Here’s How You Can Identify An “-Ism”
A broad formula for pinpointing racism, sexism, etc. — with nuanced variations addressed
As our society becomes more divided, a multitude of different groups and individuals will continue battling over the appropriate way to define “racism,” “sexism,” “genderism,” “ableism,” etc.
Many folks who label themselves as “liberal,” “progressive,” or “leftist” believe that, in order for something to be an “-ism,” it needs to involve an oppressor specifically abusing their position of privilege or power (whether consciously or unconsciously).
I reject this narrow definition. The reality is: it only tells part of the story.
First, I invite you to read Chong Kee Tan’s Medium piece from last month, entitled “Wokeness Is Detrimental to Anti-racism”:
Obviously, there are parallel discussions relevant to many iterations of discrimination. Since racism is amongst the most frequent debates, I’m going to use race relations as a starting-point.
The company line from so many people who peddle (their conceived version of) “antiracism” embraces the fallacy that the only definition for racism would be:
Privilege and/or Power + Prejudice = Racism
They’d claim that only Black, Indigenous, Latino(a), Asian, Pacific Islander, Desi, and Arabic people can experience racism, under this definition. By contrast, they would insist that White people can only experience “prejudice,” but not racism.
I suspect, if it was logistically possible to survey the entire American population, a majority of people who possess a vast spectrum of skin colors and racial/ethnic backgrounds would reject this reductionism.
As do I.
I still maintain that “prejudice” is simply an unexpressed (internalized or passive) attitude or belief. Once that prejudice becomes ACTIONABLE or BEHAVIORAL, it accelerates into an “-ism.”
So, in terms of race relations, here are the three subcategories of racism that I’d delineate:
Systemic Racism: governmental or institutional policies that exclusively disenfranchise BIPOC Americans in favor of White folks
Social Racism: individual nefarious actions that one person inflicts upon another, weaponizing one’s racial identity against someone else. White people and Black, Indigenous, & People of Color can both be either the aggressors and/or the recipients of this.
Cultural Racism: group-based mob mentality, where social racism is extrapolated to inflict the weaponization under a “strength-in-numbers” model. Again, White people as well as Black, Indigenous, & People of Color can be both the aggressors and the recipients, here.
In shorthand:
Systemic Racism = Prejudice + Power (or Privilege)
Social Racism = Prejudice + Bullying (or Bigoted Harassment)
Cultural Racism = Prejudice + Groupthink (or Mob Mentality)
Making It Intersectional
Broadly speaking, these formulas could be applied to any other “-ism” out there. For example:
Sexism = discrimination based on biological or reassigned sex
Classism = discrimination based on income level
Orientationism = discrimination based on sexual orientation
Ageism = discrimination based on age, birthyear, or generational cohort
Genderism = discrimination based on gender identity
Religionism = discrimination based on religious belief (or lack thereof)
Ableism = discrimination based on disability status
Colorism/Shadeism = discrimination based on variations of skin pigment
Binarism = discrimination based on perceived sex/gender or (in)ability to conform to gender roles
Iconism = discrimination based on celebrity status (or lack thereof)
Beautyism = discrimination based on physical appearance
Heightism = discrimination based on height
Sizeism = discrimination based on weight or body mass
Cellulism = discrimination based on skin abnormalities
Nationalism = discrimination based on birthplace or citizenship
Regionalism = discrimination based on one’s residential location
Sectarianism = discrimination based on political affiliation (or lack thereof)
Professionism = discrimination based on one’s reverence (or disdain) for specific occupations
Linguism = discrimination based on one’s (in)ability to speak a community’s predominant language(s)
Curriculism = discrimination based on a person’s completed education level (or lack thereof)
Exploring The Dichotomy
Ageism is the phenomenon, here, where power structures have truly become multidirectional; the same goes for regionalism, where one’s animosity toward another person is based solely on what part of the country they are from.
However, most other categories have a clear “out-group” that is on the receiving end of institutional or systemic oppression:
- BIPOC communities
- Women
- Poor people
- Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people
- Transgender and nonbinary people
- Atheists, polytheists, agnostics, pantheists, and irreligious people
- Members of the disability community
- People with darker skin pigmentations
- People who fail to conform to the traits, characteristics, physical appearance, and/or performative roles that society expects from members of a specific sex or gender
- Those public figures who haven’t attained celebrity status
- Folks who aren’t “conventionally attractive”
- Shorter people
- People with greater body mass than others
- People with severe skin disorders
- Immigrants or noncitizens of a country
- Members of third parties, political Independents, or unaffiliated voters
- People who work *OUTSIDE OF* academic, public service, scientific, and/or medical occupations
- Speakers of languages foreign to the community or nation in which the speaker resides or visits
- People who haven’t earned a college degree
Rules For ‘All-of-Thee’
Nevertheless, all of these “-isms” can be multidirectional when it comes to the social (interpersonal) or cultural (intergroup) forms they take.
