day 8 meeting #7

This meeting landed just after the presidential election... so that was an experience. Mrs. Lawson and I discussed our own feelings concerning the election, the repercussions of a Trump presidency, and our thoughts about the future. Politics dominated the beginning of our meeting.

For the rest of our meeting, we finalized the poll on language and labels. Mrs. Lawson sent it in an email to all of the history teachers, and they will be administering it to their students sometime this week (or the beginning of next week). I am excited and interested to see how my peers respond; I hope people are honest so I can get true data regarding language concerning race. Mrs. Lawson and I will probably spend much of next week going over the results of the poll.

After this poll, Mrs. Lawson and I are planning to go back to "textbook readings". 

day 8 meeting #6

Mrs. Lawson and I have decided to focus on/research language by surveying social studies classes in the Upper School. We began working on questions for the Google Form that we will distribute later next week.

We began by once again discussing "in-group" vs. "out-group" identity and how language is not often shared between the two. Finding a working vocabulary can be extremely difficult when discussing any issue, but especially social concepts like gender and race. Consequently, we talked about the value of self-identifying - developing words to use broadly like "brown", "black", "negro", and "redskins" is all well and fine, but everything depends on who is announcing it and who has the authority to make it "okay". 

The most important thing for "out-groups" is to engage and accept what those under pressure decide on or announce. 

Mrs. Lawson brought up a fascinating concept: social media as a way to either affirm or appropriate language. The vehicles for language (mouth, FaceBook/Twitter, music) all utilize language very differently. People can anonymously share or like something they would never say out loud on social media. Referencing something in cyberspace is very different than being "caught" saying something racist. Affirming something offensive online can give others a sense of solidarity, and it allows for the spreading or replication of words/language. 

Another facet of shared language is music. Music is such a massive part of pop culture today; almost everyone is exposed to ideas, words, and people they might never have otherwise encountered through music. We decided to dedicate a section of our questions to enjoying, listening, and singing along to songs with racially charged/gendered lyrics. 

As we talked about the strange distinction between the "okayness" of Catholic jokes vs. the rarity of Protestant jokes in America, Mrs. Lawson introduced me to the concept of the Normative Window Theory of Prejudice, or the prejudiced norm theory: "Research has shown that sexist humor allows men to express sexism by replacing nonsexist norms in a situation with a norm of tolerance of sex discrimination (Ford,Armstrong, & Edel, 2008)." The abstract/intro to the original paper is as follows: 

[The theory] specifies the social-psychological processes by which exposure to disparagement humor uniquely affects tolerance of discrimination against members of groups targeted by the humor. Our theory posits that a norm of tolerance of discrimination implied by disparagement humor functions as a source of self-regulation for people high in prejudice. For people high in prejudice, this norm regulates the effect of exposure to disparagement humor on tolerance of subsequently encountered discriminatory events. Our theory contributes to the literature on prejudice and discrimination by delineating the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination, as well as variables that accentuate and attenuate its effects.

Throughout the conversation, we both realized we didn't know if it was a given/necessity for there to be a guaranteed division in America: between those who can say [some word] and those who cannot. It's interesting to also consider whether this broader discussion on language's part in discrimination is aimed a ending or leveraging oppression. Can the oppression ever end? Or is leveraging oppression the only path to walk for political power and/or academic advancement. I'll be interested to see how we find answers (or... don't find answers).

Finally, we ended by talking about President Obama's speech on race during his 2008 candidacy run. I'm excited to listen to this powerful speech this weekend.

day 8 meeting #5

Second quarter! We began our discussion with a conversation about the final presidential debate. We were both interested in how Hillary Clinton was more vocal this debate than before. Also... Trump didn't change his elementary behavior, but no one is really surprised there. 

