Image: The cover of the book is a muted orange color. Across the top, in large red letters is "Intersectional class struggle." Below that in slightly smaller green letters is, "theory and practice." Below that in smalller black thin letters is the author's name- Michael Beyea Reagan. There are 4 line drawings of people on the front shown from different perspectives and drawn in different sizes. In the center in green is a woman with a hijab, to the right in black is a person with a mask on and short hair. To the center left is a person with short hair bent slightly forward. On the left, mostly cut off, is a person facing right and downward, focusing on a knife or similar object they are using to perform a task.
Michael Beyea Reagan's Intersectional Class Struggle: Theory and Practice seems to me to be a thesis modified to become book form. The structure, length, and writing style suggests this but I could be mistaken. Also, I am not sure if they are typos from the original, but there are many "we" statements in expressions of goals and outlines for the text even though there is only one author on the cover. Reagan's book is an academic text that sets out to explore and expand the understandings of intersectionality and class. This book is difficult for me to review because it seems to be a matter of personal taste and previous knowledge that affects my opinion of it. I found the text a bit dry and boring at times, but that doesn't mean it is objectively dry or boring. I have read a lot about these topics over time and thus, I was not introduced to much new information. That said, I think this book could be a great introductory text for anyone who is purposefully or accidentally class reductionist in their worldview. It diverges from the common trend- in discussions of class struggle found in the words of more mainstream politicians like Bernie Sanders and further left thinkers and activists- that labels any mention of race, gender, etc as divisive and distracting from "class." I use quotes there because race, gender, ability, etc and completely intertwined in class as Reagan explains in this text.
I found the book to be sort of split into (unlabeled) thirds in terms of content where the first and third fit in well with the title and goals of the book and the middle section seems out of place. The introductory sections and end piece focusing on intersectionality are a decent overview of how class and intersectionality are inseparable. But, I felt a bit confused by the center. Reagan devotes the middle of the book to a drawn out description and analysis of a bunch of (ironically) mostly white male anarchist, communist, and socialist thinkers. I believe the intention was to pull together the theories therein with wider intersectionality and its precursors as a whole, but I didn't see many intersections aside from stray sentences here and there until Stuart Hall is discussed at the very end. It runs the counterproductive risk of portraying these men as the original people discussing class and Black liberation, anti-racist, intersectional feminist, lgbtq etc as far newer entities birthed by the civil rights movement, neither of which is true. Reagan also suggests (more than once) that thinkers like Kimberle Crenshaw lacked a class analysis which left me scratching my head. From what I recall, class was always a big part of her analysis. What didn't work for me, but what also can make this a good introductory text, is what a reductive view we got of certain schools of thought and movements outside the center section. A disproportionate amount of time was spent discussing theorists who did not focus on intersectional politics vs the small cameos many others received. I believe that the latter is likely because Reagan wanted to include as many people as possible, but why not write a longer book so they get the amount of attention that would match the stated goals of the text.
The last section was most informative for me because it introduced me to some people I had not previously known about. It also becomes clear in these highlights how class, race, gender, and sometimes sexuality were all connected according to the people discussed. I found how little LGBTQ issues were mentioned to be disappointing and the lack of discussion of disability while talking about the value of labor labor labor work work work was a missed opportunity. There is a small section on climate change, but this could have been more thorough as well and expanded to include other animals. I would have preferred if the author explored these specifics more instead of giving a drawn out analysis of Marxist materialism for instance.
All of that said, I do see what the author was trying to accomplish: A general (and perhaps unintentionally introductory) knitting together different schools of thought by highlighting the works of key figures in history who clearly state and show that class is indivisible from race and gender. While this book was not really for me, I can envision a number of people it would be good for. I also found the book to be very well organized which allows for a wider audience because the reader can skip around if they choose and still be able to grasp Reagan's thesis.
This was also posted to my goodreads.
No comments:
Post a Comment