What do you think?
Rate this book
Aphro-ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters
In this lively, accessible, and provocative collection, Aph and Syl Ko provide new theoretical frameworks on race, advocacy for nonhuman animals, and feminism. Using popular culture as a point of reference for their critiques, the Ko sisters engage in groundbreaking analysis of the compartmentalized nature of contemporary social movements, present new ways of understanding interconnected oppression's, and offer conceptual ways of moving forward expressive of Afrofuturism and black veganism.
203 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2017
105 people are currently reading
2236 people want to read
About the author
Aph Ko
3 books76 followersAph Ko is an American writer, vegan activist, and digital media producer. She is the author of Racism as Zoological Witchcraft: A Guide to Getting Out, co-author of Aphro-ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters, and creator of the website Black Vegans Rock.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
May 18, 2017
I'm the publisher of this book, and I thought I'd offer a few thoughts on its publication. One of the joys of reading is surely to be invited into a world you might otherwise have little knowledge of or not necessarily be privy to. In 2010, I published SISTAH VEGAN, which was a collection of articles, poems, and essays by a number of black-identified female vegans. The diversity of voices, media, and issues raised was truly eye-opening for me. It allowed me to be present in a conversation where, in life, my presence would change the terms of or even close down that conversation. The same is true of Aph and Syl Ko's book, which explores some of the same intersections of race, gender, class, and animal rights/veganism as SISTAH VEGAN, but engages more completely with popular culture and the mainstream animal advocacy and vegan movements' attempts (or lack thereof) to respond to black people's realities, ideas, and presence. The book is an extensive adaptation of blogs that the sisters wrote between 2015 and 2016 and we kept the vernacular, slightly demotic tone. But there is an awful lot of fascinating theory, analysis, and intellect on display, which means that this book will (and should) require some work on the reader's part. She or he will be richly rewarded, however, because APHRO-ISM is challenging, provocative, infuriating, funny, deeply felt, and often revelatory. SISTAH VEGAN took some time to find its audience, and APHRO-ISM might do the same. But we're clearly seeing a movement forming here, and that makes this book's publication even more exciting.
January 21, 2018
Absolutely brilliant. Afro-futuristic approach to veganism, animal studies, feminism, and pop culture. They deliver. This is beyond even the concept of "intersectionality". My favorite is the concept of animality that they bring in and how it is contingent upon white supremacy, racism, and speciesism. Like wow, amazing.
June 21, 2017
I really enjoyed this book. “Enjoy” may be an unexpected word choice for a series of essays meant to challenge thought on issues of humanity connected to animality in the context of race, but I’m one of those people who loves for my ideas to be thoughtfully challenged. If this isn’t normally a book you’d read, I encourage you to consider it anyway. (More about that below.)
Often, people advocating against their own oppression are confronted with the assertion that the issues they raise are exaggerated, misunderstood, or not real, the implication being that their bias stems from the same weaknesses—the same inferiority—which they assert to be false. (I have personally seen this extensively in discussions on gender over the years, where instead of a willingness to discuss viewpoints, the premise of structural inequality—rather than targeted inequality—is dismissed at its core.)
Yet a refusal to back down from the conversation permeates these lovely, thoughtful essays by Aph and Syl Ko. Through their dialogue with each other, they offer us, as readers, the chance to listen to their perspectives and consider how we might change our own views, goals, and actions based on them.
This book isn’t about race or veganism, per se—the book is about the perspectives of black veganism, a construct which they describe. (As an established vegan, I grow bored with familiar introductory content on vegan viewpoints, so this was welcome to me.) I interpreted the book to be about critically opening our minds to collectively dismantling a white, male, Euro-centric system that so governs our views of gender, race, and species to an extent that it hinders our ability to fully embrace open discussions and solutions regarding these issues. If you aren’t familiar with these type of arguments, please understand they are not anti-male or anti-white. White men should be against white supremacy as well—just as a white person should be against racism or a man against sexism. Also, it isn’t just about people that create a bias, but the system and culture as well.
For vegans or minority activists, this book should challenge, or at least provide some expanded ideas, on your views. I recommend it.
For those who wouldn’t typically read this type of literature, I invite you to try it with an open mind. I feel strongly that, provided the speech is not damaging or hateful, you don’t have to agree with everyone something says to consider it and to give different views the chance to impact yours. If you have any interest at all in a discussion on race, species, power structure, and how they might be connected, I encourage you to read these essays. I mean, why not?
Great thanks to the authors - I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!
Often, people advocating against their own oppression are confronted with the assertion that the issues they raise are exaggerated, misunderstood, or not real, the implication being that their bias stems from the same weaknesses—the same inferiority—which they assert to be false. (I have personally seen this extensively in discussions on gender over the years, where instead of a willingness to discuss viewpoints, the premise of structural inequality—rather than targeted inequality—is dismissed at its core.)
Yet a refusal to back down from the conversation permeates these lovely, thoughtful essays by Aph and Syl Ko. Through their dialogue with each other, they offer us, as readers, the chance to listen to their perspectives and consider how we might change our own views, goals, and actions based on them.