From politics we turned back to Magnificent Seven, which I saw with my brother earlier this week. I found that much of what Mrs. Lawson had told me stood out to me while watching the movie. The female character was strong and well-developed; I was pleasantly surprised with her lack of romantic involvement with one of the seven mercenaries. Overall, Mrs. Lawson and I would give the film a positive review for representation of many different people in a very specific genre (Mrs. Lawson brought up a great point: old Westerns are really some of the worst things - morally - that Hollywood has ever produced). 

Over the break, I had researched Joan Wallach Scott's Gender, as well as the effect of globalization on gender/women's relative position. For Gender, I would say that the phrase "politicians and policymakers used the language of gender to defend their own manhood and diminish that of their rivals" sums up the review I read nicely. As we discussed Scott, Mrs. Lawson mentioned the conservative feminist Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who I plan to research a bit this weekend. 

As for globalization and gender, I had read a World Report that included more statistics than words - but the words it did include were quite useful. The report stated three positive effects of globalization:

• First, trade openness and the diffusion of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) have translated into more jobs and stronger connections to markets for many women, increasing their access to economic opportunities.
• Second, gender inequality has more costs in an integrated world. It can diminish countries’ ability to compete internationally—particularly for countries with export potential in goods and services with high female employment.
• Third, greater access to information has allowed many in developing countries to learn about life and mores in other parts of the world, including those pertaining to the role of women, possibly affecting attitudes and behaviors. A shift toward more egalitarian gender roles and norms has also been facilitated and, in some cases, reinforced by women’s economic empowerment.

As for the negatives, this report mentioned four:

• First, gender differences in education have limited women’s access to new employment opportunities.
• Gender differences in care responsibilities can prevent women from seizing new agricultural and wage opportunities in the export sector if no other household members can take on their duties. That is particularly true when new opportunities arise in large farms or the formal sector, where a premium is placed on longer work hours and a fixed schedule.
• Women’s weaker property rights in land and limited access to productive inputs also constrain their capacity to benefit from trade openness.
• Conservative gender norms for mobility and women’s role in the economic sphere can disproportionately affect women’s access to technology (including ICTs) and more broadly to information. At home, men often regulate the family radio, mobile phone, or television, controlling when and how other family members can use them.

I would argue that these negative "effects" are not really effects at all. All of these issues may have been exacerbated by globalization, but they were present before widespread globalization. The positives, however, are direct effects of globalization. Therefore, I say globalization has been a "good thing". 

But here's a catch (that I didn't think about) we discussed: the porn industry. The exploitation of women and children has only exponentially increased because of globalization/greater access to technology. I'm kind of stuck on this point, because it's very clear that the porn industry is dangerous and growing... but I'm not really sure how to "fix it", per se. And the easy access to the Internet: lucrative.

From there, we discussed the decriminalization of prostitution and drugs. This discussion was a bit heavier than what we usually talk about, but I don't think it's any less important. It is much more urgent/"real world" than theoretical discussions. Finally, we ended by talking about language: what makes a word "bad"? We decided that I should do a little surveying around the school, asking people what words make them uncomfortable and why they should/shouldn't say certain things. I'm really interested and excited to test the people I am around on this!

We finally got around to talking about language! Next meeting, we will probably delve a little deeper into language around discrimination. 

first quarter overview

I can't believe first quarter is already over! It feel simultaneously like we just began this study and like we've been discussing the subject for months. In a way, we have been discussing it for months, because both Mrs. Lawson and I veer toward these topics without really thinking about it, even in casual conversation.

First quarter has really been about building a foundation for the independent study as a whole. I read the introduction and the first part of The Intersectional Approach (Foundations of Intersectionality), which included topics like the politics of personal experience, the individual vs. the collective, and the argument that social divisions are irreducible.

As for Mrs. Lawson and I, we delved into questions/topics we ourselves had an interest in: the role of the intersectional approach beyond the academy, if the intersectional approach the best way to achieve "radical interconnectivity" among human beings, the role of religion and culture (in tandem with home environments/nations) in identity defining and politics, and the idea of privacy and how it may hinder putting broad laws into place. Additionally, Mrs. Lawson showed me that it is really difficult to pass legislature like the ERA and the Equal Nondiscrimination Act because "eliminating all discrimination can actually aid groups like all-men or all-white clubs in remaining separate. As we know historically, separate but equal isn't a thing.

