By Nicarlyle Hanchard / The Jambar
When I first heard “the personal is political” in a sociology class last semester, it was a slap to the face. It put into perspective a lot of ideas I had previously thought, but could not find the four words to summarise.
The phrase is closely associated with feminist theories, but it is applicable to other areas of identity politics.
I have long felt discomfort in people’s individualism being a topic of political and pseudo-political discourse. As apathetic as I am to politics, my question has been, “Why can’t people just exist?” However, I understand it now.
As explained by my professor, we live in a political society. Everything we do — and choose not to do — is a political statement. That is a slightly unnerving reality, but that is how those in charge wanted it. Nevertheless, there are no clear lines of demarcation for where anything lies — everything intersects.
Intersectionality is another eye-opening concept. It is not easily identifiable for some. Dare I argue, if we were to continue grouping people as much as we have done, intersectionality would be one of those “intellectual theories” that is experienced by many people and strongly opposed.
I’ve heard many object being grouped because labels are cumbersome — each grouping has requirements that those who assume membership must abide by. Some people may oppose intersectionality because it seemingly attracts oppressive attitudes.
Au contraire, humans have various identities and groups with which they identify. Saying someone “wears many hats” is one way of recognizing the different groups to which they belong and the treatment they receive is often dependent on the hat worn in a given interaction.
Intersectionality aims to highlight how society responds to each group individually and when they intersect.
No individual identity and the acknowledgement of said identity, their intersections and accompanying difficulties are inherently oppressive. Policies make them oppressive. That is one of the many ways the personal becomes political.
As previously mentioned, these four words — though true — carry some level of discomfort. Can you imagine the car you drive, stores you patronize and the clothes you wear all be political statements?
That is the reality of quite a lot of people. Who they are and what they seek to achieve for themselves, their communities and their countries have been entangled in “norm-changing” discourse.
Here it is, the thought of breaking the mold and thinking outside the box as simply alternate means to achieve the same human end. But breaking the mold to create something freehanded or create your own mold has always been political.
Now, while I support questioning the necessity of groups, labels and identifying intersectionalities when they are present, I would also like to look at the individual and their personhood. Why is their autonomy, and right to be — political?