So, while our systems can be orientationist against me, as a gay person — in theory, I could inflict social orientationism against heterosexual people.
While our systems can be ableist against me, as an autistic person — in theory, I could inflict social ableism against neurotypical people or those with disabilities different from my own.
While our systems can be classist against me, as a working-class person — in theory, I could inflict social classism against a wealthier person.
While our systems can be binarist against me, as a nonconforming person — in theory, I could inflict social binarism against someone who chooses to embody traditional gender roles in a nonaggressive, nonharmful way.
While our systems and our culture can be ageist against me, as a Millennial — that doesn’t give me the right to inflict the same poison (through social ageism) upon people who belong to generations outside of my own.
This is what makes intersectionality so rich and complex. Most people are privileged in some areas of life, while simultaneously oppressed in other areas of life.
How that privilege and oppression crisscrosses throughout the tapestry of a person’s life will vary from one individual to another.
Like a lasagna, these experiences can also be layered as systemic (institutional), cultural (group-based), and social (individual) blankets.
Emphasizing the Systemic
The difference is that systemic forms of oppression require governmental intervention, due to how widespread and pervasive systemic oppression can be. This is why, for instance, the #BlackLivesMatter movement is so crucial.
Individuals who may try to hijack #BlackLivesMatter to push their own personal agendas shouldn’t be turned into avatars as a backhanded way of dismissing the necessity for the movement as a whole.
When people talk about “the changing definition of racism,” they are usually referring to their myopic ATTEMPT at redefining and narrowing down racism into a hyperwoke, singular definition that reeks of reductionist propaganda.
These attempts are being normalized and dispersed by much of academia, up in their ivory towers. But then, it spills into the K-12 schools (hence the talking-past-one-another on the issue of Critical Race Theory), the corporate world, and other private realms.
Many from the hyperwoke crowd will try to “rank oppressions” or selectively gaslight others based on which types of discrimination they feel should be prioritized (racism, sexism, etc.) — please refer to Jodi, a now-administrator from my former university.
This cult-like segment of the Hyperwoke Left (who, by the way, don’t actually represent all leftists as a whole) will corrupt the potential for debate and discourse through the following tactics:
- Misappropriating some behaviors as microaggressions (based on the offender’s identity per se, rather than based on their actions)
- Using “privilege” as a go-to invective, so they can invoke guilt or shame in someone
- Wielding the faux-noun of “reverse-racism” to dismiss White people who recount actual racist behavior/rhetoric directed against them — writing off those experiences as merely “hurt feelings” (or sub in any other “-ism” for racism, here)
- Packaging “antiracism” as a glorified session for penance and self-denunciation amongst White people (or sub in any other “-ism” for racism, here)
- Claiming that CRT isn’t actually taught in schools — then turning around and encouraging teachers to indoctrinate students with these toxic interpretations of “antiracism”
- Lobbing around empty buzz phases such as “Do better,” “Be better,” and “Doing the work”
Again, substitute any majority group relevant to the type of discrimination — White people, men, heterosexual people, millionaires, etc.
It’s the same principle, either way. Members of marginalized groups will just sneer about “hurt feelings” to invalidate the lived experiences of people who happen to belong to a given majority group.
In order to prioritize or triage the forms of oppression that involve life-or-death circumstances, delineating systemic “-isms” from cultural “-isms” and social “-isms” allows us to have deeper and more meaningful conversations, all-around.
I discuss this further during my July 2021 appearance on Paul LeCrone’s podcast:
What Does “Woke” Even Mean, Anymore?
Originally, “woke” was a term popularized within the Black community by activists fighting for social equality and institutional equity. It was coined as a literal prompt to “wake up” folks who were oblivious or unaware of the oppression going on around them. It was intended to rally proponents of social justice into a purposeful coalition that would agitate for dignity and structural change.
At some point, “social justice” morphed into a term of derision; this shift has been largely driven by paleoconservative shit-stirrers affiliated with the modern-day Republican Party. Hence, the moniker of “Social Justice Warrior” being mangled by the Far Right as an excuse to bludgeon anyone with genuine desire to create a more compassionate and nurturing American culture.
This is why “wokeness” is viewed by so many people through cynical eyes. When I refer to “the Hyperwoke Left,” I’m referring to a very distinct portion of illiberal commentators. Serious discussion about social justice issues is hampered by these wokesters’ rampant desire to control THE ENTIRE NARRATIVE.
And if this hits a nerve with you — then there’s a very strong chance you are guilty of this toxicity.
This is why I advocate for society to divide “-isms” into three (or more!) subcategories. We ought to look at these subcategories as layers, which often bleed into one another. We can additionally view them as chunks, which may combine upon the entrée platter of someone’s life to create some extremely potent flavors.
We’re never going to solve any of these problems if we fail to insist that context, nuance, and true diversity be injected into our collective dialogue.
