The Women’s March and pink pussycat hats and invocations of solidarity have to be squared up with the fact that a majority of white women voted for Trump; that the peacefulness of the March contrasts with other protests not because of the women’s behavior but because of their skin color; that white women are walking into a fight that started generations ago and assuming it only just now began with their arrival. Writes Audre Lorde:

Somewhere, on the edge of conciousness, there is what I call a mythical norm, which each one of us in our hearts knows “that is not me.” In america, this norm is usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, christian, and finanically secure. It is with this mythical norm that the trappings of power reside within this society. Those of us who stand outside this power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppression, forgetting other distortions around difference, some of which we ourselves may be practising. By and large within the women’s movement today, white women focus on their oppression as women and ignore differences of race, sexual preference, class, and age. There is a pretense to a homogeneity of experience covered by the word sisterhood that does not in fact exist.

Lorde, Sister Outsider, page 116

There were reports at the March of indigienous women who were patronised and insulted by white women: white women made fun of their clothes, walked through their prayer circles, carried signs saying “this land is our land,” either forgetting or refusing to recognize that this land is stolen land. A photo showed a sign with the words, “See you all at the next BLM march, right?” but the question mark spoke for itself. Lorde, again:

As white women ignore their built-in privilege of whiteness and define woman in terms of their own experience alone, then women of Color become “other,” the outsider whose experience and tradition is too “alien” to comprehend. An example of this is the signal absence of the experience of women of Color as a resource for women’s studies courses. The literature of women of Color is seldom included in women’s literature courses and almost never in other literature courses, nor in women’s studies as a whole. All too often, the excuse given is that the literatures of women of Color can only be taught by Colored women, or that they are too difficult to understand, or that classes cannot “get into” them because they come out of experiences that are “too different.” I have heard this argument presented by white women of otherwise quite clear intelligence, women who seem to have no trouble at all teaching and reviewing work that comes out of the vastly different experiences of Shakespeare, Molière, Dostoyefsky, and Aristophanes. Surely there must be some other explanation.

This is a very complex question, but I believe one of the reasons white women have such difficulty reading Black women’s work is because of their reluctance to see Black women as women and different than themselves. To examine Black women’s literature effectively requires that we be seen as whole people in our actual complexities—as individuals, as women, as human—rather than as one of the problematic but familiar stereoetypes provided in this society in place of genuine images of Black women.

Lorde, Sister Outsider, page 118

To be seen as whole people in our actual complexities. This is the real work of dismantling white supremacy, the hard, internal work—cleaving inherited systems of thinking away and filling the gaps that remain.

Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our childen will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs upon the reasons they are dying.

Lorde, Sister Outsider, page 119

The work is hard; the cost of not doing the work is harder.

In The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould digs into the history of some of the ugly language we use to talk about intelligence:

Taxonomists often confuse the invention of a name with the solution of a problem. H. H. Goddard, the energetic and crusading director of research at the Vineland Training School for Feeble-Minded Girls and Boys in New Jersey, made this crucial error. He devised a name for “high-grade” defectives, a word that became entrenched in our language through a series of jokes that rivaled the knock-knock or elephant jokes of other generations. The metaphorical whiskers on these jokes are now so long that most people would probably grant an ancient pedigree to the name. But Goddard invented the word in [the twentieth] century. He christened these people “morons,” from a Greek word meaning foolish.

Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, page 188

In Goddard’s telling, “morons” were at the top of a ranking of the “feeble-minded” that moved downward in intelligence through “imbeciles” to “idiots.” All were associated with low morality and criminality, and the assumed inability to contribute productively to society (as measured in wages). Morons were, however, the most dangerous of the group:

[For Goddard, the] moron threatens racial health because he ranks highest among the undesirable, and might, if not identified, be allowed to flourish and propagate. We all recognize the idiot and imbecile and know what must be done; the scale must be broken just above the level of the moron.

Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, page 191

And what, pray tell, must be done? Here’s Goddard, in his own words:

“[Morons] are not only lacking in control but they are lacking often in the perception of moral qualities; if they are not allowed to marry they are nevertheless not hindered from becoming parents. So that if we are absolutely to prevent a feeble-minded person from becoming a parent, something must be done other than merely prohibiting the marrying. To this end there are two proposals: the first is colonization, the second is sterilization.”

Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, page 194

Goddard himself was in the business of colonization—what we might refer to today as institutionalization, but I think his choice of words is instructive. Here is the real ambition of any notion of intelligence as measurable and hierarchical: the declaration and identification of an inferior class who can be justifiably oppressed. Whether in institutions or refugee camps, via sterilization or the refusal of health care, through mass deportations or immigration restrictions, all of these efforts serve the same end.

Some years ago, while chatting with a friend, we both realized that it’s nigh impossible to insult someone’s intelligence in the English language without invoking that violent ableism. Ever since, I’ve found myself thinking, what is the point of calling someone a “moron” or an “idiot”? What does it do?

Among other things, it reinscribes the notion of intelligence as something quantifiable and ordinal, as something that some people have more of than others. This is, to be clear, not a notion with any verifiable basis. As Gould capably shows, every effort to quantify intelligence has been beset by racist tautologies, errors of logic, mathematical mistakes, and repeated instances of fraud. We presume that intelligence is quantifiable but more than a century of efforts to adequately quantify it have failed. Our language carries those efforts along with it, having not received the message: that whatever intelligence is, it isn’t something we can rank or measure. Yet the idea keeps coming back. Gould again:

The reasons for recurrence are sociopolitical, and not far to seek: resurgences of biological determinism correlate with episodes of political retrenchment, particularly with campaigns for reduced government spending on social programs, or at times of fear among ruling elites, when disadvantaged groups sow serious social unrest or even threaten to usurp power. What argument against social change could be more chillingly effective than the claim that established orders, with some groups on top and others at the bottom, exist as an accurate reflection of the innate and unchangeable intellectual capacities of people so ranked?

Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, page 28

Sound familiar?

In recent days, I’ve seen the word “moron” and terms with related heritage (“dumb,” “stupid,” etc.) appear in a number of news pieces critical of the administration’s accidental leak of war plans. And, I get it—I’m as likely as anyone to reach for those words in moments like this, that seem to call so clearly for them. But I suspect those words are the master’s tools, and the sharp end of the their blades will harm not incompetent and reckless oligarchs and their minions, but the disabled, the poor and unhoused, immigrant workers and students, and all their kith and kin—which is to say, all of us. And I will go a step further: that any notion of intelligence as quantifiable and quantified contains within it that seed of oppression, of the impulse to colonization and worse. We would be wise to stop nurturing its growth.