I tread lightly, because this discussion takes place after the brutal murder of eight Asian-Americans by a white shooter near Atlanta, Georgia. I certainly join all of the condemnations, and I am not afraid to examine the insularity and privilege which allows these sorts of things to happen.
I simply have a question or two--perhaps more--for the progressive framework which has given us "intersectionality," "white privilege," and other terms. Does the framework intend to say that white males, for example, are always in the position of an oppressor? Does the framework intend to say that certain subgroups of people are always in the position of the oppressed? If the answer to either or both of these questions is "yes," then how might a white male have access to truth that he was not given? In other words, does privilege prevent the man's access to truth that is ascertained by reason? Does the framework allow for shared access to the truth known by reason, or must he be given "truth" by those he oppresses?
I would willingly concede that something like a racist structure could persist, despite the good intentions of all people involved in an interaction or conversation. I also willingly concede that people of color face disadvantages because of long-lasting racism, reflected in concrete policies to prevent equality, especially with respect to education, and wealth.
But I asked these questions because the framework seems at the extremes to mimic the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, with the result that no one is able--if he falls in a certain privileged category--to attain peace and blessedness until he has access to something revealed beyond his natural capacity. Any framework--whether sociopolitical or theological--that posits a permanent subjugation of any individuals or groups, and further, that the putative oppressed and oppressor cannot share or dispute anything in common, is by definition epistemic skepticism.
It can be an act of love, in any sort of discussion or debate, to tell an interlocutor that he or she is not seeing something that they ought to see. This can be helpful. This is much different than asserting that someone is unable to see something, because of their privilege. The latter claim is rooted in emotivism, the idea that the claims of any speaker are rooted not in the desire for truth, but in the desire for power. It is for the advocates of certain frameworks of intersectionality and white privilege to decide whether the creation of the frameworks is rooted in the desire for power, or in the desire for the truth. Anything that terminates exclusively in the will to power should be seen for the aggression that it is.
Comments