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.

Unpacking Collective Actions: From Atomic Responsibility to Social Justice

I'm trying to articulate a thought about levels of groups and find myself at a bit of a loss. It's not just that it's a complicated issue; it's that it's an old one, seen from many angles, yet I'm on the hunt for the perspective that best aligns with logical praxis. The problem, as elusive as it may feel, revolves around the interplay between group and individual responsibility—a term I'm hesitant to use, but it'll have to do for now. My aim is to dissect this notion without losing sight of the complexity and nuances involved.

In grappling with this intricate problem of attributing actions and consequences to groups versus individuals, we confront a perennial challenge that resonates across various domains of logical praxis. The crux of this issue, tough to articulate clearly, hinges on the nuanced distinction between collective and individual accountability. Take, for example, the assertion that the United States bears responsibility for the creation and use of the atomic bomb. Such a statement implicates a nation in collective actions, yet the degree of participation and accountability of its individuals varies significantly.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, as the leader of the Manhattan Project, undeniably played a pivotal role in the development of the atomic bomb, yet his direct responsibility for its use against Japan remains a complex question. While the United States as a nation is acknowledged for both developing the atomic bomb and its subsequent deployment, President Truman's responsibility diverges, focusing more on the decision to use the bomb rather than its development. This delineation underscores the challenge of attributing actions and responsibilities within a group without implicating all individuals in every action.

This problem extends into the realm of social justice, where groups are often held "responsible" for oppressing others - men over women, white people over people of color, straight people over the LGBTQ+ community, and colonial powers over indigenous populations. Drawing from critical theory, we learn about the mechanisms of oppression within these dualities and how they manifest across time and cultures. The "WSCM equation" – white, straight, cisgender, man – serves as a shorthand to encapsulate the multifaceted ways in which marginalization and oppression are perpetuated by dominant groups.

Yet, the question arises: at what level does this oppression operate? The retort "But not all men" exemplifies a common misunderstanding, conflating individual actions with group-level dynamics. Not every man individually perpetrates overt acts of oppression; instead, WSCM represents a systemic level of oppression that transcends individual deeds. This systemic oppression is not merely an aggregation of individual actions but a manifestation of entrenched power imbalances within society. There’s also this systemic level of oppression, one that unfolds at the group level, and that eludes simple attribution to individuals.

Efforts to address this systemic oppression often encounter resistance, stemming from a confusion between the levels of action. Objectors fail to recognize that advocating for social justice and striving to rebalance power within our communities does not target individuals per se, but rather seeks to address and rectify the underlying group-level dynamics. The challenge, then, is to navigate these complexities, acknowledging the distinction between individual and collective accountability while pursuing meaningful change.