I've always had a deep interest in the social sciences, and even while pursuing a career in engineering, I made it a priority to stay actively involved in the field. Two years ago, as Iran's Woman, Life, Freedom movement gained momentum, I found myself compelled to collaborate with grassroots groups that included a much broader spectrum of political dissidents than I was accustomed to. We had no choice but to truly listen to one another—not merely tolerate but strive to understand what the other side stood for and against. This was far from easy. As a left-leaning activist, my political, social, and historical convictions shaped my stance, but I quickly realized this was equally true for my most right-leaning counterparts. We had long labeled each other— ‘fascist’ for those on the right, ‘communist’ for those on the left. These labels made it even more challenging to truly engage with the arguments being made.

​

Complicating matters further, each side came with its own established rhetoric, making their positions immediately recognizable—and, as a result, often rejected outright upon the first mention of familiar terms. Although we all shared the same ultimate goal, our inability to step beyond these labels and discourses hindered meaningful collaboration. The familiar language that signaled ideological allegiance only deepened the divide, making it harder to unite in our common cause.

​

Derek mentioned in one of our forums, referencing Charles Pyle, that language is inherently duplicitous. A compliment can also be an insult, and a promise can be a threat. Each time I used left-leaning discourse, rhetoric, and terminology, I wasn’t just conveying ideas; I was alienating those who didn’t share my views. Pyle's point about language shaping perceptions became all too clear to me—words that were intended to unite were, in fact, reinforcing division (Pyle, 1997).

​

Personally, what made it particularly difficult for me to consider opposing political views was my unwavering conviction that my side (i.e., the left) held the "correct" stance in all debates. For years, I uncritically embraced the academic frameworks I encountered, fully convinced they provided a comprehensive and irrefutable understanding of the world. I viewed the ideas I supported as universal truths, often assuming that those who disagreed simply lacked the education or insight to understand, particularly since my right-wing counterparts tended to have less formal education on average. This sense of moral superiority was consistently bolstered not only by the social justice and activist circles I belonged to, but also by the broader progressive media landscape, spanning from news outlets and television programs to online platforms and social networks.

​

It was perhaps out of sheer luck that, through my interactions with the right, I realized the version of truth being taught in universities was far from all-encompassing, often leaning heavily toward leftist ideologies. For instance, a 2022 survey by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute revealed that 88% of Canadian university professors identify as left-leaning, while only 9% support conservative views (Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2022). This stark disparity has raised concerns about the narrowing of intellectual diversity, particularly in terms of political ideology, and has fueled debates over academic freedom and self-censorship, especially among right-leaning faculty members. The survey suggests that this ideological homogeneity might limit open discourse and intellectual pluralism in Canadian higher education, creating environments where certain perspectives and theories are marginalized. Similarly, globally, the Academic Freedom Index 2023 found similar patterns, highlighting a decline in academic freedom across 22 countries, even in democratic nations like the U.S. and U.K., limiting ideological diversity and free discourse (V-Dem Institute, 2023).

​

Bell hooks addresses this issue in Theory as Liberatory Practice, where she critiques the way theory, if not directed toward liberation, can reinforce elitism and division. She writes, “Theory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or revolutionary. It is only so when it is joined with practice, when it fosters collective participation” (hooks, 1991, p. 6). This resonates with my experience: when theory becomes a tool for asserting moral superiority, it loses its potential to become an instrument of exclusion. By limiting ourselves to the rhetoric commonly used in academia and avoiding engagement with right-leaning ideas, we restrict our chances to find practical theories and solutions. As hooks reminds us, “Any theory that cannot be shared in everyday conversation cannot be used to educate the public” (hooks, 1991, p. 6). When our theories or rhetorical frameworks are inaccessible or exclusionary, they fail to foster the kind of broad-based dialogue needed for meaningful social change.

​

This is where the concept of intersubjectivity becomes crucial, as Smokey insightfully noted in another forum. Science, much like language, is not an objective reflection of the world but a participation in it. As we engage with a phenomenon, our perspective inevitably shapes how it appears to us. This concept aligns with what Derek introduced as standpoint theory, which argues that knowledge is shaped by the social positions and perspectives of the knower, suggesting that no viewpoint offers a complete or 'neutral' understanding of the world (Hartsock, 1983) However, this does not mean our findings are purely subjective; rather, each viewpoint provides a valuable piece of the larger puzzle. By recognizing our own perspectives and biases, we can begin to move beyond the one-sidedness that often characterizes academic discourse. As Julie Thompson Klein aptly states, "Interdisciplinarity thrives on the notion that no single perspective holds the complete truth. The interaction of diverse viewpoints allows for a more nuanced understanding, where each disciplinary insight contributes to a larger whole" (Klein, 2001, p. 44).

In Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion, he explores how science, when turned into a rigid belief system, stifles creativity and inquiry. I see a similar phenomenon occurring in the social sciences, where labeling ideas as 'racist', 'transphobic', or ‘antisemitic’ often shuts down necessary conversations that could otherwise lead to meaningful solutions. Just as Sheldrake was labeled a ‘pseudoscientist’ and banned from TED, alternative voices in social sciences are frequently dismissed as ‘far-right’, without exploration. This parallels hooks’ critique of how the academic elite often appropriates and devalues the contributions of marginalized voices. As hooks writes, “the privileged act of naming often affords those in power access to modes of communication that enable them to project an interpretation, a definition, a description... that may obscure what is really taking place” (hooks, 1991, p. 7).

​

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein likened rigid worldviews to "fly-bottles" that trap us within invisible confines. Derek referenced this idea, and it perfectly aligns with my experience: by adhering to rigid ideological frameworks, I was confining myself to a limited perspective and reinforcing the very divisions I was trying to dismantle. Wittgenstein believed that philosophy should help us break free from these constraints, allowing for more fluid and open-ended thought. Similarly, hooks emphasizes that “theory is most vital when it moves beyond abstraction to directly inform our practice and engage with lived experiences” (hooks, 1991, p. 9).

​

Engaging with dissenting perspectives—whether from different political ideologies or marginalized voices—has shown me that breaking out of these intellectual fly-bottles is crucial for real progress. Social justice work, when tied too rigidly to ideological frameworks, can lose its ability to foster genuine intersectionality. As I move forward, I aim to practice what hooks advocates: a form of theory and discourse that remains open, inclusive, and responsive to diverse perspectives, working toward collective liberation rather than reinforcing divisions.

​

References

​

• hooks, b. (1991). Theory as liberatory practice. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 4(1), 1-12.

• Klein, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and the prospect of complexity: The tests of theory. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 43-57.

• Pyle, C. (1997). The duplicity of language. In Studies in linguistic ambiguity (pp. 269-271).

• Sheldrake, R. (2012). The science delusion: Freeing the spirit of inquiry.

• Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283-310).

• Macdonald-Laurier Institute. (2022). The viewpoint diversity crisis at Canadian universities: Political homogeneity, self-censorship, and threats to academic freedom. Retrieved from https://macdonaldlaurier.ca

• V-Dem Institute. (2023). Academic freedom index 2023. Retrieved from https://v-dem.net/en/data/