Social Justice Usage
Source: Dembroff, Robin, Rebecca Kulka, and Susan Stryker. “Retraction Statement by Robin Dembroff, Rebecca Kukla and Susan Stryker.” IAI News, August 26, 2019.
We — Robin Dembroff, Rebecca Kukla, and Susan Stryker — were recently invited by the Institute for Art and Ideas to contribute short paragraphs on the IAI website on what philosophy could offer to contemporary understandings of transgender issues. We each accepted the invitation because we are philosophers and/or gender theorists who work on this topic and are committed to public scholarship. Upon publication, we learned that our responses were being presented as part of a “debate” on transgender identities, and we asked that our responses be taken down – a request that generated considerable backlash against us on Twitter and other social media. We appreciate that IAI has honored our request to remove our work, and offered us the opportunity to explain our reasons for retracting our original contributions. We considered our inclusion in the IAI “debate” to have been a non-consensual co-platforming, for which we sought redress through the retraction of our contributions. We also believe that the reframing of our contributions as part of a debate we did not know we were in, or choose to be part of, changed the force and meaning of our words.
New Discourses Commentary
Though not a term that appears commonly in Critical Social Justice (indeed, its use is rare), the idea of non-consensual co-platforming occurs when someone (usually Woke) is, without their consent, in some way given access to a platform (in a rather expansive sense) with someone whose views they find problematic. It is, in that sense, a form of putting a Woke person into the position of guilt by association without having obtained their consent first. Non-consensual co-platforming would be considered a problematic act and is discouraged under the Critical Social Justice ideology.
The first named incident of named non-consensual co-platforming occurred when three adherents to Critical Social Justice ideology were invited in 2019 to contribute a few paragraphs to what turned out to be a volume for the Institution for Art and Ideas that would, in the end, include a variety of views on transgender issues. The authors contributed without realizing that their arguments would be included alongside arguments taking different positions, which they indicated in their statement after the fact violated the range of acceptable discourse, writing specifically,
We consider the right to occupy spaces in which our basic safety is not at risk to be a right that should not be up for debate. We refuse on principle to engage in any discussion that treats such positions as up for abstract intellectual debate, in the same way that we would refuse to participate in a conversation that debated whether the Holocaust actually happened, or whether corrective rape should be used to cure lesbianism, or whether or not the white race is superior to all others. There are limits to civil and intellectual discourse beyond which speech acts are simply acts of violence.
These three “feminists, philosophical thinkers, and queer and trans scholars” alleged that the force of their arguments was diminished and their contents were to be treated in a different light because they appeared alongside other arguments that might invalidate them (on argumentative grounds, which, by extension of the Theory in play, would “erase” or “invalidate” them as people and would thus threaten their “safety”). As they did not know this was the intention with the paragraphs, they also technically did not consent to having their writing appear in such a context. This problematic they named “non-consensual co-platforming.” Ironically, this would mean the inclusion of differing opinions to theirs is deemed problematic for creating a space that is to be inclusive. That is, under this doctrine, exclusion is necessary to achieve “inclusion.”
Non-consensual co-platforming might also occur in other venues: at an event like a conference, either on a panel or at the conference itself if some generally undesirable person is invited without the knowledge and consent of the other attendees, or it could happen in some form of media. For example, someone with views the Woke deem unacceptable might be invited to participate on a panel with or attend a conference at which the Woke are also participants. In that case, the idea is that the association of the problematic person transfers via the co-platforming in the relevant event to the Woke person, making them at least partially complicit in maintaining those problematic views, which would force the Woke person to risk cancellation by her Woke peers. Another example would occur if a Woke person and someone with problematic views—or just problematic views from an otherwise unproblematic person—are published in the same issue of a magazine, page of a newspaper, etc., even potentially including in the same magazine, newspaper, or media outlet at all. Again, partial complicity in maintaining the relevant problematic views would be deemed to transfer by association and outside of the consent of the person complaining about it.
The rationale for non-consensual co-platform being a problematic in and of itself within the Theory of Critical Social Justice derives from its views of moral complicity (see also, white complicity and brown complicity). This expansive view of moral complicity refuses any sort of neutrality and forces people into one side of a strict oppressor versus oppressed dichotomy (see also, conflict theory, Marxian, and liberationism, and also, anti-racism and anti-fascism). Those who are not actively resisting oppression in all of its forms (see also, intersectionality) and at all times are considered complicit in that oppression, which is absolutely unacceptable under the Critical Social Justice ideological mindset. Lending one’s work or imprimatur to an event or publication that forwards problematic views is therefore an act of complicity in those problematics (see also, legitimate). As a Woke person would be acutely aware of this sort of complicity and would therefore likely only agree to co-platforming under special circumstances, e.g., as an act of strategic resistance, it would be considered something that requires consent before allowing (see also, affirmative consent). Thus, non-consensual co-platforming becomes an identifiable problematic that requires addressing.