From general topics, I decided stricter structure would help keep the independent study on track (towards writing papers !!). Mrs. Lawson suggested I spend some time researching race, gender, and law (focused on levels of scrutiny) separately and in relation to one another. To supplement my independent (ha) research, we both read Intersectionality and the Risk of Flattening Difference: Gender and Race Logics, and the Strategic Use of Antiracist Singularity in The Intersectional Approach. I highly enjoyed this essay and it's argument about utilization of the flexibility of intersectionalism and the ineffectiveness of "color blindness". As we wrap up first quarter and look forward to second quarter, I plan to study the construction of gender in history, the way imperialism is highly gendered using Joan Wallach Scott's Gender and the Politics of History, and the relationship between gender and globalization (how do they affect one another? do they?).

Two major topics in our study that I'd like to continue (as developed this quarter) are how language is shared across groups and generations (enough so for productive discussion) and the debate between oppression and discrimination.

day 8 meeting #4

Today's discussion was also quite wide-ranging, but it ultimately focused on representation in media. Beginning with the new Western movie Magnificent Seven, we discussed how race and LGBTQ+ issues are represented in the media/Hollywood. How do these portrayals affect real world issues - that is, are these portrayals generally negative or positive, and how is either applicable to real-world experiences of people? We also talked about the pitfalls of furthering one-dimensional stereotypes/tropes in media. 

To prepare for this meeting, I had researched broadly on gender (it is a spectrum + gender and biological sex are not synonymous), learned something new (existence/recognition by Supreme Courts of hijras in Southeast Asia), gender and law (HB2, DOMA/Equal Nondiscrimination Act, Canada’s Law on Commission's definition of a relationship, and other specific cases in history including the Kansas Supreme Court's judgment in the J’Noel case; Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc; the Schwenk court’s interpretation of Title VII), and the definitions of legal scrutiny.

In order to build on this research, I will now turn to Joan Wallach Scott's Gender and the Politics of History to study the construction of gender in history (in other words, more socially/politically, less legally). Additionally, I (and Mrs. Lawson) am (are) interested in the way imperialism is highly gendered. Scott may discuss this in her book, but if not, I will be looking into it myself. A side note may be how globalization is affected by gender (and vice versa). 

day 8 meeting #3

We spent much of today discussing specific experiences and instances of oppression. For one, how much do I experience oppression? I couldn't really answer that, possibly because of my unique situation (where I am, what school I go to, who my parents are, how my personality colors my social relationships, etc.). What does this mean/highlight about other Asian American experiences in a similar situation to mine? We discussed the cultural expectations and effects that I feel most pressingly. This evolved into the question of what I want to do when I go to college. I know I won't be going into the sciences, and I know I'm broadly interested in the humanities; other than that, I'm pretty much undecided. Mrs. Lawson mentioned that I might succeed in law or the political sciences. If we are discussing how the law and societal constructs affect real people's lives, we are working at some intersection of sociology and legal practices. She also mentioned that the humanities offer a great resource for completing graduate school - imagine getting paid in full to get a PhD, and then going to work in a think tank or the like. The dream. So that's something to think about.

Speaking of law, Mrs. Lawson and I have (sort of, finally, kind of) found a centerpiece/foundation for this part of the independent study. Based on Mrs. Lawson's comments on levels of [governental or legal] scrutiny, anti-discrimination laws, and the article After Intersectionality by Robert S. Chang and Jerome McCristal Culp, Jr., we have decided to further delve into the debate of "oppression vs. discrimination". This will encompass our interest in the effectiveness of language in critical, theoretical discussions as well as the "activist" minded work we are studying (and doing, maybe?). The research on race that I've completed over the past week or so will still prove useful. Over the next week, I will be researching how gender (after some specific research on gender as a concept) and race are represented and affected by the law. In other words, I'll be looking at how levels of scrutiny either help or hinder marginalized people. 

