Hi friends.

I discussed ideology in my last post; specifically how I saw it being applied to recent world events. This post will critique and illuminate some of that ideology (Man, where there is an itch on one’s brain it doesn’t do to ignore it). I notice that there’s a part of me that worries what might happen if I share my genuine thoughts, and there’s some hesitation about the risks (of offence, of rocking any boats), and for that exact reason I think it’s really important to do exactly that- formulate thoughts, and engage in critical thinking, and ask questions.

This picture is called “Bad Ideas Destroy Social Fabric” and it is based on my observation of the effects and outcomes of intersectionality and critical theory (What some may lazily also call “woke” thinking).

‘Bad Ideas Destroy Social Fabric’ 2024 original 29.7x42cm pencil and pen

First for the layperson not versed in this stuff: What am I talking about? Two academic theories in particular (Maybe better called theologies, which I will argue is how they function).

Theology 1. “‘Intersectionality’ refers to the ways in which different aspects of a person’s identity can expose them to overlapping forms of discrimination and marginalisation.” (Victorian Government, 2021). It was theorised, and coined as a term, in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe the way “race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap”, specifically for use in the context of the legal system (meaning its common widespread uses today were not the original intention of Crenshaw).

Point of agreement: We DO all have complex and layered identities, and many things do influence/ form and shape us. AGREED. But this is a complex system of belief, which I want to suggest is not being utilised and understood in the way that Crenshaw initially expected or intended. This concept is being applied to other domains of society and by people who use it for their own purposes, and that’s an issue. (Here is a real world example of how these ideas can manifest: Evergreen College Protests).

Because this theory strongly emphasises group identity, particularly identities it deems marginalised, posts like one I recently saw for Women’s day that promoted “Fat, Trans, Poor, Disabled, Indigenous” women make much more sense and have emerged out of a desire to “subvert” the power of the “dominant” group- which I assume would be ‘white cis-gendered, able bodied wealthy women’ that they might suggest have been the dominant group too long.

Theology 2. Critical Theory

Marx (Karl, that is) defined critical theory as the “self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age” and this theory has been the focus of “several generations of philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2023) Critical theory (something I don’t enjoy) is totally different from critical thinking (something I enjoy). Critical theory is a “marxist- inspired” academic theory, and a “primary goal” is to “understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed” (Britannica). Sounds great, in theory.

Here’s my (not comprehensive) list of reasons I find both intersectionality and critical theory deeply flawed (I will refer to these as the New Theologies from now on, as they makes inherently theological claims about the world, and function as a religious system. Especially when they become a hybrid beast mixed together, which is often what happens).

A Therapeutic Perspective

I do not believe conceptualising one another through a lense of rigid social categories is the most accurate (or useful) way to understand and relate to one another.

This framework is not conducive to mental flourishing for anybody, because:

These categories cause division regardless of where on the hierarchy you’re conceptualised to be. You are either boxed as oppressed and the implication is there are faults in others (and systems) that should be blamed for your life (therefore fostering an entitlement, resentment, and an outward, externalised expectation that others fix what is wrong, or that evil/ badness is “out there” somewhere in systems, which calls for external action like protesting) or that you’re privileged -by no choice of your own - and therefore by implication find yourself higher on the hierarchy (what an arrogant conceptualisation- ‘Sorry, due to my whiteness, I am up here and you are down there.’ I have no idea how that concept alone is not recognised as an inherently a racist position). Being higher on the hierarchy, according to those use subscribe to this theory, you face a life of apology, listening (you’ve had your time in the spotlight so shut up), and sense of responsibility for your entire race, class etc.

From a therapeutic perspective, neither message is helpful to internalise, or conducive to human flourishing (and the pushback I might get on this idea is that these ideas are not designed to shame anyone, and that this theory is really about addressing discrimination and real issues, and my pushback against that is I’m sorry, you don’t get to control how people hear and apply/ distort these concepts, and they are causing shame, division and confusion wherever they’re preached, and breeding an extremely unhealthy activism culture where entitlement and anti social behaviour reign).

