Symbolism, Essentialism, and Universalism: The Mechanics of Exclusion

In today's discussion, I want to discuss reasoning patterns that contribute to intersectional concerns. These concerns arise when the critical theory representing an oppressed group fails to encompass all members of that group. A classic example is how feminism, often led by white European cis straight women, is generalized to represent a universal voice for all women. However, what might seem like a rebalancing of power for white women does not necessarily address the additional axes of oppression faced by women of color, members of the rainbow community including trans women, women of different religions, and those living in societies with varying gender roles and structures.

Commonly, issues of intersectionality are discussed in terms of those who are excluded or further marginalized by theories purported to be universal. My approach this morning, however, takes a different angle. Instead of focusing on the excluded, I want to analyze the reasoning patterns that perpetuate this exclusion. While my examples will primarily pertain to feminism, similar patterns can be observed across other critical theories.

The reasoning patterns I am concerned with include symbolism, essentialism, and universalism. Symbolism in feminism manifests as gender symbolism, which involves ascribing sexual attributes to inanimate objects. This might sound vague, but let's consider some standard examples: blue is deemed masculine, pink feminine; beer is considered masculine, while cocktails are feminine; trousers are tagged as masculine, skirts as feminine, and so on. The problem here is straightforward—colors, drinks, and clothes are inanimate objects devoid of sex, and the symbolism assigned to them is a social construct that imposes attributes they inherently lack.

Essentialism similarly ascribes sexual attributes to things, but does so in a realist rather than symbolic manner. It posits that having sexual organs is essential to being classified as male or female, as well as possessing certain hormonal balances, chromosomal configurations, or gamete production capabilities. These characteristics are relevant to a biological understanding of sex, but the error occurs when gender roles and societal tenets about sex are reduced to these essential traits.

Finally, universalism involves generalizing the experience of a specific group to the entire population. The pitfalls of this approach are well-documented in statistical studies, where the representativeness of a sample group is crucial.

My critique is that symbolism, essentialism, and universalism are not only methodologically problematic individually but also compound to reinforce intersectional exclusion. Symbolism reflects attributes heavily influenced by one's society and is predominantly socially constructed, applying only locally. Essentialism, as discussed in another blog post, is also socially constructed and tends to erase or silence the lived experiences of many who do not fit neatly into essentialist categories. Finally, universalism often generalizes local theories to an entire target population without adequate consideration for diverse representation.

Together, these reasoning patterns do not merely exclude marginalized subgroups; they actively contribute to their further marginalization.

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.

Divide and Conquer: Fragmentation in Science

Stephen Hawking's quest for a theory of everything highlights a pervasive attitude in science: the belief that all phenomena can ultimately be explained by universal laws, particularly through the lenses of quantum theory and string theory. This pursuit of generality, while ambitious, often results in laws that are abstract and less applicable to the varied complexities of the real world. Logic, especially in its twentieth-century mathematical incarnation, and theoretical disciplines like string theory, exemplify this trend, becoming increasingly detached from the concrete world in their pursuit of universality. Generality comes at the price of alienation.

A practical alternative that stays closer to the real world operates in parallel: the divide and conquer approach. Specialization has become the norm, with distinct communities working in physics, chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and numerous sub-disciplines, each with little overlap. While specialization allows for deep dives into specific areas, it also fragments academia into silos, making interdisciplinary communication and collaboration challenging.

However, when tackling global issues like climate change, this fragmented approach can converge, as seen with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC exemplifies how thousands of experts from diverse fields can unify to address a singular problem, demonstrating that intersectional dialogue can lead to a cohesive understanding and actionable solutions.

A similar "divide and conquer" strategy unfolds in critical theory, with specializations in feminism, queer theory, gender studies, postcolonial theory, and race theory, among others. These fields, much like their scientific counterparts, tend to operate within isolated communities. Unlike the tangible, measurable challenge of climate change, the core issues of critical theory—social justice and the societal fabric—lack a common goal that governments can rally around. This absence of a shared objective further complicates efforts to unify diverse perspectives towards common solutions, highlighting the complexity inherent in bridging fragmented disciplines.

