We'd love to hear from you as well! Was our silly pizza analogy useful? Is intersectional analysis something you'd like to see researchers use more broadly in other fields? Let us know! 🍻
Great video, another suggestion would be to do a video highlighting the pros and cons of using intersectionality to address social justice (I'm a Ph.D. student with a focus on population health).
Hey Stephane, thanks for posting. Very glad that you enjoyed the little video and a follow-up expanding on the relative advantages and disadvantages of intersectional analysis in social justice research is a great idea. Our next 4-5 episodes are already kind of front loaded and ready to go, but we'll see if we can put your idea to paper towards the end of the year. Thanks!
I think this will be extremely useful. Because this is the stuff most leftists seem to have trouble explaining this. (or some leftists call some strategies like coalition building pros of intersectionality, although these ideas were already around since the times of Herbert Marcuse etc. before Intersectionality was infented.)
one question here would also be the unipolarity fersus multipolarity angle and how this would affect intersectionality. Basically: Unipolarity: Liberal Capitalist society is the best possible outcome. We need to help certain people to be integrated into it. Multipolarity: For some people, liberal capitalist society is the best, but not for all. For some people, this type of society is the problem in itself and no integration will help. There need to be a multitude of different society and political models coexisting. (Like for example one religious christian town, one more hippie like, one which is run by a corporation etc. You see, this can oferlap with political anarchism.) one point here is: you cannot build a completely conflict free society. No matter how inclusife something is, you can always get conflicts. and sometimes, "intolerant" persons can hafe a point. For example, if a brothel opens next to a church or school. Many people would get mad. But they would hafe a point.
wait: there is still goedels incompleteness theorem: you cannot build a method which is correct, brings useful results and looks at all possible cases. if you want to include all possibilities, you get results which are so unspecific that you gain nothing. so, intersectionality cannot include all possible cases.
I can sum it up even better and quicker: In our society, victimhood is power. Thus we need to tally all our victim points and compete for who is the most victimized. That group is the winner and gets to make everything about them all while screaming they're oppressed.
I prefer to think about what we have in common. I am disappointed when people focus on what makes us different. Being unique in cool, but claiming social points off that is lame.
I see some problems. 1. This theory basically proofs every person has privilege and will do stuff to further this privilege. This is pefectly true ofcourse. BUt this means any researcher doing this method will be biased. 2. Some topics will be more useful for the ruling class than others. Thus, you will be more able to fight privilege if this will somehow help the privileged in other ways. (best example, the problem in the autism community where by far the most research money is poured into is the topic of getting Jobs for autistics. Other topics are much less supported or almost none. So, why is the cause which benefits the capitalists the most, the cause which is seen as the most urgent? ) 3. Sometimes, certain categories can yield extremely different results for one minority person. This cannot be solfed by checking oferlap with other minority categories. (For example, within autism, you will find some persons who do not experience sexual and romantic attraction and are other unable to understand why other people feel this. On the other hand, you find some people who kill themself because they get no girlfriend. another frequent trait is, some autistic people are ofersensitife to physical pain while some other people cannot experience physical pain at all. Such cases make it difficult to draw a generalized logical connection of minority x => result y.)
Because intersectionality is critical of discrimination not capitalism. Autism and mental illness in general are usually left out of intersectionality discussions because those fall into psychology and are better addressed by psychologists (not liberal arts students). You also complain about the focus on getting jobs for autistic people, which I don’t really understand. Like you said, many of the issues involved with autism change from autist to autist so no collective action (like socialism) can ever accurately address it. Getting people jobs, however, always has positive benefits. If an autistic person has a job they can pay for the therapy they might need for their issues. Having a job is a mutually beneficial relationship; your employer extracts labor and you receive money in exchange for your labor. Having a job is good, actually.
As long as we keep near front and centre that we've come along way. A really long way from 1910 ( women's rights) and 1950s (race and homophobia). A really long way, like 95% of the way. More harm than good will be done by over correction.
We'd love to hear from you as well! Was our silly pizza analogy useful? Is intersectional analysis something you'd like to see researchers use more broadly in other fields? Let us know! 🍻
Great video, another suggestion would be to do a video highlighting the pros and cons of using intersectionality to address social justice (I'm a Ph.D. student with a focus on population health).