This hasn't taken us away from intersectionality, however. After Intersectionality criticizes the theory of intersectionality a bit, sure. But it also discusses how intersectionality as it is being discussed, practiced, and taught right now is incredibly important to get to the roots of discriminatory and oppressive situations. Chang and Culp are also arguing that intersectionality needs to be put into work in law and "antisubordination practice". Crenshaw originally wanted to tackle these issues, and now the problem is how to actually put these ideas in action. How will we avoid people with multiple marginalized identities falling through the cracks? What can we do legally about this issue? Through my research on more legal issues (maybe some specific case studies), I hope to better understand the history behind this issue as well as finding ways to alleviate it. 

Intersectionality and the Risk of Flattening Difference: Gender and Race Logics, and the Strategic Use of Antiracist Singularity (pg. 100-117 of The Intersectional Approach)

by Rachel E. Luft

"[T]here can be unintended consequences to the blanket application of intersectionality. Uniform deployment may inadvertently contribute to flattening the very differences intersectional approaches intend to recognize. Flattening, in turn, impedes intersectional social change."

I really enjoyed reading this essay - possibly because it was easier to understand than previous essays. Probably. Luft repeatedly asserts her argument that applying broad techniques of discussion and education is questionable in the pursuit of "consciousness transformation". She also helpfully spends some time on the history of feminist and antiracist resistance activities (105). Luft spends the majority of her essay discussing the ideologies of race and gender.

Luft's discussion on gender centers around the fact that there is an "ongoing popular obsession with essential gender difference and its 'natural' manifestations". This assertion reminds me of the discussions we had in AP Euro on the Renaissance/Middle Ages and the cultural weight behind "proper" roles for the sexes. Luft only mentioned gender as a comparison for race - her argument was focused on race and how to go about fighting racism, not about feminism.

I was surprised by Luft's argument about race, not because I disagreed, but because I had never considered the topic as such. Culturally, she argues, we as Americans tend to simply think that "[T]he denial of [racial] difference indicates the lack of prejudice, which is good." Luft asserts that color blindness is more damaging that it is helpful; instead of breaking stereotypes and racial inequality down, it ignores/covers them up and allows their effect to build covertly.

Luft differentiates between gender and race by saying that gender should be discussed through an intersectional lens in macro/impersonal mediums while race should be dealt with selectively in introductory and interactive experiences. Although I had never considered this specific distinction, I find myself agreeing with Luft. She says that since "everyone is racialized according to a hierarchy of advantage and disadvantage", it is important to everyone to check their privilege and hold themselves accountable for subconscious and conscious actions.

Her insistence on discussion race as a single-issue problem instead of collectively under the umbrella of intersectionality is also understandable. It's true that we as a society are more likely to dismiss race than gender. We are more likely to skirt around someone's race as a descriptor than their apparent gender. Luft believes that in re-racializing history and educating people on race's effect on society, "homogeneity becomes a temporary heuristic". When I first read this, I thought it seemed rather counterproductive. How can we expect change if we revert to isolating experiences? I realized I had fallen into the very trap Luft had just explained. I wanted to view racism as something to be fixed through an intersectionalist lens, instead of an antiracist lens. Luft's goal is best summed up on page 111: "racial reeducation, racial identity transformations, and ultimately behavioral change."

My biggest source of confusion was on this statement: "As more movement actors adopt intersectional frameworks without substantive pursuit of intersectional aims [...] the disconnect contributes to mystification and cooptation." Is she saying people are putting on a show - educating/discussing - without a genuine intent to change? Or that they are unintentionally contributing to the flattening and diminishing difference?

