It's not Wrong when I do it

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That's pretty interesting. Being a black woman in America is about as far from my own life experience as you can get (other than the 'American' part), so it's a perspective I'm interested in hearing from.

I'll link you to her blog, it's pretty good.

Here are her parts 1 and 2 on race and beauty:

hxxp://buildameworkshop.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/race-and-beauty-part-1/

hxxp://buildameworkshop.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/race-and-beauty-part-2/

[Cainad (dec.)]

Gracias!

Also her picture on the right there is wonderful.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Isn't it great? She's great.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Isn't it great? She's great.

I just read both articles. She's really great. This is stuff that is 100% out of my realm of experience.

[Reginald Ret]

DAMMIT NIGEL! NOW I HAVE A NEW BLOG TO FOLLOW!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

DAMMIT NIGEL! NOW I HAVE A NEW BLOG TO FOLLOW!

[Cain]

I think my most basic objection to this type of thinking - aside from the charge of hypocrisy, of course - is that it speaks to an understanding of society which I simply don't share, and in fact that I find somewhat dangerous.

My basic approach to society could be summed up as Machiavelli meets Marx - power and class are the two determining factors.  Of course there are other factors, but IMO those are the overriding ones.  By contrast, the POV that seems to be put forward by these people is one of racial identity primacy. 

To use the language of tumblr, I find that extremely, uh, problematic.  I'll try and write up some objections tonight - the problem is, when I tried drafting it in my head earlier I was dividing it into chapters.  I think it's a cultural antipathy thing as much as political/philosophical disagreement, which makes it really hard to tell the more valid complaints from, say, bitching at people who think Doctor Who and Sherlock are the best things since sliced bread (as you know, the fandom overlap with these kind of views is pretty large).

[LMNO]

Looking forward to it, when you get the chance.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I think my most basic objection to this type of thinking - aside from the charge of hypocrisy, of course - is that it speaks to an understanding of society which I simply don't share, and in fact that I find somewhat dangerous.

My basic approach to society could be summed up as Machiavelli meets Marx - power and class are the two determining factors.  Of course there are other factors, but IMO those are the overriding ones.  By contrast, the POV that seems to be put forward by these people is one of racial identity primacy. 

To use the language of tumblr, I find that extremely, uh, problematic.  I'll try and write up some objections tonight - the problem is, when I tried drafting it in my head earlier I was dividing it into chapters.  I think it's a cultural antipathy thing as much as political/philosophical disagreement, which makes it really hard to tell the more valid complaints from, say, bitching at people who think Doctor Who and Sherlock are the best things since sliced bread (as you know, the fandom overlap with these kind of views is pretty large).

Picking these apart in my own head gets pretty messy. The overlap of obnoxious fandoms with social justice, combined with the echo chamber effect and the generally "faceless" nature of the medium make it all seem like one big blur of misguided tween stupidity.

[Cain]

So, my objections somewhat expanded in scope as I tried to write out a fuller reply to this.  It became something of a rant against...well, what is called the "Social Justice Warrior" subculture, though I dislike that particular name (I happen to think social justice is a worthy cause, and would rather it not be associated with juvenile nitwits and subaltern extremists).

My first problem could be with what could charitably be called "privilege theory" and how it is deployed.  Despite all the talk about "intersectionality", privilege theory involves taking racially and gender essentialist concepts and weighing them in a perpetual oppression Olympics to discover who is the least privileged by society.

There are a number of issues with that.  First is the concept of "privilege" itself.  It's...not a good word to use.  A lot of what is described as privilege are rights that should be extended to everyone.  In other words, male privilege or white privilege are only bad because they are restricted to whites or males.  However, I've rarely ever seen it put in those terms.  Instead, the way in which privilege is used by those who write about it...well, it's deployed in a very negative context and way, as something to be condemned and avoided.  It suggests any form of advantage is necessarily bad, and the people who have it should feel bad, and while that may not always be explicitly stated, it is in some quarters.

The second problem is the gender and race essentialism that accompanies this.  There are often strong, if frequently unspoken assumptions about what is considered female or black or asian or similar, and works from the assumption that this identity is, in all social circumstances, the most important determining factor.  The possibility of other factors, such as class, education, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation etc are either erased or, occasionally, fetishised.  As are the possibilities of varying import in different social milieus that make up this vast, incomprehensible beast we call "society".

Intersectionality theory, if correctly deployed, might mitigate against this tendency.  However, intersectionality as it currently exists does nothing more than add reified and naturalized identities into an ahistorical understanding of society.  Furthermore, the way intersectionality is used is inherently divisive, it brings up greater divisions between apparently oppressed groups who have similar goals in aiming for liberation.  Ironically intersectionality therefore becomes a reinforcement tool for racial and gender essentialism, by focusing on those threads of commonality rather than shared commonality of oppression in a late capitalist system which unites those differing genders, racial identities and classes.