This book isn’t about race or veganism, per se—the book is about the perspectives of black veganism, a construct which they describe. (As an established vegan, I grow bored with familiar introductory content on vegan viewpoints, so this was welcome to me.) I interpreted the book to be about critically opening our minds to collectively dismantling a white, male, Euro-centric system that so governs our views of gender, race, and species to an extent that it hinders our ability to fully embrace open discussions and solutions regarding these issues. If you aren’t familiar with these type of arguments, please understand they are not anti-male or anti-white. White men should be against white supremacy as well—just as a white person should be against racism or a man against sexism. Also, it isn’t just about people that create a bias, but the system and culture as well.
For vegans or minority activists, this book should challenge, or at least provide some expanded ideas, on your views. I recommend it.
For those who wouldn’t typically read this type of literature, I invite you to try it with an open mind. I feel strongly that, provided the speech is not damaging or hateful, you don’t have to agree with everyone something says to consider it and to give different views the chance to impact yours. If you have any interest at all in a discussion on race, species, power structure, and how they might be connected, I encourage you to read these essays. I mean, why not?
Great thanks to the authors - I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!
November 22, 2017
I have been reading the writings of Aph and Syl Ko since the beginnings of APHRO-ISM and Black Vegans Rock as blog sites. Back then it was already very exciting to see people coming out with ideas that were not only tackling topics at the root of huge fighting and divisions between vegan, animal lib, and social justice communities, but doing so in fresh new ways. Aph and Syl both have brilliant minds and ways of combining their powers together through conversation then reproducing them beautifully on the screen (and now page.) When they put the word out about their book, a lot of us were extremely excited. Many of us have been learning from their wisdom and/or feeling validated by their work.
The essays in APHRO-ISM explore critical theory in ways I find somewhat more accessible than a lot of critical theory out there. Many of the arguments made against academia and critical theory include the reality that some people are trying to tangibly survive while academics sit writing think pieces. But, what Aph and Syl do in this book is show the importance of thinking through things to liberation. There is a call for the defense of thought and culture- of "Black LIFE" not just Black lives and bodies.
Many of the essays are speaking directly to Black people- both vegan and nonvegan. This stays with the consistent theme of the need to decenter whiteness in movements for justice and liberation. Many arguments are well made that white supremacy teaches Black and other people of color to spend most of their time calling out and educating white people rather than decentering them and creating futures without them. The book does a good job creating this literary space in practice. I had the honor of seeing Aph give a presentation similar to the last writing in the book, "Creating New Conceptual Architechture: On Afrofuturism, Animality, and Unlearning/Rewriting Ourselves" at a conference and was incredibly motivated and moved by it. There Aph uses models of the solar system to construct a model of a reality we are not seeing: that the "social solar system" does not revolve around white folks or the most privileged of society, even if it appears that way, just as everything appeared to be orbiting the Earth upon early observation of the night sky. The reality is that the marginalized and oppressed- those seen as subhuman- are the Sun at the center of the solar system, and without them, the most privileged could not survive or exist.
Aph and Syl also focus in multiple ways on how animality is used to oppress people. Even though humans belong biologically to the kingdom Animalia with other animals, and even though marginalized and oppressed human beings are biologically homo sapiens along with ruling class white abled cis male humans, oppressed humans and animals all are forced into a space of "subhuman" that is created by white supremacist patriarchy. As Syl states, "The human-animal divide is the ideological bedrock underlying the framework of white supremacy. The negative notion of 'the animal' is the anchor of this system." As a result, animality must be reclaimed and factored into our analyses of oppression. This is a genius argument that is made well throughout several essays in the book.
The book is not limited to topics of Black veganism or animality and also goes into discussions of social media, tactics in activism and critical thinking, and others. It is at the forefront of new and needed systems of thinking, moving on from intersectionality as a technique to afrofuturism as a practice and model for the future. APHRO-ISM is a satellite that helps us see who is really at the center of our social solar system. Highly recommended.
The essays in APHRO-ISM explore critical theory in ways I find somewhat more accessible than a lot of critical theory out there. Many of the arguments made against academia and critical theory include the reality that some people are trying to tangibly survive while academics sit writing think pieces. But, what Aph and Syl do in this book is show the importance of thinking through things to liberation. There is a call for the defense of thought and culture- of "Black LIFE" not just Black lives and bodies.
Many of the essays are speaking directly to Black people- both vegan and nonvegan. This stays with the consistent theme of the need to decenter whiteness in movements for justice and liberation. Many arguments are well made that white supremacy teaches Black and other people of color to spend most of their time calling out and educating white people rather than decentering them and creating futures without them. The book does a good job creating this literary space in practice. I had the honor of seeing Aph give a presentation similar to the last writing in the book, "Creating New Conceptual Architechture: On Afrofuturism, Animality, and Unlearning/Rewriting Ourselves" at a conference and was incredibly motivated and moved by it. There Aph uses models of the solar system to construct a model of a reality we are not seeing: that the "social solar system" does not revolve around white folks or the most privileged of society, even if it appears that way, just as everything appeared to be orbiting the Earth upon early observation of the night sky. The reality is that the marginalized and oppressed- those seen as subhuman- are the Sun at the center of the solar system, and without them, the most privileged could not survive or exist.