Overall, it is important to note that Luft is not trying to diminish the power or importance of intersectionalism. She herself says that race does not trump gender but "neither does gender trump race". Luft says that "intersectionality's methodological application will be strengthened with accountability to the setting in which it is being used". The field of intersectionality is (and should remain to be) fluid and flexible enough to include strategic uses of singularity.

day 8 meeting #2

considering a curriculum

We began today by discussing, oddly enough, religion. We actually had not really spoke about religion in the context of this independent study before today. What started as a discussion about the singularity/novelty of Mormonism evolved to center around "real" faith. When people say they are Catholic or Hindu or Jewish, do they all truly believe in the religion? I am quite skeptical of this myself, mostly because I consider myself atheist and therefore quite removed from the visceral emotions (hope, trust in a higher power, etc.) people of faith often experience.  I asked Mrs. Lawson how this played out historically: did people in the Middle Ages or Reformation really believe so wholeheartedly in God's will and the doctrines of Protestantism/Lutheranism/Catholicism [we are currently studying the Reformation in AP Euro]? She said that most people really, truly worried about salvation. The reason Luther and Calvin had such an impact is due in part to the anxieties people felt about the validity of their faith. Was faith alone really enough? Was it important to also act/work like you believed in God? Mrs. Lawson mentioned that people are still arguing these theological questions. I find religion and its nuances fascinating, but I also find it terrifying, especially historically. The lengths people - and entire nations - have gone to assert their faith and their religion's superiority are rather alarming. I guess it's ignorant to judge religions by their extremes, but I have to say I can't place myself in institutional/organized religion. 

I do, however, consider myself a cultural Hindu, especially because of my community and my family. I am proud of my heritage, and I follow a lot of traditions even if they are based in Hinduism. I think this discussion is important because it is a part of my identity - and my favorite part of this study is the way all of these factors affect one's sense of self. 

I told Mrs. Lawson that I would be interviewing Dr. Susan Grayzel sometime in the next two weeks. We decided my questions are sufficient to hold this conversation. Dr. Grayzel recommend that we take a look at the writing of Elsa Barkley Brown and Evelyn Brook Higginbotham in Signs and Feminist Studies. Mrs. Lawson and I searched these journals in JSTOR - I think I may read something about women in prison, as there is an entire volume centered on prison conditions and politics. Mrs. Lawson also recommended I check out the Latino USA podcast. 

From there (after a discussion about the mess that is Sean Hannity in relation to Catholicism and Republicanism), we went back to discussing gender and the bathroom bill. Is there a solution? Mrs. Lawson brought up the issue of schools in particular; how does an institution maintain the safety of its students while also accommodating students that do not fit into or agree with the strict societal gender binary? We decided this question is not simply answered. I mentioned that if [males especially] are taught to respect others more, the issue of assault and violence could be alleviated. I thought about this because I am very interested in rape culture and the danger it presents not only to victims but males as well. Then, I thought, having multiple gender-less bathrooms would be fine. Mrs. Lawson brought up a great point: what about privacy? Sometimes the problem isn't as serious as assault and violence. She mentioned that people nowadays come to expect privacy and the locker room or bathroom is a sort of escape from "everyone is looking at me" - would having gender-less bathrooms result in people feeling uncomfortable with others looking at them? I immediately thought that having stalls in all bathrooms (for toilets as well as just for changing) would be the solution. However, her question made me realize something. I had never really thought about how we are all so self-customized. It is threatening to realize that others want us to "uncustomize" ourselves. [THIS IS PHRASED WRONG; ASK MRS. LAWSON HOW I SAID IT AND FIX THIS]

As we were looking through JSTOR, Mrs. Lawson came across an article on compulsory sexuality, and we turned to talking about the asexual (ace) discourse in the  LGBTQ+ community. I told her about the (frankly ridiculous) amount of angles and opinions I have seen presented. It's... messy and rough. I don't really know how I fall in that debate. I also told her about the "monosexual privilege" discourse, as well as the issue of biphobia in both debates. 

