Kia ora koutou.
Change It Up is a new blog from Aotearoa about re-envisioning our political system. At the core is the principle originating from intersectionality that while the causes of inequities and injustices are complex, all of them share a common root: the unbalanced distribution of power in society. The result is privilege for some, disadvantage for others. The focus of this blog will be on exploring the problem of this sociopolitical power imbalance, how it shapes many aspects of culture to reinforce itself, and how we might get from where we are now to somewhere better. As this is an introductory post, let me start of with a bit of scope-setting and context.
To begin, it is important for me to acknowledge who I am, especially as I tick box after box for privilege. I am Pākehā--along with my brother I am a first generation born in New Zealand to parents of European heritage. I am therefore a part of the colonisation of this country. I am cisgender and biologically male. I have never felt confusion about my gender identity, although I have had difficulty in expressing myself in a culture that often fails to separate maleness from masculinity. I am predominantly heterosexual. I am able-bodied, and predominantly able-minded/neurotypical. I have suffered from depression, and there have been several suggestions from people over the years that I might be "on the spectrum" but I have no formal diagnoses on these fronts. All up, that's a lot of privilege, and I know that I have benefited from that privilege throughout my life. It has resulted in a situation where i have been able to study at my leisure, and while I am not wealthy, I live a comfortable life in which all of my material needs are amply met, and I have security in my employment. The ways in which those privileges have combined to create the life I have are many and range from obvious to subtle. So, how best to leverage that privilege for change?
I'd like to make an important point for those already familiar with intersectional theory: I will not use intersectionality as a synonym for the political philosophy here, as I don't believe this honours the meaning of the term. Firstly, intersectionality emphasises not only the shared and inter-related causes of discrimination, but the multiplicative effect of being part of more than one marginalised group. Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term to describe how discrimination for women of colour differs from the general discrimination experienced by both people of colour and women, and consequently how issues for women of colour in the US have not been addressed by anti-racist or feminist movements. I would ask anyone who uses the term 'intersectional' in a way that is different from Crenshaw's original meaning to consider if they are using it appropriately. The history of so many rights movements has been co-option and watering down, and it would be a bruising irony to continue this tradition while advocating for an inclusive approach to rights. Secondly, intersectionality is a bottom-up and not a top-down approach. I am an ally, and cannot provide a legitimate, first-hand, bottom-up approach. Thirdly, what I describe here is broader than human rights alone, and includes animal rights, climate/environmental justice, and interegenerational justice. Certainly, animal, human, and environmental issues intersect, and it is not uncommon to hear all of these listed together under the banner of intersectionality, but again in doing so the emphasis shifts from the original intention of intersectional theory.
One other point I'd like to make is that the political philosophy I will describe is intended to be modular--provided you agree with the tenet that a problematic power imbalance exists, we should be able to find common ground for discussion. Nevertheless, you might disagree with the inclusions that I make (see the five domains in the next post), and you might disagree with the solutions I will propose, which sit within a Marxist critique of economic power. Perhaps, for example, a sufficiently reigned-in form of capitalism makes more sense to you. It makes sense that critiques of our current political system should come from a place of humility, because it does not seem that we have any fully formed alternatives at the moment. In any case, my intention is for all of the ideas I write to be provisional, and open to revision. I hope therefore that disagreements can be starting points for discussion, rather than causes for the dismissal of these ideas altogether.
So that's a little about me and my motivations, and--really broadly--the scope of the blog. My most ambitious aims here will be to try and develop concrete ideas on getting from where we are to where we want to be. Developing alternative models with realistic transitions is essential to providing a meaningful critique of contemporary social issues in Aotearoa, because technically it is logically possible for the current system to be both flawed, and the best system currently available to us. As much as is possible, I would like to do present these alternatives in a positive way ('what does a better world look like?') rather than through deficits ('X is what's wrong with the current system'). The purpose of this is to provide something that extends the valuable critiques that already exist. I welcome all manner of discussion, criticism, disagreement, agreement, extension, dissent, and new ideas for moving forward.
