"-ism"?

[alixtii]

What do people mean when they say that "-isms" are bad? Are they just talking about systems of injustice, like racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, ableism, anti-Semitism, et cetera? Because, you know, "feminism" ends in -ism. (As does, for that matter, "Judaism" and "Hinduism" and whatnot.) Or are they making a claim that all ideologies are bad? Which I can almost see, from a sort of neo-Marxist perspective, only . . . "Marxism" ends in -ism, too. (As does "positivism," the ideology which most violently represses its own ideological character, and of which many brands of Marxism are subtypes.)

Comments

[robin-anne-reid.livejournal.com]

My experience with people using that phrase is that they tend to mean all "theories" or in effect, yes, all words ending with -isms. The vibe I get is that people dislike this sort of language, and resist it.

But that may just be my experience!

[beccaelizabeth]

when I say isms I mostly mean the injustice thing.
except for when I mean how everything in the textbook ends in ism.

... now my brain has shut down when faced with trying to remember every time I said something about isms. I think I'll go eat.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a generalization. Lots of words ending in "-ism" are pretty unattractive concepts.

But some people are opposed to labeling, because even what I consider a positive "ism" like feminism can lock you into certain expectations. Feminism actually covers a wide range of ideology, and it's almost wrong to lump them together. For instance, much feminist rhetoric has dealt with white middle class women's issues, and ignored black women, poor women, etcetera.

The same people who would say what I just said are often also suspicious of the religious -isms, because again, clinging to a label seems to lead to violence.

I think the sentiment that the expression is going for is that we should be really wary of labeling something and then considering it to be an unchanging, concrete thing, when it needs to be continually examined, and also allowed to change. The concepts need to stay elastic, so setting them in stone is probably a bad idea.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

That could be, but it's my take that it has more to do with labeling.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

My experience with people using that phrase is that they tend to mean all "theories"

Despite the fact that the claim itself is a theoretical claim. Yes, I know people like that, although I have to say their positivistic self-delusion rather frustrates.

So should I be jumping into the fray to defend -isms?

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Well, but the people (I know) who objected to the terms had their own terms, so I don't think they were wanting fluidity: they were wanting their own terminology which was pretty rigid, and equally theoretical (though they disowned any identification with theory, because it was "natural", i.e. not theoretical)

Language can be used to label, or to obfuscate, or to deconstruct--and assuming all terminology is a label/stone-making rhetorical move is...problematic!

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, we have to have words for things. I just think that whoever says "isms are bad" would like to be cautious.

"ism" says to me "be alert, there may be strong feelings or a political position nearby."

[dave-littler.livejournal.com]

I think they basically mean "I dislike organized systems of thought and belief because it requires something of me to try to understand what they are, and I'm too incurious and intellectually lazy to try to assimilate all of it, making it too difficult for me to have a discussion on ths topic. Therefore, I wish people could be more like me, with an unexamined set of sort of generic, middle-of-the road values with nothing exceptional or controversial about them, and it is more to the point BAD when people don't".

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

That's because -isms are more honest; they admit to their strong feelings and political positions. It's not like those things are absent the rest of the time; they're just sublimated.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

That's because -isms are more honest; they admit to their strong feelings and political positions.

I think I'd contest that as a generalization. I don't think speaking, and thinking, cautiously is necessarily less honest.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Um.

I don't think that's true. We don't know each other, so I won't/can't/shouldn't take it personally, but I present myself as an example of someone who advises caution when examining "isms." I don't say they're always bad, and I don't religiously avoid using them myself, but I try to think before I speak.

There's nothing middle of the road or generic about me or my beliefs, except that I can't really help being a middle-class white woman.

[dave-littler.livejournal.com]

Oh, no: I'm all about advising caution. Caution us fine. I'm talking about people who will make blanket statements about any and all "isms", indicating that they're all bad and should therefore be dismissed. Caution is fine. Caution is laudable. It's automatic rejection of any and all of them without consideration which I'm speaking of.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Which leaves us with "All generalizations are bad!"

That's meant to be a light comment on where this discussion often ends up.

Anyway, nice to meet you.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you mean by "cautiously."

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But doesn't identifying as an -ist require a certain analysis, and systematization, of one's thoughts?

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Depends on what "a certain" means.

Some people analyze more than others.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Well, I have strong political feelings, but I can't really lump them into one "ism." So I can't really use "isms" to describe what I think, without introducing some inaccuracy. And so I try to be more careful and more precise, and I don't think that's less honest than slapping an "ism" label on it.

I would say that I am a feminist, or subscribe to feminism as an ideology. But if I were writing about feminism, I would qualify it considerably WRT my social class, education, race, etc. I'd be careful about implying that *my* feminism is anyone else's feminism. There's a gulf between, say, men who think "women should get the some pay as men," and lesbian separatists. There's also a wide range in most of the religious -isms, from fanatical fundamentalism to whatever is on the other end of that gradient.

I just mean I try to use the words carefully, and that holding back from identifying with some -isms, even though your beliefs may be more or less aligned with them, isn't necessarily intellectual dishonesty.

[anonymous_sibyl]

Since I'm the one who said it (and it would have been nice to have been asked directly instead of finding this on my flist, though I am assuming you wanted to express a broader intellectual curiosity instead of just getting one particular answer) I'll say that if you had asked me to explain what I meant I would have told you that in light of the particular discussion I was implying that a resistance to certain immovable and rigid ideas is preferable, IMO, to clinging to said ideas and tarring every single person who has ever espoused a belief in them with the same brush. Remember, I was questioning why bashing *all Christians en masse* was acceptable, and your response that "Christianity has historically done very bad things" (to paraphrase poorly) typifies why I very often find "isms" to be dangerous--because it does seem to often lead to assuming that every single person in that group is the same. That can lead to a blindness to individuality, dismissal of individual rights, etc.