I told Mrs. Lawson that I might appreciate structure as we move forward, and she's already been really helpful on that front. It's been like 4 hours. I'm really lucky she's my supervisor, to be honest. We decided that we might stick to race for now, especially how it has become what it is now and why it is important to study/pay attention to it. She gave me some links to begin my research xx xx xx xx xx. One thing these articles bring up is how the law and government plays into the current race discussion. I'm already excited to read up on these this weekend. And anyways, I'm always excited about dragging Trump. Let's go.

Side note: if I have time/if it pans out, we might also look closer into how independent schools are dealing with the issue of gender/the bathroom bill. 

Race: The History of an Idea in the West

review

The review essay of this book was informative in two ways: one, I gained a historical perspective on the concept of race (if only in a general manner), and two, I realized that I have no reason to read the book in its entirety. It is a bit too specific and grounded in the past/history, while this independent study is (supposedly) focused on contemporary ideas and concepts.

If I get a chance to reread the review, I will add specific quotes and ideas to this post. Our second day 8 meeting is tomorrow, and I hope to discuss beginning Part II of The Intersectional Approach. 

day 8 meeting #1

-the extent to which the intersectional approach is a response and challenge to feminism as it achieved status within the academy

• limited jobs in academia
• how connected are academics to people outside of the privileged area that is academia?
• how can you avoid being condescending?
• white feminists aggressively defending their victories in the seventies
• individual and the collective?? what is the dynamic?

-the challenge of having a coherent discussion in which topics are grouped for the purposes of analysis, even while striving to individuate and differentiate individuals within categories

• this goes back to the discussion on the individual vs. the collective (up for further discussion and exploration!)

-the need to define some key terms: activism, oppression

• preliminary definition, from Merriam-Webster
• activism: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
• oppression: unjust or cruel/excessive exercise of authority or power

-race, class, gender, sexuality as "systems of oppression" (11). (How do we do justice to those conversations while staying rooted in the complexity of these concepts - and the other ways in which individuals experience these concepts?) Is the intersectional approach the best way to achieve "radical interconnectivity" among human beings? (11) Is that the point?

• another thing that came up today, related to this, is what does it mean to "be on top"? what does that mean for the people that get kicked out of the "top"? since everyone cannot "be on top", should that be the goal of intersectionality? is it? should intersectionalism's goal remain to remove the systems of oppression? how/why would that goal change?

-what is the role of the intersectional approach beyond the academy? How would you defend it from critics who view it as self-validating academia generating research approaches that individuals being discussed may not feel connected to?

• I have (finally, actually) made some progress in contacting a current historian in the vicinity of this field. I would be very interested to ask her these very questions.

-Looking forward to considering the global application (9). Is it an intersectional blindspot in the US to sideline ethnicity, nation, and age, (1) and leave those as a sort of sub-matrix, to the "race-class-gender-sexuality" matrix? Ethnicity, nation, and age are not "constructed" in the same way - does this explain why they are not in the main matrix? Does this limit the power of activism(s) globally, in the name of being able to have a certain kind of discussion about oppression within the academy?

• we discussed how I, personally, tend to forget about/gloss over the issue of class because it doesn't really have a direct effect on my current life. Mrs. Lawson spent a little bit telling me about her own childhood, and how class [struggles] was [were] more visibile/relevant in her schooling/upbringing. I am curious to see how class and age, two things I don't often think about, will factor into this independent study. 

-Structural intersectionality is the way that the experience of women of color, due to their position at the intersection of race and gender, is "qualitatively different than that of white women". Political intersectionality refers to the "manner in which feminist and antiracist politics have functioned in tandem to marginalize the issue of violence against women of color". Yuval-Davis also suggests that gender should be divorced from the body and the social differences between men and women, which I am very interested in. Why is that seen as detrimental to society? How can that problem be alleviated? This would tie nicely into our discussion of language and its limitations on social progress (alternatively, how is it aiding social progress?).

