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.