Practically speaking, the purpose of a concept like non-consensual co-platforming is to leverage entities like conferences and media outlets out of platforming problematic people or views (see also, cancel culture). Obviously, the goal behind this concept is to force any outlet that has or wants to publish Woke views or figures toward absolute ideological conformity with Critical Social Justice ideology. This behavior would be consistent with the general thrust of Critical Social Justice activism (see also, praxis) and therefore isn’t just a concept explored in Theory.
Related Terms
Affirmative consent; Anti-fascism; Anti-racism; Brown complicity; Cancel; Complicity; Conflict theory; Critical; Erase; Exclusion; Ideology; Inclusion; Intersectionality; Legitimate; Liberationism; Marxian; Oppression; Praxis; Problematic; Queer; Resist; Safety; Social Justice; Space; Strategic resistance; Theory; Transgender; White complicity; Woke/Wokeness
Revision date: 4/2/21
4 comments
This is what happens with black Americans.
Jewish do it.
Look at the speech by Greenblatt at the 2023 nat urban league conference.
Black and brown.
Black and indigenous.
Black and LGBTQ.
Black and communism.
Black and feminism.
Black and POC.
Black and Asian.
Affirmative action
Civil rights
On and on and on. We are used as a stepping stool, unwilling partner, tokenized and used as a vehicle for a long list of narratives.
It’s abusive..it’s force teaming.
Daryl, excellent comment — you wrote the truth. There is no way to communicate with fanatical ideologues and their brainwashed armies. It’s too late to start. Either let the whole civilization fall like Rome to the barbarians and await the terrible consequences, or smash it all with a hammer and begin again by restructuring everything. Only a drastic “revolutionary” set of real world restructuring actions can transform Western civilization and save some form of individual freedom before it’s lost forever to the new barbarians within and without. Will any one dare it?
The 10 Point Freedom Plan
1. No lifetime career politicians and political dynasties: All politicians at all levels of government will be two-year term appointments selected by lottery from the public like juries, with minimal pay and no repeat terms ever. They will be told what to do using a public infrastructure management handbook. No political “parties” — existing “parties” will be criminalized and punished. And no political interference with any other political jurisdictions in the world but one’s own — no foreign “aid” or interference or any such concepts — all jurisdictions are 100% responsible for their own people. Political corruption of any kind will get life imprisonment with no parole.
2. No civil service: Eliminate the entire public civil servant bureaucracy class and rethink and implement a scaled down localized volunteer-based oversight function for all essential public services to eliminate all bureaucrats. Criminalize the concept of “civil service”. And no paid “professional” journalism of any kind other than volunteer private citizen localized reporting and commenting.
3. No unionization of any workers other than those who work in hard labour (construction, factories, building, etc.) — no desk job employee can be unionized ever. And no professional union “class” — no paid union positions or “officers” — all unions will rotate voluntary officer duties as part of their regular jobs.
4. Defund all universities and colleges and confiscate their land for other public uses such as parks, hospitals, etc. Private universities can form on their own money and rent their own facilities like businesses and all such private teaching ventures will be heavily taxed. The concept of tenure will be criminalized with life imprisonment.
5. Outlaw all charities. No tax exemptions, no fundraising. If some people want to “help” other people let them do it themselves in-person from their own pockets as volunteers. If you are worried about “starving people” then name them — not abstract overseas starving — but identify who on your street or in your building is starving and poor and invite them to dinner or bring them food or clothing — if it ain’t personal real life help to an in-flesh person then it ain’t charity, it’s puffed up sanctimonious posturing and will be punishable by prison terms.
6. Ban all “religions” from any tax exemptions and any special status — total separation of church and state — with heavy taxation on “religious” properties which when foreclosed will be disbursed as tax refunds to the local communities — this applies to ALL religions, each and every one — no special cases, including atheism and paganism! No “religious” symbols/clothing of any kind in public with no exceptions. And no funding of any “religion” from any person, group, organization or external jurisdiction/country. “Religion” like sex will be banned in public and relegated to the private home realm — where anything goes with no interference of any kind — “worship” what you want and fornicate how you wish behind closed curtains (excluding criminal violence or pedophilia) — but only in your home. No more shoving anyone’s private beliefs and behaviours down anyone else’s throats in public with life imprisonment for violators.
7. Home school all children — fire all teachers, sell all school properties and use the money as stipends to parents to offset lost work wages spent on homeschooling from ages 4 to 16 — create and distribute to each family standard homeschool teaching materials of the basics (many excellent ones have existed for centuries) for parents or family members to use to teach their own children — and children can learn to socialize with peers in outdoor yards or parks in their local neighbourhoods.
