[by Jean Ferrette] We reproduce here with his permission the author's letter addressed to the RT of the bulletin

Dear colleagues,

It's true, the last newsletter is beautiful and interesting.

However, I would not join the chorus of praise, because it contains problematic elements that we absolutely must discuss. And after all, what better time than the holidays to play the party pooper?

On intersectionality

It begins on page 4 with the evocation of the notion of intersectionality. This was born from an article published in 1991 by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the American context of racial discrimination. Before being imported into sociology, it consisted only of describing a situation where a black woman could be oppressed both as a woman and as black. Does this therefore become a sociological concept? In any case, it is difficult to understand its meaning, except when on the following page, it is presented as a synonym for "interdisciplinarity"... which it is not. On the other hand, it finds its place in the problematic of the congress if, and we must be clear on this, it is the issue of an importation of the activist plan to the scientific plan. In this case, we must discuss the gain in heuristic terms, and the cost in ideological terms, the latter term having to be taken as a falsification of the facts for the benefit of a partisan commitment.

On the same page I read: "categorizations of studies: gender studies, postcolonial studies, decolonial studies etc."
I don't know what a "study categorization" is, but the whole thing refers quite clearly, it seems to me, to "cultural studies" and their multiple variations. Now we know, in the French context and with drifts such as "the natives of the republic", how far the discourses on the "post-colonial" and the "decolonial" can take us.

On inclusive writing

I note on pages 4 and 5 the attempt (unfinished: the point is not central!) to write in inclusive writing. Apart from the fact that I do not see what studies have demonstrated that this is one of the sources of gender inequalities, and that this results in distancing the working classes even further from academic culture by making reading more difficult, in what instance, at what time, by whom was this decision taken which commits us collectively?

On the commitment

Page 10, I read an article about Rose-Marie Lagrave, a "feminist class defector." That she is a feminist is perfectly her right, and personally I find that very honorable. But why confuse a partisan commitment with a scientific commitment? If there are "feminist sociologists," then let's continue to introduce ourselves by our commitments. This gives "Jean-Perre Terrail, communist sociologist," "Pierre Bourdieu, sociologist of the left of the left," "Raymon Boudon, liberal sociologist," "Alain Touraine, social-democratic sociologist," "Jules Monnerot, sociologist of the National Front"... For my part, commitment is the worst criterion for judging a work, unless we think that it determines its quality.

Consequently, I fully understand the reluctance of male colleagues to engage in "gender" teaching (which is not specifically sociological, if we mean by that the equivalent of American "gender studies") which would in reality be the resumption, the development of feminist theses, that is to say developed outside the scientific field to better justify the cause defended. Gender teaching should be that of male-female relations, with the tools of sociology, which does not have as its aim (or initial hypothesis) the denunciation of "patriarchal" society, but rather what is at stake, to the credit and debit of each sex, in all social relations. Establishing the principle of parity in this teaching (I have been a long-standing supporter of parity, precisely to dissolve the illusions of each sex on the other, but that remains a commitment) would be an essential measure to avoid making it a female monopoly with one or two male alibis. What I say for this teaching is naturally valid for all others.

On consubstantiality

Finally, this article ends with the following statement: "empirical investigations attesting that gender is consubstantial with social class, and with other social relations such as age, race and sexualities, to think together about systems of domination."

"Consubstantial" is a religious term meaning "of the same substance." It has certainly been used before, but that should not prevent us from questioning its relevance in sociology. But above all, what is the word "race" doing here? I am one of those who, raised on Levi-Straussian milk in the 70s, learned that "races did not exist." Is a worker more exploited because he has black skin, or because he comes from countries that have long been dominated and arrives in France with fewer resources than a native? Race distances us from science and brings us closer to ideology by making it an explanatory principle on an equal footing with the others. For my part, an old unrepentant Marxist, I place the relations of exploitation above the others, the other characteristics being in themselves of little significance, although they have always been used to divide workers. Having written my thesis on a factory that employed perhaps a hundred nationalities and met a large number of workers, these differences faded from the second generation onwards through the community of life, education and work.

You have understood: at a time when the accusation of "Islamo-leftism" and "wokeism" further disqualifies sociology, which did not need that, we must be hypervigilant and scrutinize any beginning of drift. Gaining credibility will only succeed if we gain scientificity.

Friendly.