in defense of essentialism



mainstream life today in the USA is seething and boiling with almost totally unexamined sexual politics. the state of the world is ripe for anti-patriarchal change but i think before we can move into these changes we're going to need to get our heads out of marginal word games and into the real life sexual politics of our family members and friends and neighbors and co-workers. there is so much valuable and interesting anti-sexist and anti-patriarchal work and research to be done that can never get done with just a tiny fringe movement. as activists we can theorize about "socially constructed classifications" all we want but i don't see the point.

tyranny is wrong not because it invents categories that don't exist. tyranny is wrong because it's tyrannical. so for example, we oppose gay-bashing not because we want anyone to believe that gender is fluid. we oppose gay-bashing because it is a brutal violation of human rights. we oppose white supremacy not because we want anyone to believe that race is a social construction. we oppose it because it is oppression. i think that's crucial. one problem with a lot of the talk about everything as "social construction" is that it often seems to be trying to sort of smarty pants our way out of oppression. as though white supremacists and patriarchs will get confused and not know who to oppress because suddenly they're like stoned on "social construction" ambiguity or something. let's be serious. this is not going to happen.

do we try to convince the heads of corporations that wealth and power are "social constructions"? no. in fact, we do not talk to those people at all and that makes sense. we talk to each other. and when we talk to each other we talk about how we are going to solve our problem. and we don't mince words.

there are very major problems with prioritizing gender theory in anti-patriarchy work. if we behave as though it is necessary for us to prove that there is no essential difference between men and women before we can oppose patriarchy, the anti-patriarchy movement is going to stall. and i think that is more or less what has happened. i think the same dynamic and problem exists in movements opposing white supremacy. there are major problems.

personally, being non-white i find that white people blur racial lines in order to invalidate non-white identities a lot more often than they blur them to confront white supremacy. why is that? in fact i don't even really see how blurring racial lines could be a threat to white supremacy. white people aren't winding up in any blurry middle. furthermore most non-white people i know feel uncomfortable when white people start talking about not being racist anyway.

'sallydarity' wrote: "no amount of emphasizing the reality that we are not so different, that categories are and can be blurred, etc. is to undermine the fight against patriarchy or white supremacy, etc"

let's break this down a little. what does 'patriarchy' mean? doesn't it mean 'rule by men'? now that wouldn't be too meaningful if we called the whole category 'men' into question now would it? what does 'white supremacy' mean? doesn't it mean 'rule by whites'? now that wouldn't be too meaningful if we called the whole category 'white' into question now would it? do you get my point? how are we going to oppose tyranny if we can't even meaningfully name what we oppose? keep in mind that we are the only ones who are accepting these "social construction" theories. so while we have lost the ability to identify what ails us, the sexists and racists have no problem at all identifying their friends and their enemies (us).

are white people maintaining their control in order to convince non-white people that race is real? no. if non-white people convince themselves that race is not real, will white supremacy end? no. are men maintaining their control in order to convince women that gender distinctions are real? no. if women convince themselves that gender is fluid, will patriarchy end? no.

as i said before, "none of this means that the rights of sexual and gender minorities should not be passionately fought for and defended". what it does mean is that we should carefully examine any new intellectual basis that is asserted in the name of defending anybody and of course we should reject those new ideas if they are inconsistent with our values. but either way, of course our defense of oppressed people must continue until the oppression is over.

---

note 1)

sexism and racism and gender oppression are morally wrong because they are oppressive, not because there is anything factually wrong or morally wrong about genetic difference per se or about "social constructions". as has been mentioned several times in this thread, one essential difference between women and men is that women gestate and men impregnate. an essential difference between white and non-white people has not been mentioned here. according to Dr Frances Cress Welsing, one such essential difference is that "all non-white people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people". there is nothing morally wrong about the existence of these or other essential differences between women and men, or between white and non-white people. but there is, of course, real oppression, both now and historically, that is perpetrated on the basis of these and other essential differences. of course there are also "social constructions" that are the basis for real oppression both now and historically, and once again it is the oppression that is unacceptable here. the "social constructions" underlying the oppression may be anything but they are not necessarily oppressive or wrong in and of themselves. for example, some gender oppression is perpetrated on the basis of a socially constructed distinction between butch and femme. we oppose that oppression because it is oppressive, not because we oppose butch and femme as legitimate or illegitimate categories.

..