Change It Up is a new blog from Aotearoa about re-envisioning our political system. At the core is the principle originating from intersectionality that while the causes of inequities and injustices are complex, all of them share a common root: the unbalanced distribution of power in society. The result is privilege for some, disadvantage for others. The focus of this blog will be on exploring the problem of this sociopolitical power imbalance, how it shapes many aspects of culture to reinforce itself, and how we might get from where we are now to somewhere better. As this is an introductory post, let me start of with a bit of scope-setting and context.
To begin, it is important for me to acknowledge who I am, especially as I tick box after box for privilege. I am Pākehā--along with my brother I am a first generation born in New Zealand to parents of European heritage. I am therefore a part of the colonisation of this country. I am cisgender and biologically male. I have never felt confusion about my gender identity, although I have had difficulty in expressing myself in a culture that often fails to separate maleness from masculinity. I am predominantly heterosexual. I am able-bodied, and predominantly able-minded/neurotypical. I have suffered from depression, and there have been several suggestions from people over the years that I might be "on the spectrum" but I have no formal diagnoses on these fronts. All up, that's a lot of privilege, and I know that I have benefited from that privilege throughout my life. It has resulted in a situation where i have been able to study at my leisure, and while I am not wealthy, I live a comfortable life in which all of my material needs are amply met, and I have security in my employment. The ways in which those privileges have combined to create the life I have are many and range from obvious to subtle. So, how best to leverage that privilege for change?
I'd like to make an important point for those already familiar with intersectional theory: I will not use intersectionality as a synonym for the political philosophy here, as I don't believe this honours the meaning of the term. Firstly, intersectionality emphasises not only the shared and inter-related causes of discrimination, but the multiplicative effect of being part of more than one marginalised group. Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term to describe how discrimination for women of colour differs from the general discrimination experienced by both people of colour and women, and consequently how issues for women of colour in the US have not been addressed by anti-racist or feminist movements. I would ask anyone who uses the term 'intersectional' in a way that is different from Crenshaw's original meaning to consider if they are using it appropriately. The history of so many rights movements has been co-option and watering down, and it would be a bruising irony to continue this tradition while advocating for an inclusive approach to rights. Secondly, intersectionality is a bottom-up and not a top-down approach. I am an ally, and cannot provide a legitimate, first-hand, bottom-up approach. Thirdly, what I describe here is broader than human rights alone, and includes animal rights, climate/environmental justice, and interegenerational justice. Certainly, animal, human, and environmental issues intersect, and it is not uncommon to hear all of these listed together under the banner of intersectionality, but again in doing so the emphasis shifts from the original intention of intersectional theory.
One other point I'd like to make is that the political philosophy I will describe is intended to be modular--provided you agree with the tenet that a problematic power imbalance exists, we should be able to find common ground for discussion. Nevertheless, you might disagree with the inclusions that I make (see the five domains in the next post), and you might disagree with the solutions I will propose, which sit within a Marxist critique of economic power. Perhaps, for example, a sufficiently reigned-in form of capitalism makes more sense to you. It makes sense that critiques of our current political system should come from a place of humility, because it does not seem that we have any fully formed alternatives at the moment. In any case, my intention is for all of the ideas I write to be provisional, and open to revision. I hope therefore that disagreements can be starting points for discussion, rather than causes for the dismissal of these ideas altogether.
So that's a little about me and my motivations, and--really broadly--the scope of the blog. My most ambitious aims here will be to try and develop concrete ideas on getting from where we are to where we want to be. Developing alternative models with realistic transitions is essential to providing a meaningful critique of contemporary social issues in Aotearoa, because technically it is logically possible for the current system to be both flawed, and the best system currently available to us. As much as is possible, I would like to do present these alternatives in a positive way ('what does a better world look like?') rather than through deficits ('X is what's wrong with the current system'). The purpose of this is to provide something that extends the valuable critiques that already exist. I welcome all manner of discussion, criticism, disagreement, agreement, extension, dissent, and new ideas for moving forward.
Comments
Post a Comment