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.