally flawed because the premise is untrue – no logician is a unicorn. Another argument with identical logical structure might be sound if its premises are true. For instance, “All humans are mortal. Patrick is a human. Therefore, Patrick is mortal.” Although these two arguments share the same logical framework, I don’t anticipate an identical response to both. I hope to have not convinced you of my mythical status, but I can assure you, I am indeed mortal.

So, the first caveat: by "the same response", I refer to an identical logical evaluation. This means assessing whether the premises logically support the conclusion. Both cited examples are valid, and thus, from a logician’s perspective, they are equally logical. This pertains specifically to deductive reasoning, where the standards are centered around validity.

In non-deductive scenarios, additional caveats are required, as context influences logical support. Non-deductive contexts are marked by more flexible logical standards, focusing on argument strength rather than validity. The premises here do not fully guarantee the conclusion, allowing a margin for error, which varies according to the context. Take this example: "90% of Aucklanders are zombies. Patrick is an Aucklander. Therefore, Patrick is a zombie." What are the odds of Patrick being a zombie based solely on the given premises? 90%, seemingly. It’s a probable hypothesis, though not certain. However, if new information emerges – say, no zombies have yet reached Waiheke Island, and Patrick resides there – the likelihood of Patrick being a zombie drops significantly.

This leads to the need for another caveat in non-deductive contexts. My colleague proposed incorporating a 'ceteris paribus' clause, modifying the slogan to “same logic, same response, all else being equal.” What exactly needs to remain constant? As I’ve elaborated in "Logic in the Wild", this is a complex issue, which I invite you to explore further in the book for a comprehensive understanding of 'ceteris paribus logic'.

For the purposes of this post, we can simplify it to mean that the information surrounding the premises should remain equal. If the only information available is that within the premises, with no external data, we attain a greater degree of logical stability across various contexts, including in non-deductive reasoning.

An application of this principle can be seen in political discourse. For instance, when critiquing the Prime Minister's lack of what I term 'meta-coherence' (a concept for another post) in handling cigarettes and cannabis policies, this principle comes into play. If the rationale for not reducing cigarette sale outlets is to avoid a black market, a similar logical approach should apply to cannabis, ceteris paribus. However, as expected, counterarguments often highlight dissimilarities in context, as exemplified by Luxon's “different story, different effects” response.

Hence, the second caveat: the context of evaluation must remain equal. Of course, one might argue, as Luxon did, that the contexts are not equal. This illustrates the need for further caveats, potentially leading to an unwieldy number of ad hoc qualifications for the "same logic, same response" slogan.

I'll leave the discussion here for now, intending to revisit and potentially reformulate this slogan in a future post. There’s much more to unpack, but for now, I must attend to other matters.