• we did not address this question specifically, but it does tie the book into our discussion, so I thought I would add it to this post/question list

weekend reading 2

I'll admit outright that I didn't speak to Mrs. Lawson last Friday to discuss motifs/trends to look for, but it may have been for the better. Over the weekend, I completed Part I of The Intersectional Approach by reading "A Conversation with Founding Scholars of Intersectionality: Kimberle Crenshaw, Nira Yuval-Davis, and Michelle Fine". This conversation was enlightening because it discussed the basics of intersectionality. Reading each scholar introduce their niche in the field/study of intersectionality built a foundation for my overall knowledge and understanding. Part II of the book is entitled "Theoretical Explorations", which I assume will be much denser than Part I. Now I think it is imperative Mrs. Lawson and I discuss how narrow/what topics we are going to focus on after reading this book. Our first day 8 meeting should be the perfect time for this conversation. 

Today we paused in our independent study discussion to do a little activism - and you tweeted out at apple, microsoft, etc., to call attention to the fact that intersectionalism is not recognized as a word :)

Looking forward to our first "day 8" meeting, and delving into the book with you!  Don't think you have to answer these questions or respond to these topics - just brainstorming and gathering thoughts after reading.  Your questions take precedence.

-the extent to which the intersectional approach is a response and challenge to feminism as it achieved status within the academy

-the challenge of having a coherent discussion in which topics are grouped for the purposes of analysis, even while striving to individuate and differentiate individuals within categories

-the need to define some key terms:  activism, oppression

-race, class, gender, sexuality as "systems of oppression" (11). (How do we do justice to those conversations while staying rooted in the complexity of these concepts - and the other ways in which individuals experience these concepts?)

-what is the role of the intersectional approach beyond the academy?  How would you defend it from critics who view it as self-validating academia generating research approaches that individuals being discussed may not feel connected to?

-Is the intersectional approach the best way to achieve "radical interconnectivity" among human beings? (11)  Is that the point?

-Looking forward to considering the global application (9).  Is it an intersectional blindspot in the US to sideline ethnicity, nation, and age, (1) and leave those as a sort of sub-matrix, to the "race-class-gender-sexuality" matrix?  Ethnicity, nation, and age are not "constructed" in the same way - does this explain why they are not in the main matrix?  Does this limit the power of activism(s) globally, in the name of being able to have a certain kind of discussion about oppression within the academy?

early week reading

"Social divisions [...] involve specific power and affective relationships between actual people, acting informally and/or in their roles as agents of specific social institutions and organizations." 

The second essay in The Intersectional Approach is entitled "Intersectionality and Feminist Politics" ... which is really about as vague as you can get. The author, Nira Yuval-Davis, is a professor and acclaimed author of books on racisms, nationalisms, and identities. The phrase (or question, more like) that I took away from her essay is "additive or constitutive". Yuval-Davis argues that "each social division [...] is irreducible to other social divisions" as opposed to 'adding onto each other'. In other words: "To be black and a woman is not another way of being working class, or even a particular type of working-class person." As people 'add oppression', they conflate the "narratives of identity politics" as well as constructing identities that "render invisible experiences of the more marginal members of that specific social category and construct a homogenized 'right way' to be its member". This phenomenon parallels the exclusionary nature of the 'most oppressed' discourse. Identity should be the "individual and collective narratives" that explain who we/I are/am in this world. Yuval-Davis also helpfully defines between the two categories of intersectionality. Structural intersectionality is the way that the experience of women of color, due to their position at the intersection of race and gender, is "qualitatively different than that of white women". Political intersectionality refers to the "manner in which feminist and antiracist politics have functioned in tandem to marginalize the issue of violence against women of color". Yuval-Davis also suggests that gender should be divorced from the body and the social differences between men and women, which I am very interested in. Why is that seen as detrimental to society? How can that problem be alleviated? This would tie nicely into our discussion of language and its limitations on social progress (alternatively, how is it aiding social progress?). The essay also asserts that "recognition [through social divisions] - of social power axes, not of social identities - is of crucial political importance" because it renders them visible. I find this assertion compelling because it justifies/legitimizes the divisions in society but only if they work to help marginalized people, not exclude them.

weekend reading

"The limitations of a sisterhood based on bourgeois individualism or on the politics of personal experience presently pose a very real threat to combined political actions."