8. Tax the rich — the real rich — all people with assets over $50 million will be taxed 100% on any money above $50 million — hypocrite “Bernie” was “stopped clock tells the right time twice a day” correct: no individual human needs more than $50 million.
9. Outlaw, fine and criminalize any corporation over a certain size and worth. No more amazon, google, apple, facebook, twitter, microsoft, blackrock, etc. All their leaders will be jailed for life. All their assets will be confiscated and distributed as tax refunds to all citizens. All their “products” will be flushed down the sewers.
10. All humans will be literally EQUAL AS HUMANS — homo sapiens will resume being homo sapiens and not “identities” — in the public realm there will be no more no “races”, “cultures”, “peoples”, “heritages” or any abstract historical, physical, political or psycho-social categories of People — every person will belong to one public category: Human Being — and like “religion” and sex, people can playact any of “identity” they chose in their homes in any way they wish in private — but all “identity” concepts will be banished from public life forever with life imprisonment for violators.
Yes, Virginia, there really can be a Santa Claus. It just takes the courage and will to act.
Reading this comment reminds me of Daniel Greenfield’s article. “No Truce With The Left.”
Worth reading.
What I’m about to say is going to sound like an exaggeration, it is not
The progressive left in the world in every case will choose the lesser over the better the wrong over the right and evil over good.
There are two types of progressives the True believer and the mindless foot soldier.
To distinguish either one would be very difficult because when it comes to the policies they support or oppose or the rhetoric they employ in their efforts they both follow the exact same course.
They always end up working on behalf of all that is evil, failed, and wrong against all that is good, right, and successful.
Making this statement sounds mean but all you have to do is look at every policy all the rhetoric coming out of the progressive left and you can see that I’m right.
At the core of the progressive left mind is a form of infantilism they believe and this is not an exaggeration, that when people are born they’re perfect and that society has screwed them up and made them evil because normal people believe you can better yourself as you get older.
As you learn and grow you are able to distinguish right from wrong good from evil.
But that’s creating a objective reality and this they absolutely reject there is no objective truth only a subjective pseudo-reality.
In their completely psychotic sick minds they believe you were perfect when you were born and proceed, by learning and by societies construct, to get worse.
So it is their objective for their acolytes to be as ignorant as possible and to stay in an infantile childish mindset and to stay in their feelings because when they’re young their feelings are far more important, and according to the progressive more valid, than any facts or truth.
And they must base their entire existence around their feelings.
Just really look at how a progressive left reacts to things it’s like a 5 year old.
This has been taught in schools for decades and we have literally a whole generation or two of mentally ill people, some have escaped, most have not.
I will quote one of those beloved authors of modern times whose text is the single most assigned on America and American history in our country’s primary schools and colleges..
QUOTE
Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable that is, if it were possible it would be undesirable. Howard Zinn
They have been taught that objectivity is impossible therefore anything that they discover is merely a point of view and that makes every point of view as valid as anybody else’s.
Our university’s elementary junior and high schools have thoroughly dumbed down society, just watch some YouTubes of man on the street asking simple questions that they cannot answer.
The mindless foot soldier that is convinced that anyone who would declare his own point of view right or another point of view wrong can only be a bigot or a phobic of some kind.
I’m not kidding this is what they believe. We have seen this.
The True believer also rejects the use of his intellect not because he thinks objectivity is impossible, but because he knows that it’s product, the truth, is undesirable they don’t want to know the truth.
The True believer is an ideologue with a utopian vision, which is actually a dystopian nightmare, and as with both ideologues and those with utopian visions, the truth invariably gets in the way.
Now intellect has nothing to do with intellectualism the progressive left use intellectualism effectively and consistently with their massive word salad to justify and twist reality into their pseudo reality.
You see this on a continual basis they can convince each other that black is white and up is down right is left and evil is good, men are women, everyone’s a racist, by manipulating their word salad.
An excellent book on this word salad technique is Michael Knowles Speechless.
So the bottom line is that we have been fighting millions of people that have been turned into mindless narcissistic psychopaths and the True believers that manipulate them.
We will never be able to reason with them have a conversation with them, they will never compromise.
They are stuck permanently in an infantile narcissistic mindset, in a created pseudo reality that only the woke supremacists could possibly understand which I don’t think they do either.
The entire Progressive left movement and the Democratic socialists are absolutely psychotic they are narcissistic psychopaths and they want to drag all of America down into their psychosis with them.
I believe the only way we can deal with this people is not to engage in their psychotic mindset I believe they’re clinically insane definitely narcissistic psychopaths and that if we engage with them they will always fall back into Hysteria and identity politics you will never win against their childish and hysterical behavior