Aph and Syl also focus in multiple ways on how animality is used to oppress people. Even though humans belong biologically to the kingdom Animalia with other animals, and even though marginalized and oppressed human beings are biologically homo sapiens along with ruling class white abled cis male humans, oppressed humans and animals all are forced into a space of "subhuman" that is created by white supremacist patriarchy. As Syl states, "The human-animal divide is the ideological bedrock underlying the framework of white supremacy. The negative notion of 'the animal' is the anchor of this system." As a result, animality must be reclaimed and factored into our analyses of oppression. This is a genius argument that is made well throughout several essays in the book.
The book is not limited to topics of Black veganism or animality and also goes into discussions of social media, tactics in activism and critical thinking, and others. It is at the forefront of new and needed systems of thinking, moving on from intersectionality as a technique to afrofuturism as a practice and model for the future. APHRO-ISM is a satellite that helps us see who is really at the center of our social solar system. Highly recommended.
September 23, 2025
Just wow! I finished this book and had to sit and think about all of the concepts in it. Everything is explained thoroughly well, and I love their concept of animality. This is one of my favorite books on veganism!
This is worth rereading every year. I find different insights every time!
This is worth rereading every year. I find different insights every time!
May 28, 2021
"Animal" is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized, because at any moment you can become an “animal” and be considered disposable.
Though I've read much on the topics of Black liberation and social justice, feminism, and animal rights at this point, this book completely reframed a lot of what I thought I knew about those topics. Aphro-ism introduced an entirely new-to-me philosophy that goes beyond intersectionality and asks us to examine how we view the entire structure that's been firmly in place by the dominant class (ie straight, white, able-bodied, cisgender men) for centuries. This book was challenging and so very important. I'm still pondering through a lot of what I've learned, and I'll probably have to read it again at some point to allow more of it to sink in, but it is such an enlightening work. I'm left in awe.
May 27, 2025
Re-read | May, 2025:
I've been rereading this chapter by chapter for the last two months, after wanting to do so pretty much as soon as I finished it four years ago. I still stand by my first review. Though after being exposed to this sort of critical theory for a while now, it's not as mind-blowing as the first time, but it's still as important as ever. If only more people (especially leftists) would pick it up.
First Read | August, 2021:
This book deserves more than 5 stars, everyone NEEDS TO READ IT. This is what should be required reading in schools.
I've been rereading this chapter by chapter for the last two months, after wanting to do so pretty much as soon as I finished it four years ago. I still stand by my first review. Though after being exposed to this sort of critical theory for a while now, it's not as mind-blowing as the first time, but it's still as important as ever. If only more people (especially leftists) would pick it up.
First Read | August, 2021:
This book deserves more than 5 stars, everyone NEEDS TO READ IT. This is what should be required reading in schools.
June 13, 2020
Gracias, os quiero muchísimo.
August 31, 2017
"Part of activism is finding yourself in a new space of confusion, allowing yourself to step into new conceptual terrain. When you abandon commonly held oppressive beliefs, you might not exactly know what to do afterward, and that's where more activists need to be...
There is seemingly nothing worse for an activist than being introduced to a new perspective or theory that challenges the way you've been doing things. Rather than acting as though that perspective doesn't exist, we should immerse ourselves in it and allow ourselves to be confronted."
This was powerful; I think that anyone who calls themselves an 'activist' should read it.
There is seemingly nothing worse for an activist than being introduced to a new perspective or theory that challenges the way you've been doing things. Rather than acting as though that perspective doesn't exist, we should immerse ourselves in it and allow ourselves to be confronted."
This was powerful; I think that anyone who calls themselves an 'activist' should read it.
September 19, 2022
Giving this anything below 5 stars seems unjust, and this lies solely on me. The Ko sisters are simply on a much higher intellectual plane than I, and as such I really struggled with some of the concepts discussed in the book. Having said that, it was still such a great read, and mind-blowing how everything you think you know about anti-racism and veganism is almost certainly through a Eurocentric lens. It's easy to become defensive when you hear ideas outside of the mainstream but the Ko sisters constantly challenge this to the point where it doesn't sound so radical after all. Their theories on the "human-animal binary" being intrinsically linked to racism, sexism, any other -isms is something that I'd struggle to explain myself, yet they explain it perfectly. True animal liberation is the liberation for all minoritised beings. Society has a very vivid idea of what a "human" is, and as such it can justify anything "below" that as an "animal". The word "animal" will then take on negative connotations, and parallels can easily be drawn between the oppression of animals and the oppression of minoritised groups. If it seems like I'm waffling here, you're right.. I'm just trying to make sense of it all!
