Since these systems are not codified within law, intersectionality asserts that they exist in the psyche of culture. The researcher takes a single act of sexism or racism and then overlays a philosophical ideology onto it namely that the world is intentionally ordered for certain groups to have power or privilege and that other groups have no access to this privilege and power. The way I try to understand the interconnection of all forms of subordination is through a method I call ‘ask the other question.’ When I see something that looks racist, I ask, ‘Where is the patriarchy in this?’ When I see something that looks sexist, I ask, ‘Where is the heterosexism in this?’ When I see something that looks homophobic, I ask, ‘Where are the class interests in this?’ (Matsuda, 1991: 1189) Mari Matsuda explains how this concept can be used as a tool of critical analysis: In intersectionality, these are not just descriptors but refer to statuses of power or oppression. Each person has in himself or herself an intersection of identities-I am a white, European, protestant, educated and middle class male. Intersectionality is concerned with power. The first analytical tool she uses is intersectional analysis. This essay wants to show the reader what analytical tools Du Mez uses and how she shares her political ideology as fact, so that the reader can decide whether her analysis is valid. Both the analytical tools she (mis)uses and her opinions guarantee the shocking ‘truths’ that she finds. If that is what you are assuming in reading this book, you will be sadly disappointed.ĭe Muz uses evangelical history secondarily, as a narrative framework to insert her ideology.
Readers are assuming that this is a historical reconstruction akin to what one might read in a history book this would include interviews, dealing with the worldview of those involved as they themselves would articulate it, clear signifiers when conjecture and opinion are inserted, and an evenhanded approach that is fair. I decided to write about her book because she gets to the ‘truth’ by non-traditional means of analysis. This ‘trade’ began at the beginning of the 20 th century and, according to Du Mez, is the reason why Donald Trump was a natural ‘next step’ for evangelicals. The main argument of her book is that (white) evangelicals traded traditional notions of Christianity for a violent, patriarchal, nationalistic and masculine faith, a false faith. It is the first serious look at evangelicalism and its alignment with Donald Trump. She is a Calvin professor and her book has caused quite a stir. I am almost finished with, Jesus and John Wayne, by Kristin Kobes Du Mez.
0 kommentar(er)