Hey Stephane, thanks for posting. Very glad that you enjoyed the little video and a follow-up expanding on the relative advantages and disadvantages of intersectional analysis in social justice research is a great idea. Our next 4-5 episodes are already kind of front loaded and ready to go, but we'll see if we can put your idea to paper towards the end of the year. Thanks!
@@ArmchairAcademics thank you! Appreciate it.
I think this will be extremely useful. Because this is the stuff most leftists seem to have trouble explaining this. (or some leftists call some strategies like coalition building pros of intersectionality, although these ideas were already around since the times of Herbert Marcuse etc. before Intersectionality was infented.)
one question here would also be the unipolarity fersus multipolarity angle and how this would affect intersectionality.
Basically:
Unipolarity: Liberal Capitalist society is the best possible outcome. We need to help certain people to be integrated into it.
Multipolarity: For some people, liberal capitalist society is the best, but not for all. For some people, this type of society is the problem in itself and no integration will help. There need to be a multitude of different society and political models coexisting. (Like for example one religious christian town, one more hippie like, one which is run by a corporation etc. You see, this can oferlap with political anarchism.)
one point here is: you cannot build a completely conflict free society. No matter how inclusife something is, you can always get conflicts. and sometimes, "intolerant" persons can hafe a point. For example, if a brothel opens next to a church or school. Many people would get mad. But they would hafe a point.
wait: there is still goedels incompleteness theorem: you cannot build a method which is correct, brings useful results and looks at all possible cases. if you want to include all possibilities, you get results which are so unspecific that you gain nothing. so, intersectionality cannot include all possible cases.
Ofc, thats why intersectionality is best applied on the individual level as a component of methodological individualism.
Hi
Excuse me can you explain the play a raisin in the sun to Lorraine's hansbarrys i mean the discrimination in this play ? please
I can sum it up even better and quicker:
In our society, victimhood is power. Thus we need to tally all our victim points and compete for who is the most victimized. That group is the winner and gets to make everything about them all while screaming they're oppressed.
Beautifully summarized! 👍
I prefer to think about what we have in common. I am disappointed when people focus on what makes us different. Being unique in cool, but claiming social points off that is lame.
I listen to a lot of Heavy Metal. isn't domination a good thing?!
Pizza analogies are always great for Italians, unless you use pineapple :-D
Ha! What a missed opportunity. I could have had everyone excluding poor pineapple from the pizza! * hides face in shame *
@@ArmchairAcademics I actually like pineapple on pizza (with ham), but keep it a secret from the other Italians :-D
Your pizza analogy was racist.
I see some problems.
1. This theory basically proofs every person has privilege and will do stuff to further this privilege. This is pefectly true ofcourse. BUt this means any researcher doing this method will be biased.
2. Some topics will be more useful for the ruling class than others. Thus, you will be more able to fight privilege if this will somehow help the privileged in other ways. (best example, the problem in the autism community where by far the most research money is poured into is the topic of getting Jobs for autistics. Other topics are much less supported or almost none. So, why is the cause which benefits the capitalists the most, the cause which is seen as the most urgent? )
3. Sometimes, certain categories can yield extremely different results for one minority person. This cannot be solfed by checking oferlap with other minority categories. (For example, within autism, you will find some persons who do not experience sexual and romantic attraction and are other unable to understand why other people feel this. On the other hand, you find some people who kill themself because they get no girlfriend. another frequent trait is, some autistic people are ofersensitife to physical pain while some other people cannot experience physical pain at all. Such cases make it difficult to draw a generalized logical connection of minority x => result y.)
Bollocks....
@@thinredline2795 arrogant fuk.
Because intersectionality is critical of discrimination not capitalism. Autism and mental illness in general are usually left out of intersectionality discussions because those fall into psychology and are better addressed by psychologists (not liberal arts students). You also complain about the focus on getting jobs for autistic people, which I don’t really understand. Like you said, many of the issues involved with autism change from autist to autist so no collective action (like socialism) can ever accurately address it. Getting people jobs, however, always has positive benefits. If an autistic person has a job they can pay for the therapy they might need for their issues. Having a job is a mutually beneficial relationship; your employer extracts labor and you receive money in exchange for your labor. Having a job is good, actually.
As long as we keep near front and centre that we've come along way. A really long way from 1910 ( women's rights) and 1950s (race and homophobia). A really long way, like 95% of the way. More harm than good will be done by over correction.