Probably an inappropriate and trivial comparison to make, but reading this book is a little like when I first watched the Matrix; I didn't understand a lot of it, but I really enjoyed the journey. As I read more books of this nature, I'd like to come back to it one day and hopefully wrap my head around it a little better.
Probably an inappropriate and trivial comparison to make, but reading this book is a little like when I first watched the Matrix; I didn't understand a lot of it, but I really enjoyed the journey. As I read more books of this nature, I'd like to come back to it one day and hopefully wrap my head around it a little better.
July 8, 2024
<"Animal" is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized, because at any moment you can become an "animal" and be considered disposable.>
"Part of coloniality's task is to ensure that certain futures remain unimagined, that certain ideas remain unthinkable."
greu de ales un citat pentru că am highlight-uit toată cartea!!!!
"Part of coloniality's task is to ensure that certain futures remain unimagined, that certain ideas remain unthinkable."
greu de ales un citat pentru că am highlight-uit toată cartea!!!!
November 26, 2019
Pulling together posts they have published over the years on Black Vegans Rock, Sisters, Aph and Syl Ko offer up a compelling argument for veganism people of color and other marginalized groups. The crux of their argument is that the willingness for humans to arbitrarily decide who gets human treatment and who gets animal treatment (who is a free being and who is an enslave mass for labor, slaughter, and consumption) means that marginalized groups will always be vulnerable to being "dehumanized" and thus subjected to inhumane treatment. Until people reconsider their relationship with all animals, humans will continue to leave the door open to doing horrific harm to one another. What's powerful about their argument is that they do not just put this in simple terms of veganism--rather they deeply ground their argument in the theoretical and conceptual discourse around oppression, creating a throughline that is clear to follow from the policing of and disregard of black bodies to the environmental pollution disproportionately distributed to black neighborhoods. In the end, it's not a book about how to become a vegan, rather it's a philosophical undertaking to argue for a more profound consideration of where mistreatment starts and how it can be significantly reduced in our future.
July 26, 2017
WOW. This book and the critical theory these two sisters provide is enlightening and cuts deep. They explain in accessible ways that help you to expand your mind to the new possibilities of true liberation (a liberation that is necessarily intertwined for all the oppressed from the beginning). I whole-heartedly recommend this book and eagerly anticipate more of these women's ever-changing and critical insight.
August 25, 2017
6 out of 5 stars. This should be required reading.
August 27, 2017
Just WOW!!
December 29, 2017
Exceptional. My book of the year without question.
July 8, 2020
3'5/5
Las ideas que exponen las Ko me interesan mucho pero me habría gustado que las desarrollasen con más profundidad, lo que supongo que tiene que ver con el formato (a modo de artículos cortos)
Las ideas que exponen las Ko me interesan mucho pero me habría gustado que las desarrollasen con más profundidad, lo que supongo que tiene que ver con el formato (a modo de artículos cortos)
June 7, 2024
This book was so wonderful and radical and definitely changed the way I look at anti racism and veganism!Everyone should read this.
August 12, 2022
Most well-intentioned activists who use memes featuring a lynched black person and a lynched nonhuman animal are missing the point: What makes the physical violation of these bodies possible is their citizenship of the space of the Other or the “subhuman.” They were all smuggled onto a hierarchy to bostle the superiority of the white ruling class.
Saying “Black people experience racism and, therefore, are treated like animals” is redundant because racism is already entangled with speciesism. What black folks are experiencing isn’t “like” nonhuman animal oppression: it is part of it.
When some people think of intersectionality, they imagine a hierarchy where the aim is to find the person most piled on (who experiences the most -isms) and dismiss everyone else's experiences. It’s not about that at all. Within the framework of intersectionality individual experiences are still valid, (“Saying someone can't be sad because someone else may have it worse is like saying someone can't be happy because someone else may have it better”- unknown) and maybe even more so; instead of isolating one part of a person’s identity and dealing with that alone, we get a more informed perspective if we consider the many layers to oppression and marginalisation. Not only do I completely buy into the concept of intersectionality, I think it’s extremely exciting. The problems we face today ARE interconnected, and with intersectionality the solutions can be too. What’s better than a book, essay or theory on one subject I’m passionate about? A book, essay or theory that considers, includes and discusses multiple things I care about! It makes sense, doesn’t it…
Veganism is seen as a predominantly white movement. And in these white vegan spaces, complex and thoughtful discussions of other activist movements are frowned upon, and even called irrelevant. Often it’s said that it takes away focus from the animals, whom we are trying to help. Even when we “acknowledge that racial oppression exists and may even think it’s bad, in fact some might even experience racial oppression first hand, but in vegan/animal rights spaces and in vegan/animal rights organising they believe it should be all about the animals.” The exception to this is when “clueless though well-intention activists repeatedly share graphic images and frighteningly empty slogans about the connections between animal slavery and human slavery (usually they mean the trans-atlantic slave trade from the old days)”. Over the last few years the discussion has entered mainstream vegan spaces - is it okay to compare factory farming to the Holocaust? This discussion often focuses on the sensitivities of oppressed groups - are we upsetting or offending anyone - which is a valid question.
