Thanks for your message Charles. First, to respond to:
By the above, do you mean that focusing on one cause area neglects the other? If so, that observation doesnât seem like a contribution.
Otherwise, if you meant something else, that seems like âoriginal researchâ as these speculations and tradeoffs pulls on a vast range of topics. Iâm skeptical that this theory helps thinking here.
I donât mean that focusing on one cause area always neglects the other. Rather, I mean that some issues EAs care about could be at the intersection of two types of disadvantage, and that it is helpful to conceptualise these issues as intersectional. In the example above, the point is that just âworking to help future peopleâ and âworking to help animalsâ may do little or nothing to help âfuture animalsâ, and that an explicitly intersectional approach can help us to spot this error.
In addition to the noise/âchatter/âattention demands of having to examine them, some of them have a large amount of issues/âbaggage/âsubtext.
I think this is a really great point, and by far one of the strongest considerations against using intersectionality or other ideas taken from SJ-aligned academia. Still, Iâve discussed this in a bit more detail in my comment to Jackson above, which I hope addresses this concern.
However, this presentation of âintersectionalityâ just seems list out basic considerations (and a subset at that). It doesnât seem to contribute a way to resolve them, or even how to get started.
I donât necessarily disagree with you in saying that it doesnât contribute a way to resolve issues. However, I think that misses the point. Concepts like âdeadweight lossâ or âmoral foundationsâ donât contribute solutions, but they provide conceptual clarity which helps us understand and explain what is going on in economic or moral psychology. I think intersectionality can be useful on this front, without providing solutions as such.
Thanks for your message Charles. First, to respond to:
I donât mean that focusing on one cause area always neglects the other. Rather, I mean that some issues EAs care about could be at the intersection of two types of disadvantage, and that it is helpful to conceptualise these issues as intersectional. In the example above, the point is that just âworking to help future peopleâ and âworking to help animalsâ may do little or nothing to help âfuture animalsâ, and that an explicitly intersectional approach can help us to spot this error.
I think this is a really great point, and by far one of the strongest considerations against using intersectionality or other ideas taken from SJ-aligned academia. Still, Iâve discussed this in a bit more detail in my comment to Jackson above, which I hope addresses this concern.
I donât necessarily disagree with you in saying that it doesnât contribute a way to resolve issues. However, I think that misses the point. Concepts like âdeadweight lossâ or âmoral foundationsâ donât contribute solutions, but they provide conceptual clarity which helps us understand and explain what is going on in economic or moral psychology. I think intersectionality can be useful on this front, without providing solutions as such.