Saturday, March 11, 2017

Intersectionality at Middlebury

Andrew Sullivan reacts to the recent events at Middlebury College, in which controversial author Charles Murray was first shouted down, then chased out of a local restaurant, and finally physically assaulted, to keep him from spreading his horrific ideas:
But what grabbed me was the deeply disturbing 40-minute video of the event, posted on YouTube. It brings the incident to life in a way words cannot. At around the 19-minute mark, the students explained why they shut down the talk, and it helped clarify for me what exactly the meaning of “intersectionality” is.

“Intersectionality” is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that’s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.

It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue — and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It’s Marx without the final total liberation.

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably.

And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual — a secular exorcism, if you will — that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Here’s how they begin: “This is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not ‘representative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.” They never specify which of Murray’s ideas they are referring to. Nor do they explain why a lecture on a recent book about social inequality cannot be a “respectful discourse.” The speaker is open to questions and there is a faculty member onstage to engage him afterward. She came prepared with tough questions forwarded from specialists in the field. And yet: “We … cannot engage fully with Charles Murray, while he is known for readily quoting himself. Because of that, we see this talk as hate speech.” They know this before a single word of the speech has been spoken.

Then this: “Science has always been used to legitimize racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, ableism, and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact, and supported by the government and state. In this world today, there is little that is true ‘fact.’” This, it seems to me, gets to the heart of the question — not that the students shut down a speech, but why they did. I do not doubt their good intentions. But, in a strange echo of the Trumpian right, they are insisting on the superiority of their orthodoxy to “facts.” They are hostile, like all fundamentalists, to science, because it might counter doctrine. And they shut down the event because intersectionality rejects the entire idea of free debate, science, or truth independent of white male power. At the end of this part of the ceremony, an individual therefore shouts: “Who is the enemy?” And the congregation responds: “White supremacy!”

They then expel the heretic in a unified chant: “Hey hey, ho ho! Charles Murray has got to go.” Then: “Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay. Charles Murray, Go away!” Murray’s old work on IQ demonstrates no meaningful difference between men and women, and Murray has long supported marriage equality. He passionately opposes eugenics. He’s a libertarian. But none of that matters. Intersectionality, remember? If you’re deemed a sinner on one count, you are a sinner on them all. If you think that race may be both a social construction and related to genetics, your claim to science is just another form of oppression. It is indeed hate speech. At a later moment, the students start clapping in unison, and you can feel the hysteria rising, as the chants grow louder. “Your message is hatred. We will not tolerate it!” The final climactic chant is “Shut it down! Shut it down!” It feels like something out of The Crucible. Most of the students have never read a word of Murray’s — and many professors who supported the shutdown admitted as much. But the intersectional zeal is so great he must be banished — even to the point of physical violence.
Charles Murray is a racist, or at least once wrote a racist book. But he has moved on to other issues and these days writes mostly about the collapse of the white working class into drugs and disability; his recent books have been read with interest by liberals like George Packer. So he would hardly be my choice for a man so offensive he has to be driven off campus at any price.

About "Intersectionality," I say this: all ideologies, pushed too far, are stupid, and all have to potential to be horribly destructive. And this one's main accomplishment to date has been to help elect Donald Trump president.


G. Verloren said...

Charles Murray is a racist, or at least once wrote a racist book. But he has moved on to other issues and these days writes mostly about the collapse of the white working class into drugs and disability.

What makes the collapse of the white working class into drugs and disability any different than the countless prior collapses of other peoples and categories into drugs and disability?

The problem is the same as it has ever been.

Staggeringly poor people with few prospects for the future, uneducated, unemployed, trying to keep alive dying languages and cultures, trying to keep the young people from fleeing to the cities, alcoholism rampant, depression and hopelessness everywhere, the cruel march of time eroding the last vestiges of their people.

It's the same everywhere when a culture goes by the wayside and begins to decline. So what makes American blue collar culture so special? More specifically, what makes this most recent, modern instance of American blue collar culture so special?

Why are steel mill workers so worthy of being written about, compared to other obsolete American working groups like fur trappers, ice cutters, potash burners, teamsters, farriers, wheelwrights, metalsmiths, manservants, ragpickers, steamboat pilots, prospectors, telegraphists, lamp lighters and trimmers, pinsetters, bobbin boys, and countless others?

No, Murray is still a racist, and is still writing racist books - he's just shifted the focus a bit. Does he deserve to be driven off by means of violence? No, morally speaking, of course not. Should the college have allowed him to speak in the first place? No, absolutely not.

Is Andrew Sullivan correct in comparing the actions of the students to religion? No, I don't remotely believe so. There's nothing new or interesting here - just agitated and provoked young people unwisely giving in to their anger and frustrations and engaging in classic angry mob behavior.

The youth of today are overwhelmingly sick and tired of intolerance - most of them have grown up firmly multicultural, and are aghast at all the older generations continuing to behave monstrously towards people they view as their allies, friends, and even loved ones. Middlebury is hugely out of touch if they didn't predict and expect this sort of extreme backlash from a figure like Murray being allowed to speak. It would be akin to inviting an active service military officer to speak in favor of the Vietnam War during the height of student protests against the conflict - an idiotic move that almost certainly would end badly.

pootrsox said...

Bravo (-a?) once again, G. Verloren!

szopen said...

Charles Murray wrote racist book? Which one? Obviously not Bell Curve, as there was nothing in there which was not supported by a lot of scientific articles, and even in the most controversial chapter about the IQ, he stated explicitl that he does not know what are the reasons for the existing gap in IQ test gap between whites and blacks in America. Is it racist to point to the facts?