In Aphro-ism, we go beyond this question and move focus to what Aph and Syl see as the real problem, and a “far more interesting point”. Making comparisons between the physical treatment of nonwhite humans and nonhuman animals - saying things like “black people are treated like animals” disregards the fact that these oppressions are not similar but interconnected. Intersectionality is not just a helpful way to view the social issues of today. It is fundamental to understanding and dismantling the conceptual root of oppressive behaviour, the idea of “animality” and hierarchical racialised thinking. What we all need is connection and not simply comparison.
We must understand the interactions between race, gender and animality. It empowers our work if we are able to break down the structures that support all these things we are fighting including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and speciesism. This is “critical theory” I think, not that I’d heard that term before.
An argument point wielded by some is that race isn’t biologically real. This can be used in many ways and even on both sides of some debates. But in this book they emphasise that biology isn’t the only criteria for reality. Other things that are not “biologically real” include principles of justice, moral systems and romantic love. These are things we humans made up. Things can be socially real and matter the most. I can’t find the exact wording but Aph and Syl say we have to fight not just for vapid superficial representation, but also for the right to produce knowledge, to create theory, and to rearticulate the way oppression manifests itself.
Writing this review took me many hours and was a great chance to dive back into specific parts of Aphro-ism, but I definitely want and need to keep digesting these ideas. I’d like to read this book again sometime in the future, perhaps in ebook/physical format rather than audio. It gets your brain thinking which of course is good. It’s not an audiobook to multitask to, yet I still tried to cook and wash up etc while listening. I didn’t understand every word (for eg. epistemological? 🤓) let alone the deep and intricate discussions taking place. I found it challenging. Not in the sense that I disagreed with what they were saying, but that these are new ideas to me.
Some of the specific points I don’t understand at this moment (Aug “22):
⚫ At the end of chapter 11 Syl says “to think in that way is to participate in racial thinking, the very kind of thinking this project intends to dissolve” but at another point in the point Aph or Syl said they were against post-racial messaging. I am confused. Because to me racial thinking is the opposite of post-racial messasing. But maybe racial thinking actually means to judge beings differently based on their race, rather than simply to acknowledge race?
⚫ There was a part on how inclusion in some contexts (when we disregard difference) can be “just another form of coloniality.” “Emphasising similarities won’t help the oppressed.” Which I sort of get, but I also need to revisit.
⚫ There is a deconstruction of the phrase “We are all animals” but I could not explain to you why that phrase is or isn’t helpful. Same for “we are all the same” - I think they said that can be dismissive and a weapon of coloniality but I’m not sure why or how.
Ideas aren’t handed to you neatly on a plate. In Aph’s author’s note at the start of the book she emphasises that they’re not telling you what you should think. They are still questioning and grappling with these words and concepts (pop culture, feminism and black veganism) themselves. I loved this:
Saying “Black people experience racism and, therefore, are treated like animals” is redundant because racism is already entangled with speciesism. What black folks are experiencing isn’t “like” nonhuman animal oppression: it is part of it.
When some people think of intersectionality, they imagine a hierarchy where the aim is to find the person most piled on (who experiences the most -isms) and dismiss everyone else's experiences. It’s not about that at all. Within the framework of intersectionality individual experiences are still valid, (“Saying someone can't be sad because someone else may have it worse is like saying someone can't be happy because someone else may have it better”- unknown) and maybe even more so; instead of isolating one part of a person’s identity and dealing with that alone, we get a more informed perspective if we consider the many layers to oppression and marginalisation. Not only do I completely buy into the concept of intersectionality, I think it’s extremely exciting. The problems we face today ARE interconnected, and with intersectionality the solutions can be too. What’s better than a book, essay or theory on one subject I’m passionate about? A book, essay or theory that considers, includes and discusses multiple things I care about! It makes sense, doesn’t it…
Veganism is seen as a predominantly white movement. And in these white vegan spaces, complex and thoughtful discussions of other activist movements are frowned upon, and even called irrelevant. Often it’s said that it takes away focus from the animals, whom we are trying to help. Even when we “acknowledge that racial oppression exists and may even think it’s bad, in fact some might even experience racial oppression first hand, but in vegan/animal rights spaces and in vegan/animal rights organising they believe it should be all about the animals.” The exception to this is when “clueless though well-intention activists repeatedly share graphic images and frighteningly empty slogans about the connections between animal slavery and human slavery (usually they mean the trans-atlantic slave trade from the old days)”. Over the last few years the discussion has entered mainstream vegan spaces - is it okay to compare factory farming to the Holocaust? This discussion often focuses on the sensitivities of oppressed groups - are we upsetting or offending anyone - which is a valid question.
