There’s Always a Hierarchy

Social justice warriorhood is ostensibly about the victimhood of blacks, women, Muslims, transgender people, etc. But it’s also, and ultimately, about ensuring the power dominance of the highly privileged white liberal elite. On the left, identity politics has all but killed and buried old-fashioned class analysis as the matrix for understanding power relationships.

If progressive politicos, academics, pundits, funders and activists were more confident in their views, they wouldn’t be so very afraid of engaging with nonprogressive viewpoints.


The cultural contradictions of progressivism.

2 Comments for “There’s Always a Hierarchy”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    I remember the days when conservatives understood liberals better than liberals understood conservatives. Things are beginning to slide in the opposite direction.

    The first article is a tedious combination of graduate-level English and caveman-level substantiveness. It would have been of far better use as either an article series or a book–something with which not only follow a long train of thought, but support it with something more factual than opinionated generalizations. That crack at the end about the difficulty of learning and speaking empty jargon is a twisted joke.

    The original subject article of the second link (“Two Roads for the New French Right”, though the excerpt In Dreher’s is okay to stop at, too) is the right way to do it:

    “The left has an old, bad habit of underestimating its adversaries and explaining away their ideas as mere camouflage for despicable attitudes and passions. Such attitudes and passions may be there, but ideas have an autonomous power to shape and channel, to moderate or inflame them.”

    Now like I said, the right’s beginning to fall into the same habit. Why do I think that?

    Because I’ve begun to notice that every time someone on the right gives a “Yes, some on the left are true believers and not just power-mad snowflakes” disclaimer when writing about progressive racial theories (intersectionalism, institutionalized racism, unconscious bias, etc.), that author seems intent on refusing to explore what the progressive mindset on race actually is, what it’s based on, why people could possibly believe it aside from their own sociological grievances.

    I trust it will not surprise people here to read that I think politically active people on both the left and the right share a certain insecurity about their own righteousness on race: they think it is important for other people, not them, to have flawed racial views, and are unwilling to accept their own faults. A real examination into left-wing views on race would force right-wingers to ask uncomfortable questions about themselves. Their faults laid bare, other people could make social decisions about them. That’s a price not everyone is willing to pay, so they remain in ignorance.

    Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    “Here’s my main problem with intersectionality: It’s adherents claim the oppressed are sole experts on their oppression, and we must defer to them. But also, it’s not their job to educate you or lead the resistance. Thus we end up with this utter confusion.”

    No confusion. The ruling class must voluntarily genuflect and approach the oppressed classes with humility and respect. The rulers must then give the oppressed classes an outsized influence when deciding how to rule.

    The ideas of personal initiative, individual agency, integration, and meritocracy are rejected by intersectionalists because they believe the deck is stacked against the oppressed in these areas. These systems all promote competition, a system that does not truly respect the individual; competition only respects power, the very quality whole groups are disadvantaged in. This is one reason why many modern liberals have a blind spot for communism.

    Intersectionality is ultimately about dismantling power as a measure of morality, merit, or wisdom. That’s my main problem with it. Worshiping power diminishes respect for the lives of the less powerful. Eliminating power entirely does the same thing to both the most powerful and the least powerful by eliminating the reward for action. What is the difference between a person and an object if there is not some gift that person might be able to provide or experience? What is the purpose of a person performing hard work and great services if there is no cause>effect attached to them?

    Intersectionality has its uses, but it is a very dangerous idea. Everyone who recognizes intersectionality should be prepared to discard it at any time.

    Reply

Leave a Comment