She ends this piece with a call to “unite against racism” but just a few paragraphs earlier she is anxious about re-establishing the concept of race as an identity. It is hard to see how denying the concept of race will result in uniting against racism. In fact, in France, the use of the word “race” is against the law and social scientists are not even able to study it directly i.e. not able to ask a question about what you think your race is. (Note "race" does have a very different meaning in French).
In her effort to criticize identity politics she does not seem to be open to that fact that one’s identity is often very important and is generally linked to a racial, religious, ethnic and/or social class background. We are not likely to “discover what we have in common” by ignoring these important identities. Pluralism may be a more important goal that universalism. Her main concern, however, seems to be with achieving “equality.” But this term is not defined. Is it socio-economic equality? Is it equality of status? Power?
Thank you. I was just writing today how it is very hard to see the work of a lifetime in areas of social justice written off because it does not meet the proscriptive standards of whomever... I came into these movements through the civil rights movement and feminist movements (what is now called "2nd Wave Feminism", often derisively.) Calling out everyone who does not exactly mirror your thought and language, is divisive and counter-productive.
"Feminism" has become a term characteristic of the motte and bailey fallacy. The motte is "equality of the sexes," but the bailey is "women's lobby." The two ends coincide often but not always. When there is conflict between the two the latter always carries the day.
Being woke is also about being left-wing collectivist and fighting against far-right populism and collectivism with populism and collectivism is like fighting fire with fire. Better to promote universal values and the individual as well as common institutions
She ends this piece with a call to “unite against racism” but just a few paragraphs earlier she is anxious about re-establishing the concept of race as an identity. It is hard to see how denying the concept of race will result in uniting against racism. In fact, in France, the use of the word “race” is against the law and social scientists are not even able to study it directly i.e. not able to ask a question about what you think your race is. (Note "race" does have a very different meaning in French).
In her effort to criticize identity politics she does not seem to be open to that fact that one’s identity is often very important and is generally linked to a racial, religious, ethnic and/or social class background. We are not likely to “discover what we have in common” by ignoring these important identities. Pluralism may be a more important goal that universalism. Her main concern, however, seems to be with achieving “equality.” But this term is not defined. Is it socio-economic equality? Is it equality of status? Power?
Thank you. I was just writing today how it is very hard to see the work of a lifetime in areas of social justice written off because it does not meet the proscriptive standards of whomever... I came into these movements through the civil rights movement and feminist movements (what is now called "2nd Wave Feminism", often derisively.) Calling out everyone who does not exactly mirror your thought and language, is divisive and counter-productive.
I hear this and agree, but I'm afraid the people that need to hear it won't. And unfortunately, if they did, they might not even agree.
Universalism is an idea is being attacked on all sides and I can only imagine what worse ideas fill in to replace it.
"Feminism" has become a term characteristic of the motte and bailey fallacy. The motte is "equality of the sexes," but the bailey is "women's lobby." The two ends coincide often but not always. When there is conflict between the two the latter always carries the day.
Being woke is also about being left-wing collectivist and fighting against far-right populism and collectivism with populism and collectivism is like fighting fire with fire. Better to promote universal values and the individual as well as common institutions
Universalism first!