Cotera Intro and Smith- Kim The

In the readings, Writing in the Margins of the Twentieth Century by Cotera discusses coalitions of difference, affinities, and differential consciousness as ways to understand how differences can be used to do coalitional work. Coalitional work requires different groups who typically think of themselves as separate from one other to come together to resist oppression. There can be many benefits to coalitions of difference such as being able to explore new ways of how systems oppress through different circumstances that arise, to bring the voices of people at the intersections forward, and allow more communities to unify around shared forms of oppression. However, there are typically many problems associated with coalitions of difference including how to acknowledge the different histories and struggles of groups as well as to how to address the different issues and needs of various communities.

Along similar lines of thought, in the Three Pillars of White Supremacy, Smith aims to address the complications involved in intersectionality through her Three Pillars of White Supremacy model, arguing that the three pillars slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism, and orientalism/war and interrelating factors combine and interact with one another to produce shared oppression among women of color. Smith’s model provides a way for us to acknowledge different forms of oppression while also addressing the need for women of color to be unified in addressing shared oppression.

Delving deeper into coalitions of difference and affinity would be beneficial to disability studies because disability is encompassed of many different groups separated based on disability type that are thought of as separate from one another. In disability studies, we also learn about dismodernism, which makes a similar move in placing difference at the center. I think that further exploring the concepts of coalitions of difference and dismodernism together could be helpful in adding more depth to conversations around how to do more accountable intersectional scholarship and work.

Another common problem I see is the parallels between neoliberalism and doing activist scholarship, research, or work. It is very common to see intersectional work being equated to needing to do more work. This relates to neoliberalism because neoliberalism works to commodify people or groups, exploit labor, and promote competitive and individualistic ideals. Effects of neoliberalism are typically seen in overworking and ever-increasing productivity levels. Since we all work in this neoliberal system, it is common to see intersectionality being co-opted and used to fulfill criteria set forth by a neoliberal system. This poses many accessibility-related concerns for disability communities as well as other intersectional communities.

 

Discussion questions:

1. What are some ways to incorporate women of color methodologies into research in ways that unify people of color and at the same time acknowledge the distinct history and struggles of different groups?
2. How should we go about doing accountable intersectional work? How do we do this work without following neoliberal notions including but not limited to individualism, competition, and overworking?
3. Is the binary of resistance and oppression limiting in terms of women of color methodologies? How so?