In Aphro-ism, we go beyond this question and move focus to what Aph and Syl see as the real problem, and a “far more interesting point”. Making comparisons between the physical treatment of nonwhite humans and nonhuman animals - saying things like “black people are treated like animals” disregards the fact that these oppressions are not similar but interconnected. Intersectionality is not just a helpful way to view the social issues of today. It is fundamental to understanding and dismantling the conceptual root of oppressive behaviour, the idea of “animality” and hierarchical racialised thinking. What we all need is connection and not simply comparison.
We must understand the interactions between race, gender and animality. It empowers our work if we are able to break down the structures that support all these things we are fighting including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and speciesism. This is “critical theory” I think, not that I’d heard that term before.
...in mainstream or standard articulations of animal oppression and speciesism, we actually theoretically and discursively encourage a gap between human and animal oppressions, which then creates a need to try to superficially close this gap and misguided people think this can be done by presenting crudely drawn and elementary images or analogies of oppression. Not only are these types of comparisons or connections absurd, even worse these simplistic characteristics miss the ways in which these struggles and these wounded subjectivities relate to one another. In other words, those who are most eager to juxtapose these kinds of images or discuss how animal slavery is relavently like human, black, slavery many times are the same people who tend to be dismissive of, or resistance to, views in which animal oppression and human oppression are thought about together and in the same spaces with the aim of taking to task racism, sexism, speciesism, ableism and so on, or coloniality in general, in tandem.Basically these comparisons are superficial. If we aren’t organising around the human-animal divide we aren’t focused on the root of the problem. In the book they say it’s “terrifying” that “we’re throwing resources at the problem without understanding it”. In order to get liberation you have to understand the oppression, or you are at risk of repeating it.
…any and all discussions that incorporate animals and oppressed humans, especially black people, in the same space are now forbidden at the risk of a collective meltdown. If this kind of debate is any indication of the depth of the contemporary animal rights movement, if these are the kinds of connections we’re fighting one another and the public to make, then our movement is doomed.Animal is a created category and the line between human and animal is not concrete. We are animals, and yet when we hear or speak of “animals'' we don’t usually think of or include homo-sapiens in that definition. Humanity vs animality; these descriptions are part of a hierarchy where anything “animal” is valued less, and Aph and Syl discuss how it’s a racialised system. Colonialism has given us an image of the ideal human (something like a white, european, able-bodied, male) and the further you move from this point, and the more “animal” you are seen, the worse. Over the past 500 years, brutal and horrific treatment of black people has been justified because they were seen as sub-human or animal. The same arguments we use to disregard hurting nonhuman animals today were used then - they don’t feel pain, don’t have culture, don’t have attachments to each other, don’t understand what is happening to them.
You can be a die-hard activist shutting down highways with your protests about police killings and still be part of the problem if you fail to take seriously black art, black theory, black perspectives.I found the part about true diversity very powerful. We have a bit of an obsession with physical bodies. Black life needs to matter as well as black lives. Society has recently agreed for the most part to care about black people when they die (at least we are outraged and upset for the cases that grace our newspapers) but does it care about them when they live. “You are an enemy to true diversity if your only concern is to recruit black and brown bodies instead of black and brown ideas.” The mainstream animal rights movement thinks adding race back into the conversation is simply about diversity initiatives and including marginalised people. "It’s not talked about in a way that explains how animals themselves are racialised."
An argument point wielded by some is that race isn’t biologically real. This can be used in many ways and even on both sides of some debates. But in this book they emphasise that biology isn’t the only criteria for reality. Other things that are not “biologically real” include principles of justice, moral systems and romantic love. These are things we humans made up. Things can be socially real and matter the most. I can’t find the exact wording but Aph and Syl say we have to fight not just for vapid superficial representation, but also for the right to produce knowledge, to create theory, and to rearticulate the way oppression manifests itself.
We can establish even stronger divisions among ourselves informed by whatever we like, yes even physical traits, and still get along. People assume differences must be bad or divisive because we’ve always served up differences within hierarchical logic. But we tend to overlook the possibility that wanting to homogenise people despite our different histories. rituals, lifestyles, locations, and ways of thinking might itself be an oppressive project.One part I kept thinking about is how a group of indigenous peoples in South America have “no concept of nature in their language. That is, there was no sense in which we - human beings - were over here as perceiving subjects or knowers whereas nature was over there, a passive object to be experienced and known. Rather, the people he encountered saw themselves in a deep relationship with the surrounding plants, animals, bodies of water and so on. Such that there was no distance that enabled any being to be only, and permanently, an object." “Non eurocentric conceptual resources” mean people view the world in a fundamentally different way to those of us in Europe or influenced by colonial legacy. We should question our perceived objective knowledge and truth. Maybe some Indigenous people are not in awe of nature because they see themselves as part of it. There is no line between themselves and their surroundings. People can go on and on about how beautiful and precious nature is, but they still destroy it. They don’t see it as destroying themselves. Maybe if we were less effusive and more connected we’d be more kind. Now that is beautiful (though I don’t like that it sounds like an argument against Attenborough documentaries 🥲). Please can people realise the absurdity of taking planet-killing plane rides to apparently appreciate the planet. Appreciate it by looking after it!
