Overall the feedback I have received from my last entry was positive. Generally, all of the comments agreed that they found the text’s structure and my writing style (as a way of communicating theory) very approachable. A lot of the comments remarked that it was refreshing to read about theorists and artists that they hadn’t red or heard of before. For instance Virginia Medina, BA Modern Languages graduate, commented: “I have been writing my own essays for the past few months feeling like an intellectual of sorts, and then I red this and felt shocked and asked myself: Why didn’t I know any of the people you mention in this? Why don’t we give these authors as much importance? I have so much to think about now”. As well, some of the readers were very interested on the links between capitalism, the Caribbean and gender politics and found the historical aspect of it very interesting . Hajra, whom I have interviewed earlier on the program, found it relatable and made a connection with South Asian culture in the context of patriarchy and colonialism.
That being said , I did receive more critical feedback from my colleague and ex alumni Tiare Gatti Mora, Spanish journalist and political militant. As someone who works in the field I found some of her feedback quite helpful.
She said:
“Intersectionality needs to be divided between the premise and how it actually operates. The premise of intersectionality I agree with and I think its fundamentally true universalism, however the practice (at least the most hegemonic intersectionalists, specially in the US and the UK ) is basically bourgeois identitarianism quite honestly. I do not support the idea that the way that we have to do politics is either looking at who is saying what. I do not really think that matters , I think its about the content and not the identity of the person saying it, so in terms of your first point about ‘listening to voices that embody the given identities and that are alive right now’ I just fundamentally disagree that that’s important whatsoever. I do not think its important at all to be honest. If anything the most important things I think is that the people who are getting to speak up are not bourgeois, which is a massive issue right now, and that does not even feature in your essay. I think I can’t really see class, I think for most of the essay that is undermined. I personally don’t think that the problem is you having focused on Foucault or not having looked into more knish people that are working currently, I think the problem is actually Foucault and post-modern analysis. I think we have to go back to Marxist analysis fundamentally because is the most useful way to give us a better chance at uniting the working class against capital and finding a solution to the root problem for all. On top of that, I definitely do agree with the part about capitalism being inseparable from patriarchy, colonialism , racism, etc., I think they are part of each other but I don’t think they can be compared. I think capitalism is the thing that the other things exists for. So is not like people are just bad and they wanna be racist and they wanna be sexists, is that capital creates racism and sexism in order to justify exploitation, so they are not the same. This is the point that I wanted to make about intersectionality, which is that we disregard everything as the same, gender, class, race… they’re not the same, they all have the same root as you said it yourself, but class is significantly more relevant than the other branches of oppression. So I think that’s another huge flaw of intersectionality, on top of it being ,as a premise, correct because universalism needs to be truly universal, but the way intersectionality plays out is not truly universal , its literally the opposite of that, its ironically completely punitive , and I think its kind of racist because it makes non-white people get portrayed as these sanctified, victimized community that can do no wrong. I find this endlessly frustrating for people in the Global South who are having to deal with horrible dictators and leaders who are not white. It is also extremely bourgeois because it is predominantly in academia and goes around in endless circles that are actually quite obvious and show a lot of contempt for “normal people” because not everyone has the same access to academic vocabulary. So these are the reasons why I think this is an approach that isn’t going anywhere, specially within the Anglo-Saxon context.
I also do not think is a good idea to use the term Latinx, mainly because I wonder if a working class person who literally needs to be thinking about what they’re going to eat that night: How happy are they going to be about having to use that term or understand what the term means? Or older people who are not university folk and are just trying to get through and haven’t had the time to learn this type of obscure wording? I do not think it’s a priority at all and I do not think it is a term that works outside university spaces.”
After her feedback I also came up with a few reflections:
In the one hand, the way intersectionality operates in the US and UK is very different from Latin America and the Caribbean. I don’t really think we can talk about intersectionality in the Latin American context the same way is talked about in the West, because structurally is very different and, actually, the class element plays a major role into it. Authors such as Antonio Benítez Rojo explain that, but I still do not possess enough information. I would love to explore this further and research deeper into it so to give a more detailed answer.
Also, I would like to point out that although I find intersectionality quite interesting as a theory, I do not think of it as “the ultimate life-saving theory”. It has a lot to work on, specially because ,as Tiare mentions, it can become quite superficial and easily misused. I do not even think of intersectionality so much as a theory but more so as a word that simply remarks the undeniable connections between these issues. I am more interested about its practice than its theoretical undergoings, as it allows me to visualize and materialize the connections between race gender and class amongst other things. I absolutely agree with Tiare’s point of Intersectionality being predominantly academic and therefore not being accessible enough in terms of vocabulary or prior knowledge. However, I think it is precisely for this reason why we should read authors who are less prevalent in those discourses like Patricia Hill Collins, because these texts are more current and approachable, and definitely more relatable to the average public. This issue of Intersectionality being too academic is portrayed in both books I mentioned in my essay , Intersectionality: An Intellectual History and Marxism and Intersectionality : Race, Gender, Class and Sexuality under Contemporary Capitalism . As well , Patricia Hill Collins encourages us to think of intersectionality not as theory but as action.
On the other hand, I do not think that in any part of my essay I claim that patriarchy, capitalism and colonialism are the same thing, but rather that they all share the same historical root. So if these systems are inseparable, as Tiare remarks, How could we not compare them? For instance, I personally believe that solving the class issue can definitely help with other issues of racism or gender inequality, but it is not going to magically fix centuries of its perpetuation. Famous Cuban filmmaker from the 60s and 70s Sarita Gómez denounces this issue past the Cuban revolution, after which everyone had equal rights to decent housing, education, nourishment and health yet racial and gender gaps were (and are) still worryingly present and often dismissed by the institutions.
It is true that in this piece of writing I haven’t touched upon the issue of class as straightforwardly. I wanted to concentrate on historical roots and it was my mistake to assume that the issue of class was implied in the text, as my personal perspective is predominantly working class.
I do not think that any of the authors I’ve mentioned or I’ve researched victimize or sanctify POC or minority communities, and although it is a possibility that some might do so, to my account is not the majority. On the contrary, for example I mentioned in my essay Aurora Levins Morales’s and Rosario Morales’s remarks on their fellow Puerto Rican women being the worst enemy sometimes when it comes to patriarchal violence.
On a personal level, I became politically engaged because of authors such us C.L.R James, Franz Fanon, Aimeé Cesaire and Angela Davis. Therefore within my personal political militancy the racial and gender aspects are extremely important if not key. That being said, I am no expert on political theory nor I intend to be. My area of expertise is Art, which can be very political, but is still Art, and for now on I would like to focus on that.
In regards to the term Latinx I do agree with Tiare’s view to a certain extend, and I do believe that in my essay I was not clear enough with my intentions in regards to the term. I do not have any fixed opinions on the use of Latinx because, as I said, it is fairly recent. I mainly see it as a catalyst for inclusivity, but that can also have its downfalls. My research has shown me that younger generations of Latin Americans have claimed the term as a way of stablishing a certain sense of community. I think that’s beautiful and find a lot of potentiality in that. Nevertheless, it is not the most accessible term, specially for older generations and people outside social media circles.
My main goal is to make Art and Ideas accessible to everyone , therefore I have decided to reformulate my research question once more :
‘How can the artistic exploration of class, gender, sexuality and race help reclaim subjectivity within Latam diaspora and immigrant youths?’