The importance of personal responsibility and a sense of agency is completely neglected in this framework which I believe are important concepts for mental wellbeing. What therapist would encourage someone to look outward to blame others, or encourage someone to focus on what is happening “out there” rather than looking to address issues within themselves. What therapist would encourage someone to problematise and nit-pick their relationships and encourage rigid categorising?
I was asking a rhetorical question above, but I do have an observation to make: that these theories do indeed seem to prey on those (mental health professionals included) who believe themselves to be on the side of the oppressed and think themselves virtuous. These theologies take advantage of our better human impulses to seek justice (a noble idea). There may indeed be mental health professionals who are exactly like the therapist I described above. I saw an instagram post from a psychology clinic locally that mentioned “patriarchy” “exists within all of us” as an internal system and that we need to “fight this system” we must “recognise subtle power” and “resist the patriarchy,” and another post that claimed that “people who insist on the preservation of the cis-hereto (that means: not transgender, and not gay) gender binary” really wish to “preserve an arbitrary heirarchy from which they benefit” There are legitimate mental health organisations for whom these ideas are orthodoxy, and to question these ideas would not only be blasphemous but potentially career- jeopardising. It needs to be brought to attention and discussed, because no orthodoxy is above criticism.

Religious Dogma

These conceptual frameworks function as a worldview and a religious belief system (and these theories can be quite hostile to other faith systems, or ‘organised religion’ in fact) though these ideas do not market themselves that way. These are far more dogmatic and unquestionable ideas than any faith-based ideas I’ve ever encountered.
These theologies also make philosophical and pseudo religious claims about the nature of reality, the nature of humanity (envisioning some groups are guilty and others are virtuous simply based on whether they fit a narrow oppressed or oppressor binary) and they presuppose an understanding of reality that directly undermines the worldview of many people of faith.
These theologies borrow important religious concepts (that are legitimate and should be addressed, let me be clear about that) including justice, oppression, penance, sin, evil and redemption (let me again state: important).
The new theologies attempt to address these ideas in ways that foster resentment and envy, over- emphasising differences and placing unnecessary burdens and guilt on those deemed as ‘sinful’. They ignore other equally important religious ideas including the cultivation of personal virtues, forgiveness and grace, among other things.
These new theologies burden people with the need to engage in penance for “sins” they haven’t actually committed (by virtue of their group, they are complicit) and overlook “sins” they personally might actually be responsible for (If we are talking religious belief systems and theologies of “sin”, I want to suggest that Christianity, the worldview with which I am most familiar, is MUCH more gracious and MUCH more realistic about the nature of “sin” and offers much kinder options for how ‘sin’ is to be addressed…as well as a path to redemption, and I for one would much prefer the Christian view of sin and its answers for healing and redemption than anything these new theologies offer).
These movements have their prophets and priests - academic theorists who make a bucketload from visiting institutions to spread their ideas (Robin Diangelo and Ibram X Kendi come to mind, and there are many more).

Other flaws

It has built in mechanisms to self insulate and shield against criticism (eg “white people will resist this idea so be ready for that” “You're just speaking from your privilege when you critique these ideas”) and that is a problem.
It’s not aware of its own blind spots

I suggest that adherents to this worldview struggle to conceptualise legitimate alternative worldviews (and there are always going to be alternative worldviews)

This worldview is presumptuous about others (I cannot assume an experience of oppression or privilege based on somebody’s skin colour and it is an arrogant starting point to make such assumptions about others).

Intersectionality in particular views power as central to the human experience and is overly focussed on problematising power and hierarchies. I believe power is amoral and neither power nor hierarchies are inherently oppressive in and of themselves (for example, someone in a position of power can absolutely use that power for good and is not immediately an oppressor, and power or leadership does not inherently mean there is something wrong or that that leader is immediately immoral. Teachers know more than their students, for example, so there’s a “power imbalance” and a hierarchy of teacher and student, and that is just a fact to respect, not a problematic issue to correct)
Intersectionality is grounded in standpoint epistomology, and gives excessive weight to individual experiences, as well as assigning perceived morality based on standpoint (eg those in power = immoral, those who are oppressed= virtuous). I believe objective truth exists regardless of how it is perceived by any one individual. One’s standing in society (or chosen / immutable identity marker) does not determine what is true- their experiences are important, but should be called what they are- experiences (which are inherently subjective).

The Use Of Language

Critical theory in particular uses cult like language as a way to infiltrate the common imagination and has an excessive focus on destruction, including “dismantling” “disrupting” “subverting” “deconstructing” “demarginalising” “desupremifying” “dominant discourses,” and problematising (finding to sins) the following: “patriarchy” “whiteness” “heteronormativity” or in fact any concept of “normative” (ie. mum and dad and a nuclear family structure for example, or monogamy), with very little thought given to what comes next after everything has been dismantled. I have not seen literature focussed on reconstruction of a positive vision of society (which seems to be an indication of an ill thought through belief system that has yet to be put to the test). We may realise too late we’ve destroyed the very component parts of our society that promote social cohesion, flourishing and stability.