Writing this review took me many hours and was a great chance to dive back into specific parts of Aphro-ism, but I definitely want and need to keep digesting these ideas. I’d like to read this book again sometime in the future, perhaps in ebook/physical format rather than audio. It gets your brain thinking which of course is good. It’s not an audiobook to multitask to, yet I still tried to cook and wash up etc while listening. I didn’t understand every word (for eg. epistemological? 🤓) let alone the deep and intricate discussions taking place. I found it challenging. Not in the sense that I disagreed with what they were saying, but that these are new ideas to me.
Some of the specific points I don’t understand at this moment (Aug “22):
⚫ At the end of chapter 11 Syl says “to think in that way is to participate in racial thinking, the very kind of thinking this project intends to dissolve” but at another point in the point Aph or Syl said they were against post-racial messaging. I am confused. Because to me racial thinking is the opposite of post-racial messasing. But maybe racial thinking actually means to judge beings differently based on their race, rather than simply to acknowledge race?
⚫ There was a part on how inclusion in some contexts (when we disregard difference) can be “just another form of coloniality.” “Emphasising similarities won’t help the oppressed.” Which I sort of get, but I also need to revisit.
⚫ There is a deconstruction of the phrase “We are all animals” but I could not explain to you why that phrase is or isn’t helpful. Same for “we are all the same” - I think they said that can be dismissive and a weapon of coloniality but I’m not sure why or how.
Ideas aren’t handed to you neatly on a plate. In Aph’s author’s note at the start of the book she emphasises that they’re not telling you what you should think. They are still questioning and grappling with these words and concepts (pop culture, feminism and black veganism) themselves. I loved this:
We left the original dates under each essay title so you can see when these thoughts were published on the website. We are doing this so you can witness our political and intellectual growth over time. You might even see contradictions between our earlier and later essays, which we would argue isn’t a bad thing. Too often in this society we prize and celebrate people for never changing their minds. We’re trained to view change as a sign of weakness, an idea that we want to trouble.Overall I found the delivery enjoyable and engaging. A conversational style, encouraging listening and responding without being defensive. So much to dig into and some exciting ideas for how the mainstream animal rights movement can adapt to be more effective, inclusive and important.
March 31, 2021
Accessible and timely, Aphro-ism challenged my conceptions of veganism and introduced me to new ways of decolonized, anti-racist thought. So much of what we think about animals has been determined by capitalist neoliberal society. We are told eating animal flesh is OK. It’s encouraged. Our commitments to eating non-human animals ensures businesses such as McDonald’s, Burger King, Five Guys, etc.stay afloat. The Ko sisters make the case that the opposite of white supremacy isn’t the subordination of other humans, but is the subordination of animals. They introduce the "human-animal dichotomy" in which the "human" is conceived as the heterosexual white male (the ideal form of being human) who is at the top of this white supremacist hierarchy. Everyone else who doesn't fall into this category of "human" is othered, typed as subhuman, less than human, non-human. etc. The negative notion of the animal is the anchor to the human-animal dichotomy. Negative conceptions of animals provide the "ideological bedrock underlying framework of white supremacy."
So, our ability to fight the system of white supremacy lies in our ability to counteract this narrative and live outside of this value system that places "humans" at the top and animals on the bottom. As long as we endorse the "human-animal dichotomy," anyone who is not a heterosexual white male will be viewed as as less than "human." Moreover, by endorsing the negative status of the animal and that infliction of violence upon animal bodies is legitimate, we accept the value system the perpetuates a racial hierarchy which places white men at the top and everyone else below. As such, the way we think about animal citizenship must be radically changed. We shouldn’t think of animals as undeserving of any type of moral considerations, otherwise we continue endorsing an oppressive value system:
"We must reimagine citizenship for ourselves as well as animals and other beings labeled inferior. Moreover, as long as animal means something degrading we will never be free....Dismantling racism requires us to seriously consider how we view and treat all life- not just those that are considered human."
So, our ability to fight the system of white supremacy lies in our ability to counteract this narrative and live outside of this value system that places "humans" at the top and animals on the bottom. As long as we endorse the "human-animal dichotomy," anyone who is not a heterosexual white male will be viewed as as less than "human." Moreover, by endorsing the negative status of the animal and that infliction of violence upon animal bodies is legitimate, we accept the value system the perpetuates a racial hierarchy which places white men at the top and everyone else below. As such, the way we think about animal citizenship must be radically changed. We shouldn’t think of animals as undeserving of any type of moral considerations, otherwise we continue endorsing an oppressive value system:
"We must reimagine citizenship for ourselves as well as animals and other beings labeled inferior. Moreover, as long as animal means something degrading we will never be free....Dismantling racism requires us to seriously consider how we view and treat all life- not just those that are considered human."
