No, I say this because, like some of the most radical theory, the concept of ‘intersectionality’ poses a profound epistemological challenge, a challenge to ways of knowing. If the feminist challenge to traditional forms of knowledge seeks to expose and counter its androcentric biases, intersectional feminism finds a plethora of other biases (class, ethnocentric, heterosexist, etc) converging on and intersecting with them. It’s not just a question of how a perceived ‘privilege’ or set of privileges might bind one to the system, to its hierarchies and violence, but more profoundly of how one’s location in the social structure enables one to see, or prevents one from seeing.
Hmm.
That will get the proletariat into the streets, I’m sure.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Allan // Mar 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm
“…but more profoundly of how one
2 Richard Allan // Mar 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm
s location in the social structure enables one to see, or prevents one from seeing.”
ie. being a woman or a sufficiently leftist male enables one to see, whereas being anything else prevents one from seeing. At least they’ve recognised the contradiction inherent in their traditional kind of “normative relativism” (ie. “there are no good and bad, so you must do as I say”). Shame their response is characteristically intellectually dishonest (“Only I can tell good from bad therefore you must do as I say”).
3 Richard Allan // Mar 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v, my friends. Little tip for you there.
4 Ian B // Mar 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm
I preferred this exciting narrative-
“We had been waiting anxiously for reports in a nearby Wetherspoon’s, holed up with the four recently expelled comrades. This was Saturday 5th January. A tense, polarised conference was already under way. One of the co-conspirators shook my hand when I arrived, and informed me with an appalling smirk that my presence there, simply being seen with the four, could be grounds for expulsion. “Well, fuck em,” I glowered. “Yeah, that’s the spirit.”
…and so it goes on. It’s an exciting life in the SWP.
5 Surreptitious Evil // Mar 18, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Does anybody know if there is a “Trotskyite Gibberish” to English translator anywhere on the web. Google Translate simply can’t hack this stuff.
6 sackcloth and ashes // Mar 18, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Richard Seymour has serious delusions of adequacy.
7 theophrastus // Mar 18, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Marxism is permeated with this ethnomethodsociojargonolgy.
8 chris strange // Mar 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Lenin really needs to read Orwell.
9 Freeman // Mar 20, 2013 at 11:58 am
What a load of piffle. The man can’t even write English. He seems to think by swallowing a thesaurus, barfing the words back up onto a page and arranging them in what ever fashion takes his fancy, it will somehow make him sound intelligent. It doesn’t. It makes him sound like an idiot that is trying to be pretentious.
What ethnointegralsocialmethodological analyses can you attach to that response you trotskyite prat?
Leave a Comment