Over this past weekend, I read the introduction to The Intersectional Approach (not so closely) and the first essay entitled "Race, Class, and Gender" by Bonnie Thornton Dill (much more closely). Dill was very focused on the future of an "all-inclusive sisterhood"; in fact, her essay was really about the effects of race, class, and gender on the concept of sisterhood. The phrase that I walked away with is "the politics of personal experience", which I think has a lot to do with my topic for this independent study. Dill analyzed the experience of poor, black, American women and how their personal experiences affect how/who they interact with others. She also discussed the danger and history behind "white feminism", even though she didn't phrase it like that outright (xx) (xx). Dill also mentioned how the values one holds affects what they hope to achieve politically. For example, white women historically fought for labor wages and an escape from the home because they felt stifled by the "cult of domesticity" and the like. This was viewed as strange to black women of the time, who had always had higher labor participation, and would have happily accepted the "luxury" of being a housewife. Instead, black women fought for survival and freedom, and against violence like lynching. Going back to my I-Search: Dill discussed how many black women were wary of white, middle-class feminists, because they might have fought for their goals at the expense of black women's needs (a "fragile commitment to racial equality"). She also mentioned something that has interested me personally: the way in which marginalized groups often "battle over the dubious distinction of being the 'most' oppressed". This tendency is discussed very often in the LGBTQ+ community. Dill actually name-dropped Audre Lorde while discussing the division of the feminist movement on the basis of race. Dill ends her essay with a call to action in regards to reforming education: "We must examine [...] the ways in which discrimination becomes a fundamental part of the institution's organization and implementation of its overall purpose." 

It was a great discussion (Thursday, 8/11).  Wide-ranging, and offering so many directions for thought and/or research. 
Some takeways:
-I think you should definitely pursue a conversation with a historian to discuss how the race/class/gender lenses shapes the work of a historian. 
-no doubt we'll continue to be interested in discussing language, and the importance of having language that is "inclusive" but also shared (or capable of being shared) across groups and generations, enough so for productive discussion.  (This left me wondering if the intersectionality question should include age too - people are very shaped by their cultural moments and the institutions (and laws) that existed during their 'formative years.')
-earlier this week we also discussed the idea of taking time to delve into the construction of "race" as a category - my paper on this subject is too old to be digital but I'll scan it and share it so we can discuss the history of this word. 

first full day of school

Mrs. Lawson and I didn't have a plan for today's meeting; we ended up discussing a wide range of topics. I mentioned a professor at Ole Miss who has published books on women during wartime, and we discussed the difference between historical views and philosophical views on war and gender. From there, we also explored the changing definition and importance of marriage over time. For one, marriage is state-sanctioned (what does this mean for the people involved? how does this work in their favor? what is the role of the state in personal affairs?). I was surprised to learn some interesting rules about Jewish, Catholic, and Mormon marriages. This resulted in a discussion on same-sex marriage; why was it so seminal? Mrs. Lawson brought up a court case of a couple who sued the government for inheritance taxes, and she mentioned that this case essentially forced the SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriages. We then turned to LGBT+ politics and considered the prevalence of the bathroom bill debate: what is the "right" answer or solution? We found ourselves wondering how many sides the argument really had - clearly, it was not a black and white issue. Everyone has an opinion. She also gave me the book The Intersectional Approach, and I shared a link of books on intersectional feminism that may come in handy. I plan to read/start the book she gave me over the weekend, as well as review the books on the link to find useful texts.