The far left often misses how multi-dimensional concepts like diversity or privilege are
I think you are confusing the shallow tribal identity groups with weak ideological consciousness on the left with the far left; the complex multidimensional nature of diversity and privilege is pretty much the core of intersectionality, which is a pretty key concept for the left, especially (much of) the far left.
Or you're talking about the narrowly economic faction of the far left that sees non-class identity largely as a distraction from class issues, with diversity as a non-issue, and all privilege and discrimination boiling down to class warfare. But even they don't really miss multidimensionality, they just see the multidimensionality as a multipronged distraction.
I am referring to the way many on the far left speak of intersectionality as a number of diversity or victimhood points to be tallied. The truth is, like many multivariate functions, more complex.
Here is an example. Being male is not a privilege for a young black man being stopped by a police officer in the United States. On the contrary, it greatly increases the odds he will soon be unjustly killed.
Similarly, being Jewish may well be a privilege for a wealthy London banker, but is just as easily a death sentence for anyone, including an elite, in Lebanon over the past 25 years.
I am referring to the way many on the far left speak of intersectionality as a number of diversity or victimhood points to be tallied.
IME, to the extent that occurs, that's not at all typical of the far left, but (to the extent it happens at all), the weakly-ideology tribal-identity left.
Here is an example. Being male is not a privilege for a young black man being stopped by a police officer in the United States.
It actually is in some ways; the ways gender interacts with race in that scenario is complex.
On the contrary, it greatly increases the odds he will soon be unjustly killed.
It greatly increases the chance of being unjustly subject to non-sexual violence by the police; OTOH, it very much seems to (though numbers are much harder to come by) greatly decrease the chance of being subject to sexual violence by the police. Now, police sexual assault gets less attention (for many of the same reasons sexual assault more generally doesn't, regarding publicity being retraumatizing for victims, etc.), But it's a serious issue, with significant racial aspects, too.
Yes, it's the more tribally motivated who take more simplistic views. Your comment actually highlights my point by adding another dimension to the example.
Also, I should admit it's difficult to tell who is further left than whom these days. The political spectrum itself is very multi-dimensional once one abandons the lens of a specific tribe. One must look no further than the reactions to Maajid Nawaz to see a prime example.
Most intersectionality can be seen as simplistic statistical modeling that has flaws (such as male not being a benefit whenever the legal system is involved). I don't actually think the theory is wrong, but I do think the current models are way too simple and more often than not picked not for their correctness but their usefulness in achieving political goals.
Comments
I think you are confusing the shallow tribal identity groups with weak ideological consciousness on the left with the far left; the complex multidimensional nature of diversity and privilege is pretty much the core of intersectionality, which is a pretty key concept for the left, especially (much of) the far left.
Or you're talking about the narrowly economic faction of the far left that sees non-class identity largely as a distraction from class issues, with diversity as a non-issue, and all privilege and discrimination boiling down to class warfare. But even they don't really miss multidimensionality, they just see the multidimensionality as a multipronged distraction.
I am referring to the way many on the far left speak of intersectionality as a number of diversity or victimhood points to be tallied. The truth is, like many multivariate functions, more complex.
Here is an example. Being male is not a privilege for a young black man being stopped by a police officer in the United States. On the contrary, it greatly increases the odds he will soon be unjustly killed.
Similarly, being Jewish may well be a privilege for a wealthy London banker, but is just as easily a death sentence for anyone, including an elite, in Lebanon over the past 25 years.
IME, to the extent that occurs, that's not at all typical of the far left, but (to the extent it happens at all), the weakly-ideology tribal-identity left.
It actually is in some ways; the ways gender interacts with race in that scenario is complex.
It greatly increases the chance of being unjustly subject to non-sexual violence by the police; OTOH, it very much seems to (though numbers are much harder to come by) greatly decrease the chance of being subject to sexual violence by the police. Now, police sexual assault gets less attention (for many of the same reasons sexual assault more generally doesn't, regarding publicity being retraumatizing for victims, etc.), But it's a serious issue, with significant racial aspects, too.
Yes, it's the more tribally motivated who take more simplistic views. Your comment actually highlights my point by adding another dimension to the example.
Also, I should admit it's difficult to tell who is further left than whom these days. The political spectrum itself is very multi-dimensional once one abandons the lens of a specific tribe. One must look no further than the reactions to Maajid Nawaz to see a prime example.
Most intersectionality can be seen as simplistic statistical modeling that has flaws (such as male not being a benefit whenever the legal system is involved). I don't actually think the theory is wrong, but I do think the current models are way too simple and more often than not picked not for their correctness but their usefulness in achieving political goals.
Agreed. In many ways complexity is the enemy of politics.