There’s also the issue of redefining of words that were once commonly understood (racism used to be understood as prejudice against another based on race, but within this system racism is defined power + privilege, meaning if you’re poor, a minority or non-white in the West, you cannot be racist, as you’re seen as powerless, even if you hold extremely prejudicial attitudes towards other races).

The Drawing

The social fabric (where these ideas take root) is being unravelled, and destroyed. It’s not done in secret, it’s done in the open, it’s discussed in academic papers and literature. We are told exactly what the goals are.

-To disrupt and subvert (insert whatever the sin / system is, which changes, gets redefined, and new evils are uncovered at every turn, so this never reaches an end goal where the work of dismantling is finished)

Bad ideas are drawn as broken lightbulbs. The capes are my fairly sarcastic comment that these ideas position themselves as the saviour of all woes, that they are saving others / the world and somehow heroic and I strongly reject that.
The boxes are the rigid social categorising of others in this system. I have never seen these ideas be used to bridge gaps, cross divides, offer grace, or seek to understand others. I have seen them be weaponised, turn regular people into self described activists, I have seen these ideas contribute to groupthink and the mentality of “us” vs “them” more than ever, and I think it has caused some of the deep rifts and ideological divisions that are plaguing many countries (in the West, at least. These are very Western ideas).
The window is my alternative to ripping the social fabric. This is a source of real hope, of light. There is needle and thread offered to restore and repair the fabric. A better goal. A love across differences that covers a ‘multitude of sins’ which we can offer one another (at least on the individual level). A light that does abhor oppression and does illuminate the dark and call for righteousness. It cares about truth. This light did not originate with Crenshaw, Diangelo or Kendi.

To Close

Phew. You’ve made it. Straightforward stuff? You’ve done well.

I want to make a caveat that it would be quite easy to want to overcorrect on these things and swing the other way, and cringe when even hearing the overused phrase ‘social justice’

BUT.

These theories, like all half truths, have some basis in the truth. Oppression does exist. I was privileged to grow up in a two-parent, loving household where mum and dad were present, able to care for me and provide what I needed. I am privileged to belong to a faith that models bridging divides of difference, where I go to church every week with people of various ages, abilities, cultural backgrounds, and life experiences. I have a great community. These things are ‘privileges’ to some, and are also what mental health professionals might call protective factors that contribute to great mental health.

I am aware, though, that things are not fair or just in our society, because where there are flawed (sinful) people, there are flawed systems. This speaks to the deep, inherent truth that life is not fair. There’s the sense that something is not right. Our world seems a bit broken. We are all seeking ways to make meaning, feel like we belong, and find purpose.

I see issues worth addressing too (I wouldn’t have become a therapist if I didn’t care about these things, and desire to work in the midst of complicated issues). I just fundamentally reject the way these issues are defined within both intersectional theory and critical theory, and the methods being used to address them. I also don’t think we need these academic theories (one developed in 1989, the other with a slightly longer and more complex origin story) to help us recognise that Things Are Not Right.

We absolutely should strive for justice, to ‘set captives free’, as well as work to cultivate our own personal virtues (which has the flow on effect of improving the world around us), and we should absolutely repent of our sins when we are guilty of them.

We need to be careful with our definitions of all of these things, and be careful not to become bound to dogmatic worldviews and ideas that offer us no hope, lead us further and further away from one another, and have no in-built mechanism to self-evaluate their own flaws. These ideas will not slow down until the fabric is ripped to pieces.

If you read this and identify as intersectional or subscribe to critical theories, I have the following questions:

-In what ways is intersectionality a stabilising force for good in society?

-Does intersectionality or critical theory allow for criticism of it’s weaknesses?

-When does the work of ‘dismantling’ end, or go too far? Is there a too far? What is the metric by which that is measured?

-What were the answers for oppression and sin before Marx was born?

-What were the answers to address societal issues before Crenshaw theorised intersectionality in 1989?

--What effect does intersectional theory / critical theory have on interpersonal/ social relationships?

-Is the development of personal character (honour, integrity) important within these theories? Why/ why not?

-Who are the leaders/ heroes and villains within these theories, and why?

-In what ways do these theories build bridges across differences?

-Are there ever any other acceptable explanations for social difference other than nefarious power imbalances?

-Is truth (objective truth) important within these theories? Is subjective truth more valued/ important? Why/ why not?

-How are these theories conducive to social cohesion and mentally healthy societies (I would love to hear about that)?

Sources

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory

Part One: The Evergreen Equity Council: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk&t=1545s

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/#CritTheoToda

Victorian Government: https://www.vic.gov.au/understanding-intersectionality

Vox.com: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination