Our discussion about privilege, both as they relate to the ideas of Lorde and McIntosh, discuss privilege as a primary factor in effective feminist organizing.
This week, progressive online and print publication The Nation, published a four page long piece (that also served as the cover story of their magazine) that parrots the classic White Feminist rebuttal to the criticism that they face from people of color during dialogue on Twitter. In short, they claim that by criticizing the ignorance and lack of inclusivity often perpetuated by white feminists, marginalized feminists on Twitter, they are creating a “toxic” environment that is unconducive to the feminist movement as a whole.
The ongoing criticism of white, privileged feminists by otherwise marginalized voices on Twitter is not “toxic;” It’s necessary.
Twitter is a vital platform for marginalized voices that don’t have access to a more “legitimate” or high profile publishing platform. During introductions at the beginning of the semester, I would get an unwanted laugh from the class when I mentioned that I was a regular consumer of feminist dialogue on Twitter. I found this extremely frustrating because in a liberal arts environment overpopulated by white privilege, the idea that I could find any valuable academic information on Twitter, as opposed to in a book or journal article, was apparently laughable.
At least in terms of Twitter, this is perhaps the largest way that I have experienced privilege silencing not only the legitimacy of these voices in themselves, but also their ability to shared with others through an intermediary. By not acknowledging the inherent privilege that many white feminist writers have in their ability to obtain a publishing platform that is viewed as “legitimate” by most media consumers, we cannot even begin to explain to those same consumers why Twitter is so crucial for marginalized voices.
Because women of color, trans, and queer people don’t have the same opportunities to gain “legitimate” visibility in the media, they take to Twitter. This allows for them to steer their own dialogue while interacting with others. Additionally, it allows them to interact more effectively with other people whose issues and experiences align with theirs, making any subsequent thought more informed.
Thinking that this makes the information, which is typically included with resources and references, as less important or valid, is toxic to the maintenance and growth of the online feminist movement.
Calling out privilege for the sake of intersectionality, however, really isn’t.
I have included links to some of my favorite feminist writers on Twitter, who you should all definitely check out. They speak on a variety of different issues but all have extremely interesting things to say about privilege.
#FollowFriday
2. Suey Park, @suey_park, #NotYourAsianSidekick
3. Mikki Kendall, @Karnythia #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen
4. Sarah Kendzior, @sarahkendzior
5. Ayesha A. Siddiqi, @pushinghoops
I disagree, but neither do I think that criticism necessarily produces a toxic environment.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I think your implication in the following quote is unjustified:
“I found this extremely frustrating because in a liberal arts environment overpopulated by white privilege, the idea that I could find any valuable academic information on Twitter, as opposed to in a book or journal article, was apparently laughable.”
You seem to imply here that the reason your admission got some laughs is a result of the fact that Rhodes is mostly white. I think this is unjustified. Twitter is not an academic journal and therefore does not deserve to be perceived as one. An analogous situation involves Wikipedia. This resource is widely regarded as unreliable because of the nature of its content. I would argue that Twitter is similar in that people can say whatsoever they want to say without putting thought into their words, and without having their thoughts peer-reviewed. I would even go so far to assume that some people simply want to cause chaos and drama and watch the world burn—the behavior I am referring to is called “trolling” if you are familiar with it. If Wikipedia was your source, people would question it because of its unreliability. I think the same goes for Twitter. Twitter is a social media outlet just like Facebook. Twitter also has connotations of appealing to people who are obsessed with expressing themselves with regard to even the most trivial of events, such as announcing to the world that you are eating McDonalds. Twitter is generally viewed as bits of random social expressions and shout-outs. I think the contrast between “how seriously you view Twitter” and “the general perception of Twitter and it the kind of content it allows for” were the sources of the laugh you received. I do not think the laugh was racially motivated or motivated by privilege.
That said, I do see the bind you are trying to present, and I do not think you are wrong to assume that privilege is involved with the acceptance of academic work or general expression in the media. However, does that justify Twitter as legitimate academic source? I am not sure that such a claim can be made about Twitter. On the other hand, a claim that Twitter provides a setting for anyone, especially disadvantaged groups, to express themselves—and that for this reason it should not simply be shrugged off as if it is not such a setting—seems appropriate. However, I think you intended to claim more of an academic authority for Twitter. Even if you accept the second claim I proposed, you still have to figure out how to sift through all the useless social information that people put on Twitter and determine which information is not the voice of some "troll."
The fact that you're negating the idea that valuable intellectual information can be (and IS) shared on Twitter because it can also be used for extremely trivial expression is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The two are not mutually exclusive and to think so is indicative of the type of privileged thinking that I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteUntil we make a case that Twitter can be (and IS) used as a legitimate space for intellectual discussion, the idea that it's only for trolls and people eating McDonalds will continue to be perpetuated and damage the intellectual environment that marginalized communities and other activists have made for themselves there.
I understand. Individuals can have important intellectual conversations anywhere. What matters are the minds producing the conversations not where they are taking place. Well... actually, its the arguments that matter. Strict separation of the two was not a point I intended to make. I meant to point out that those issues are relevant to Twitter, that they make it less certain/valid/authoritative, and thus dubious.
ReplyDeleteIn order for something to be viewed as "academic" or "credible," it should be distinguishable from the non-credible; this is already done by the peer-review process in academic journals. I have to agree that a lot of the time, this can be quite difficult to do on twitter. As Pierce said, credibility of a post is often dubious as best. Quite frankly, it really is quite difficult to sort through all the bullshit, and while marginalized individuals now have a platform where they can express their thoughts, there is most likely going to be a lot of bullshit spewed as well if it is a personal account, diminishing the author's credibility. However, the types of twitter posts are not homogeneously distributed over all users. There are serious accounts out there (such as the ones listed in the OP), and I think a track record of "academic" posts invites the account to be viewed on a more serious level.
ReplyDelete