I keep seeing liberal sociology snaking its way into left discourse, and it absolutely must be combatted. It's the "false friend" of social theory, meant to give voice to real issues and real suffering, but only as a means of obfuscating how our society actually functions and hampering those movements that let this trojan horse theory in. I wanted to take a look at them, not as "idpol", but simply as theories.
All liberal sociology must be combatted, as with all liberalism itself, but two concepts have really managed to embed themselves into the discourse, and unfortunately your radlib types will defend them to the death and insinuate that any criticism is crypto-fascist heresy.
Intersectionality is often used as a term interchangeable with "inclusiveness" or "solidarity", but the theory itself is a load of idealist nonsense. The idea is that there are various "oppressions" floating through the social space that can "intersect" compounding existing oppression and producing its own emergent properties. Which sounds nice at first, almost something approaching dialectics, but it serves mostly to combat the materialist conceptualization of society, specifically to transform material conditions, economics and class from the foundations around which society is organized to yet another intersection of abstract "oppressions". It's also demonstrably false. For instance, in the theory of intersectionality, a black woman should naturally be more oppressed than a black man, since she faces both the brunt of racism AND patriarchy. But history shows otherwise. While black women have no doubt faced horrible oppression, black men have regularly been lynched throughout at least American history, along with being poached by the police for slave labor in prisons, something black women aren't subjected to for the most part. Or, as another example, lesbians should have been historically more oppressed than gay men, facing both homophobia and patriarchy, and yet male homosexuality was almost always far more harshly punished than female homosexuality, which, in some placed and times, were almost treated with something akin to tolerance. And if intersectionality isn't able to accurately predict and explain real world oppression from history, what fucking good is it? It's good to considering multiple elements, and the inter-relations between them, but this is already done far more gracefully in dialectics. It's false consciousness that will invariable lead people to false conclusions about their socio-economic conditions.
Privilege largely describes a real thing, the tendency for there to be implicit or clandestine preferences towards certain groups over others, but makes the critical error of elevating what is essentially not being discriminated against to the position of, well, "privilege". It gives the very real impression that not getting shot by the cops, not having the judicial system throw the book at you for minor infractions, social institutions working more or less as advertised and so on is some sort of luxury that is naturally in short supply, and this lack-of-discrimination has be be rationed out between people. Like the police have some extra-judicial killings quota and therefore the natural consequence of reducing police brutality against the black community is that they've got to start brutalizing whites. It sounds ridiculous to talk about out loud, but that's the direct implication of people who say that X or Y group are going to suffer in some way because they're going to "lose their privilege" after a oppressed group gets their justice. And I see that exact line of reasoning around A LOT and literally all it does is create a conflict out of thin air, basically for its own sake.
With the recent protests, I've seen this utter bullshit rear its ugly head yet again, and I'm left wondering how we can even combat it, because while it's completely unhelpful nonsense, it's like crack to your cliquish, virtue-signaling radlib, who have way too much sway in our community.
179 posts and 50 images omitted.