This is JK Rowling's 2020 post, for anyone who's not aware -
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/...ns-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
American sociologist Evan Stark wrote a book called
Coercive Control and was in Ireland explaining it a couple of years ago to relevant bodies working on changing the law to include it as a crime, since done. He's been influencing policy like that around the world. During his career, he provided expert court testimony for women who'd killed their partners in cases where they'd been tortured and went over the brink. He also has a trans son yet both are sympathetic in certain respects to JK Rowling's views.
I feel there are quite a few overlapping assertions and phenomena at play here that challenge at least my overall grasp, so looking again at more of Evan Stark's comments around that time might help. See what you think.
He argues for the primacy of sex/gender and race alongside traditional notions of labour as the principal category of valorisation in modern society. He got the impression much of the criticism of JK Rowling was about her purportedly relying more on a victim story rather than taking responsibility for what she said, and her analysing with a brand of feminism which sees women in history as something more than individuals,
Within the Marxist tradition, he says it's the 'structuralists' (like Foucault and Crenshaw) who are anti-subjective and who basically posit that identity/experience is a function of one's 'location' (hence an 'intersection), not an identity or any such.
Race theorists--some of whom like Kimberly he mainly agrees with-- also address the refugee 'invasion' of Europe. The fact that various groups because of their sexual orientation or ethnicity or handicap are claiming privileged positions in politics has, as far as he's concerned, nothing to do with the theory of intersectionality, though they may cite it as their rationale to gain a foothold.
Intersectionality, according to him, means locating yourself politically along the continuum of exploitation and mounting resistance accordingly.'Identity' here is not a particular subjectivity' (e..g 'Afro-Queer') or a sociological category (black, gay, male) but a political stance vis a vis particular rights claims and general alliances. He's hopeful that history-for the next few decades at least --is moving in this direction.
So is he agreeing many people are putting too much energy into the wrong fights? Or not? I like how much thought he's put into all this, which I respect, along with his experience, and his willingness to countenance and debate different views.
He agrees that it has not easy to articulate a unifying vision or theory, in part because recent crises are impacting so many different groups in such devastating ways. But the answer is not to tell people who have suddenly got their voice to stand back because its not their turn to make history. His intersectionality means first, recognizing the basis on which people come together (such as the huge Black Lives Matter protests in 2020). Through these organic voluntary shared actions will come ideas on how the prevailing forms of injustice, inequality and climate disaster can be overcome.
I like his take anyway.: )
