Intersectionality: Class Politics of the Woke Bourgeosie

Intersectional theory is the idea that oppression has multiple different intersections which all need to be analyzed and combated to defeat bigotry. The idea being that someone could be discriminated against for the race, gender, age, religion, or a combination of these things. There is a basic understanding that this is of course at least in part true. People do face multiple different types of discrimination for various different reasons. However, in practice intersectional theory seems to be more about hierarchy of oppression and subjectively choosing which battles you find valid or not. This brings me to the originator of intersectional theory, Kimberle Crenshaw.

The other day Kimberle Crenshaw made this tweet and linked an article which I will be discussing the contents of for the rest of this essay.

At first glance I really didn’t understand what she was saying here. I was curious if something about the Trump administration had done something explicitly sexist. I understand concerns for women and many other groups during such a pandemic, but I also feel that these arguments need to be made on some solid ground, not just because. That brings us to the article which is titled “Seeing No Evil: The Peril of gender-blind consensus thinking”.

For starters, I already find the title rather interesting as I don’t think most people are gender blind, at least not to the two most common genders: men and women. There may still be plenty of people ignorant to non-binary gender, but that’s not what Crenshaw seems to be concerned. She is making the statement that the current consensus is blind to the differences between men and women.

So, to my surprise the article had nothing to do with the Trump administration or anything sexist from them. It is instead about the 2020 Democratic Primaries.

It should be noted that Crenshaw had previously endorsed Elizabeth Warren not too much before Super Tuesday when Warren was essentially already without a path to victory. It should also be considered interesting how she mentions Amy Klobuchar in this since Klobuchar ran as one of the more conservative Democratic candidates. Her primary similarity to Warren being that she is also a woman. Then it becomes clear who her target of criticism is for this article: Vermont Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

The article is discussing the controversy before the Iowa Caucus that in a private meeting Bernie Sanders had told Warren that he did not believe that a woman could win the presidential election. This would lead to it being a headline story for most mainstream media and even debate questions which the moderators would essentially accuse Sanders of lying. The debate ended with Warren accusing Sanders of calling her a liar on national television and Sanders simply asking her to not do this now.

Now, the truth of this matter is that we have no evidence other than what Elizabeth Warren is saying vs what Bernie Sanders is saying. We can neither confirm or deny that what they are saying is true or not. However, Crenshaw seems to believe that Warren’s position should be weighted stronger as she is woman and this is gender blindness. Crenshaw makes attacks at Bernie’s online supporters commonly known as “Bernie Bros” for denying he made the statement and posting videos of Bernie stating in several previous occasions he absolutely did believe a woman could become president. Crenshaw doesn’t see this as a valid argument and instead suggests it’s a compatible position for Bernie to have said that in the past and also have told Warren in private he does not believe a woman could win.

The problem with this though is that Crenshaw seems to just have an ideological bias in favor of Warren and largely due to her being a woman, not actual policy positions. Warren’s claim is limited exclusively to her memory and it’s one that is countered by others saying it did not happen. While it is fair to say that it’s not entirely impossible Bernie Sanders made the statement, and it is also true that Bernie supporters have their own biases to defend him against such accusations, the most would can do is suggest this shouldn’t be blown up into a major deal in an election instead of the actual policy differences between two candidates. As Christopher Hitchens said in what would come to be known as Hitch’s Razor, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” We have not strong evidence the statement was made. We shouldn’t dwell on it.

Crenshaw then goes on to make an even more dubious claim by comparing this to people that desire a post-racial or color blind society. The idea isn’t something new to me. In her book, The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander makes this criticism of the 90s crime bill and the criminal justice system. In theory the bill was colorblind and not racist. In practice it disproportionately targeted black youth through systemic racism. This is a very valid analysis and Alexander supports her claims with substantial evidence. However, Crenshaw doesn’t seem to apply it to just criminal justice as Alexander. She also applies it to universal class politics of Bernie Sanders!

This should not be that surprising. Crenshaw being a fairly financially well off law professor likely doesn’t consider class politics to be nearly as important as race or gender politics. This however doesn’t fit the theory that Alexander laid out in The New Jim Crow as she actually praised FDR’s New Deal for how it disproportionately helped black Americans largely through universal class based programs. The New Deal wasn’t completely colorblind itself, and it had some noticeably racist aspects to it. However, it still was built on lifting up all Americans no matter their skin color.

This should show that Crenshaw’s entire politics and intersectional theory seem to be motivated by something other than a true desire for truth and social justice. It also should poke some gaping holes into her theory and why it is not an applicable theory to examine the world. In practice, even she uses it subjectively to argue in favor of her class politics over those of the working class. She just hides it behind identity politics. Even more shameful, she relegates Bernie Sanders to just another white male, erasing his Jewish ethnicity. Bernie’s family came to America as immigrants fleeing the Holocaust. If that doesn’t find a place in her theory than her theory is rather useless.

I instead think that whether intentional or not the theory that intersectionality is instead a theory designed to halt conversation on class politics, encourage hierarchy of oppression, and to make appeals based on identity alone is how it’s practiced, even from Crenshaw. This just isn’t a valid method of analyzing politics or the world, nor is it a good critique of universal progressive policies.

Universal policies from socialists and other progressives are appealing for the very reason they help everyone. It’s usually said that you cannot please everyone, and to some degree this is true. However, universal policies are just about as close to that as it gets. Universal healthcare, education, housing, and other rights are appealing to most Americans regardless of their identity and income, excluding bourgeois assholes. They also tend to benefit the most marginalized peoples even more than they do the most privileged because under capitalism, marginalized people tend to be discriminated against by capital. They are more likely to live in poverty or lack basic necessities such as healthcare and education. Providing these will level the material playing field in ways almost nothing else can.

This brings us to my last point, it is virtually impossible for anyone to truly recognize how all forms of oppression intersect. We all have blind spots and pet issues. We all also usually care about “Me Issues” a bit more than we do the poor and marginalized no matter how good and moral of a leftist we pretend to be. Intersectionalists are no different. They are just significantly more hypocritical. This brings me to an excellent critique Sarah Haider made in a Twitter thread about Intersectionality.

These blind spots tend to hurt some groups more than others. Haider is an Ex-Muslim, a minority within a minority in North America. Most intersectionalists will notice the hardships of Muslims living in the west as they face “islamaphobic” bigotry from white racists, but they will rarely notice the bigotry that Ex-Muslims like Sarah Haider face from their own Muslim communities. In fact, they will usually attack her as if she’s just another islamaphobe or a useful idiot for the far right.

With such glaring contradictions this is another downside to this hyper compartmentalization of politics and opposition to universal progressive politics. In a majority Muslim community in North America it would be fair to say that there are differences in race, nationality, gender, religion, and of course class. The most important of these being class. We can still help the most persecuted in those communities with universal programs as it allows them more agency if they are guaranteed housing, healthcare, and an education from the state. This is true whether the people advocating for these policies understand the complexities of the oppression they face or not. Truth is, we can’t expect to understand all of them, but we can at least provide everyone some basic universal help.