In drawing these parallels, my intention is not to offer a neat conclusion but to shed light on the similarities between the fragmentation seen in the sciences and social sciences. Both realms demonstrate how a division of labor, while beneficial for in-depth exploration, can lead to isolation, hindering our collective ability to address the multifaceted problems facing humanity today.

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.

The Complex Terrain of Critical Theory: A Closer Look

Exploring critical theory through a "divide and conquer" lens reveals how such a strategy underscores the shortcomings in the conventional responses to critiques along isolated axes of oppression. This approach, rather than fostering a nuanced understanding, often oversimplifies complex issues, suggesting that problems identified in the twentieth century have been sufficiently addressed. What do we mean by "divide and conquer"? It refers to the method of addressing each theoretical branch in isolation. While this strategy might seem straightforward, it ultimately fails to capture the interconnectedness and depth of these issues.

Responding to feminism by alleging a "woman agenda" that opposes men is a flawed approach. Similarly, addressing queer theory with accusations of a "gay agenda" aimed at either the liberation or, pejoratively, the perversion of sexuality, misses the mark. Regarding post-colonialism, dismissing historical injustices by claiming modern society bears no responsibility also falls short of a constructive response. Yet, not all responses need be negative. New Zealand's response to the suffragettes by granting women voting rights, and subsequent efforts to equalize employment opportunities, are examples of positive engagement with feminist critiques.

The adjustments made in response to feminist critiques and the legal advancements for LGBTQ+ rights, such as the decriminalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Zealand, indicate that societal critiques by critical theorists and activists have not been entirely overlooked.

However, the concept of intersectionality complicates this scenario further by illustrating how addressing issues of oppression sequentially can leave behind various marginalized groups that become visible only afterwards. The adage "feminism is for white women, and race theory for black men" underscores the oversight of women of color, who now represent a newly marginalized group receiving scant support from the leaders of twentieth-century feminist and race movements.

Despite the quality of responses to critiques from each axis of oppression—some constructive, some not—treating them in isolation only partially addresses the problem. This approach may de-marginalize some groups while leaving others entrenched in old patterns of oppression. This nuanced landscape of critical theory demands a holistic understanding that recognizes the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression and the importance of an inclusive approach that considers the complex realities of all marginalized groups.

Divide and Conquer in a Pre-existing Fragmented World

In a previous blog, I discussed Don Brash and the Orewa speech, highlighting how a call to address social injustices was misconstrued as a demand for privileges and special treatment. This phenomenon mirrors the dismissive responses seen across various social justice movements: the "not all men" rebuttal to the #metoo movement, the "all lives matter" retort to the #blacklivesmatter initiative, and accusations of a "gay agenda" or "women's agenda" in queer and feminist activism. The fragmentation within critical theory, characterized by its division into specialties focused on distinct axes of oppression, may not just obscure intersectional concerns for individuals sidelined in isolated movements but also facilitate a divide-and-conquer strategy. However, this strategy doesn't even require division, as the isolation is pre-existing—merely waiting to be exploited.

By isolating critical theories and concentrating on singular aspects of oppression while maintaining equality in other areas, we inadvertently enable a response that seeks to overpower an already isolated minority. This minority appears to demand unreasonable measures to rectify their specific form of oppression. The argument against focusing society's full attention on the concerns of trans individuals, indigenous groups, or any other marginalized community suggests that doing so would neglect broader issues that impact everyone, such as class disparities or global health crises like cancer. According to this perspective, prioritizing minority issues would divert resources and attention from these overarching societal challenges, causing progress to stall and society to regress.

This reasoning is deeply flawed but seemingly supported by the segmented nature of labor in critical theory. The division among critical theories not only weakens the collective power of social justice movements but also overlooks the potential for a unified approach that addresses both specific injustices and broader societal issues. By fostering collaboration across different areas of critical theory, we can form a more cohesive and powerful response to social injustices, one that acknowledges the importance of both individual and collective struggles. This united front could challenge the existing power structures more effectively, ensuring that addressing the needs of marginalized groups doesn't detract from the broader goal of societal progress but rather contributes to it, illustrating that the fight against specific and general injustices is not mutually exclusive but complementary.

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.