When these identities are taken into account, they are often weighted in, shall we say...questionable ways.  In a capitalist society, there is one overriding advantage: capital.  However, when intersectionality is deployed, it often "stacks" identities of oppression in such a way that it would not be hard to conclude that a homeless white man is more "privileged" than Condi Rice, since she is both black and a woman (but is rich).  Identity trumps materiality, despite identity being very much a product of materiality.

So, yeah, privilege theory is, to talk like the yoof of today, "problematic".

Some of the blame for how this has come about can be laid at the feet of Critical Race Theory.  Again, a charitable if questionable (ab)use of that word...theory.  According to La Wiki, CRT is "an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power."

CRT was the brainchild of Derrick Bell, an Africa-American academic with a sideline in science fiction stories about white Americans selling blacks to space aliens to pay off the national debt.  Bell pioneered much of what passes as discourse in this circles nowadays, including the concept of "microaggressions".  According to UCLA, where Bell was a professor;

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.

Somewhat ironically, Bell's own name for his theory was "Race Realism".  I wonder if David Duke is aware of this?

Bell believed that it was impossible for blacks to gain full equality in America, due to the essentially racist structure of its society and government: "Black people will never gain full equality in this country. Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than 'temporary peaks of progress,' short lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance."

Interestingly, Bell was, unlike many African-Americans at the time, not very interested in Marx or socialism in general.  This may explain why his theory managed to gain currency during a period when black/socialist politics were extremely suspect in American society, as it provided a "safe" alternative to the more radical message of Malcolm X and MLK.  It also throws some doubt on what is meant by "critical" in the "critical race theory", as "critical theory" is a Neo-Marxist approach to analysing society and culture.  Of course, it's possible that this meant "critical" in the more general sense, but given "critical theory" has a well known meaning in academia, I do wonder about that name...

The name itself was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who applied CRT's analytical lense to racism more generally, as well as feminism and was critical in the formation of "intersectionality".  She is currently a professor in UCLA's Law School, and studied under Bell.

So, there are a lot of problems with the theoretical background these people draw from.

Onto their behaviour....

One aspect that could explain this is groupthink.  In fact, look at this paragraph:

The member's firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that "we are a wise and good group" inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. "Since our group's objectives are good," the members feel, "any means we decide to use must be good." This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group

That's from Irving L. Janis in Victims of Groupthink.  It's almost a perfect description of the kind of behaviour these people engage in.

Being on the internet exacerbates the first symptom of groupthink, the feeling of invulnerability which results both from anonymity and the righteousness of their cause.  The nature of social networking, which allows dissenting voices to be easily excluded conforms to the second symptom or sign, the collective effort to rationalise behaviour.  They stress the righteousness of their cause and stereotype their enemies as unforgivably evil, which justifies the extreme measures taken.  Members are encouraged to stifle disagreement through abuse of the idea of "safe spaces", which creates an illusion of conformity which dissuades some from voicing their doubts (see: Asch conformity experiments).

In some ways, their strategy does work.  Rude and abusive behaviour does polarize readers, often causing a negative reaction to what is being protested against.  Sadly, most people on tumblr and similar are not actually going out of their way to attack actual racists or homophobes or whatever, but instead "allies" who said something which could be misconstrued or was impolitic (but not necessarily offensive or morally reprehensive).

This angry use of language often causes the amygdala to hijack the frontal lobe, making rational thinking harder and exacerbating abusive behaviour.  This is because that language can be seen as threatening, causing us to react in a threatened manner, even where no physical threat exists.  Anthropologists have also described a process of "altruistic punishment" which the brain apparently finds rewarding.

[Cain]

And now I feel like a dirty Marxist, after writing all that.

And not in a "we should maybe keep some of the chains" kind of dirty Marxist, either.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Fuckin'

Really enjoyed the look into the historical context of the ideas that have filtered into Social Network Justice Asshat communities (is that a better term? Because it certainly seems like these communities spend a lot more time fighting within the sphere of social networks themselves than anywhere else).

That last bit brings up what I think I find most bothersome about these kinds of "activists." It's not that I feel threatened, or hurt more than feeling mildly put-out when they make sweeping negative generalizations about white heterosexual males. It's that there's a lot of people out there who don't give a fuck about social justice and will quite cheerfully leverage their power as a social majority to whip up antipathy for minorities in response to these statements.

Talking unnecessary shit about whites/men/heterosexuals isn't a threat to said whites/men/heteros. It's a threat to the people who don't realize how much worse things will get for them if they aren't going to be smart about their cause.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That was good. I have to disagree with your analysis of the word "privilege", though, because those rights are only privileges when there is an inequity in how they are applied and who receives them that is based in factors beyond individual people's control. The word that describes that inequity is "privilege". The fact that people frequently misuse it does not necessitate reinventing the wheel by coming up with another word for it; in my opinion it is adequate simply to use it correctly.

[Cain]

Maybe.  I'm not especially attached to the way I approached it there, but I thought I'd throw it out as a possibly different interpretation.  I'll think about it a bit more.

[LMNO]

Cain, that was very, very good.  I appreciate you writing it.