But there is yet another way to read this: "disrupt" is a jarring word. A word of "action" if you will. Even if it comes from a Marxist training it itself does not imply "Marxism and forced communalism will follow".
I rather assume it is a statement meant to be forceful and active while still retaining that je ne c'est qua of the "radical".
Trying to bring social justice concerns to a conservative audience has been my "thing" for the past four years. How we use language in a way that doesn't immediately alienate people is one of my major interests, since we're dealing with genuine cultural differences between groups that distrust each other. If we want conservatives onboard, we need to learn how to talk to them, which means less ideological rhetoric.
If we don't want conservatives (or classical liberals) talking constructively about race, then writing manifestos with Marxist rhetoric is perfectly acceptable, but if they read them and flip out, I really don't think that the fault is on their side.
Also, on dit "
je ne sais quoi."
Agreed, the Right goes a bit overboard with overinterpretting statements. And you are correct, those striving for radical social change often speak more stridently. And of course "modern erudition" seems to call for overwrought language. I don't see it as a sign to "stay away", I just see it as a sign of people ramping up for a long struggle in hopes of major change within their lifetimes. And that's kind of daunting.
For me, it's not about being daunted. It's about underlying issues with the type of social theory that is written all across that website. For example, I have problems with the concept of "intersectionality" that come from having a feminist background. Because of the way oppression is conceptualized in a hierarchical list of group identities, violence against women only matters when the perpetrator is of an equal or higher social status. Otherwise, it is typically downplayed and women are tossed under the bus. Sometimes we feminists even toss ourselves under the bus in the service of other causes, possibly because we're still socialized to think of ourselves as less important.
I know critical social theory quite well. I have seen too much, from the abusive nonsense that goes on at feminist websites like Jezebel, where men can be perfectly reasonable and insightful and still be accused of "mansplaining," to being attacked once myself by critical race theorists for having a somewhat different theory of sexual assault. I have other issues as well, like the way that members of minority groups who are not viewed as sufficiently progressive are demonized, and then attacked by those who have privilege over them. For people of color, this often ends up looking like left wing colonialism, and for women, it takes on a misogynistic character. I consider this as racist and sexist as much of what happens on the right, so when I see people running with the sort of ideological language that leads to it, I know to stay away.
That said, I do think that Black Lives Matter does some good work and I wish them success in increasing the visibility of racial issues. I'm happy to listen to them and I think some of the attacks on them are unwarranted and likely based in racism. At the same time, their website makes their ideology very clear, and it's an ideology I actually find oppressive because of the way that race and gender intersect. After spending the last century or so fighting to no longer be perceived as a mere helpmeet, the quiet, supportive subservience of "allyship" is something I would rather do without.
I prefer to support groups like the
Poor People's Campaign... I don't agree 100%, but I literally never agree with anyone 100%. I'm just happy to see the religious left on the move again, black church front and center.