January 20, 2023
Un libro spettacolare che amplia la discussione sulla questione animale facendo un parallelismo con il razzismo. Aph e Syl Ko ripetono spesso durante tutto il libro che ciò che vivono gli animali è la stessa identica cosa che vivono le persone nere in questo mondo. Le autrici, attraverso un dialogo costante suddiviso nel libro in capitoli, riescono addirittura a trasformare il loro pensiero man mano che si va avanti, mettendo in pratica anche ciò che suggeriscono rispetto all'attivismo contemporaneo e gli spazi di militanza. Dobbiamo ripensare tutto, non possiamo pensare di combattere il padrone con le sue stesse modalità e spesso i nostri "spazi sicuri", sono formati da persone che, per quanto alla ricerca di una liberazione collettiva, sono (siamo) anche vittime della stessa società in cui tutt* viviamo.
Afroismo è un libro scomodo, scomodissimo. Che parla alle persone nere, alla loro comunità ma che andrebbe letto soprattutto dalle persone bianche per iniziare ad essere alleat* attiv* e in ascolto dei nostri fratelli e delle nostre sorelle nere e per abbracciare una volta e per sempre l'antispecismo. Perchè non c'è lotta al capitale, lotta alla parità, lotta al razzismo che non passi per la lotta contro lo specismo. In questo libro il messaggio più forte e potete che vogliono rimandarci Aph e Syl Ko è questo: se mangi la carne e i suoi derivati, non sei antirazzista perchè la base di queste due oppressioni è esattamente identica. Ve l'ho detto che è un libro scomodo!
Afroismo è un libro scomodo, scomodissimo. Che parla alle persone nere, alla loro comunità ma che andrebbe letto soprattutto dalle persone bianche per iniziare ad essere alleat* attiv* e in ascolto dei nostri fratelli e delle nostre sorelle nere e per abbracciare una volta e per sempre l'antispecismo. Perchè non c'è lotta al capitale, lotta alla parità, lotta al razzismo che non passi per la lotta contro lo specismo. In questo libro il messaggio più forte e potete che vogliono rimandarci Aph e Syl Ko è questo: se mangi la carne e i suoi derivati, non sei antirazzista perchè la base di queste due oppressioni è esattamente identica. Ve l'ho detto che è un libro scomodo!
February 8, 2018
Aphro-ism is an essential tool for activists in *any* social justice fight. It deconstructs Eurocentric views (aka white supremacy + colonialism) in relationship to its founding roots in animality.
“The human-animal divide is the ideological bedrock underlying the framework of white supremacy. The negative notion of “animal is the anchor of this system.” Their notion of “the animal” - construed under their white supremacist framework as “subhuman,” “nonhuman,” or “inhuman”- is the conceptual vehicle for justified violence or, as Decka also puts it, a “violence producing category.” Since racism requires this notion of animality, since racism and race-thinking would fail to make sense without animality, those of us interested in resisting or combatting racism need to take seriously why the status of “the animal” is what it is.”
“The human-animal divide is the ideological bedrock underlying the framework of white supremacy. The negative notion of “animal is the anchor of this system.” Their notion of “the animal” - construed under their white supremacist framework as “subhuman,” “nonhuman,” or “inhuman”- is the conceptual vehicle for justified violence or, as Decka also puts it, a “violence producing category.” Since racism requires this notion of animality, since racism and race-thinking would fail to make sense without animality, those of us interested in resisting or combatting racism need to take seriously why the status of “the animal” is what it is.”
January 2, 2022
I'm not quite sure when I started this book but it was a while ago and took me a while to get through it for a reason -- I basically read it twice while reading it carefully while underlining, highlighting, and noting something in every paragraph. The Ko sister's work challenged me deeply and aided me--encouraged me to reflect (which they promote as a form of activism) as well as inspired me to action. All of the essays were insightful and challenging.
I really appreciated Aph Ko's "Why Confusion is Necessary for Our Activism to Evolve" where she writes, “Part of activism is finding yourself in a new space of confusion, allowing yourself to step into new conceptual terrain. When you abandon commonly held oppressive beliefs, you might not exactly know what to do afterward, and that's where more activists need to be.” And, "Confusion is usually a symptom of decolonizing yourself from the mainstream system... [Where we] have to create new blueprints and imagine new ways of interacting with people and doing things." Also, "Confusion means you've stepped into new terrain and you actually have to think."
I highly, highly recommend this terrific book.
Other quotes:
“Animal' is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized. As long as animals are oppressed, as long as 'animal' means something degrading, we will never be set free.”
“Let's use our exclusion and invisibility as a power to create impermeable spaces for ourselves, unburdened by the ridiculous and biased premises of the dominant class. Let's use our erasure from this rotten-to-the-core Western notion of humanity to build up a different “new world,” one that is not defined in terms of dichotomies or hierarchies or emotional death—but centered on love: one in which we accept ambiguity and difference, grounded in an expansive, limitless “we.” We are at the center of a radical shift taking place in pro-animal discourse precisely because, upon self-reflection, we can see that our struggle is their struggle. I don't mean this symbolically. I mean this literally.”
“One of the shortfalls of representation rhetoric is that it advertises a simplistic blueprint for racial equality in which people of color are visually “included” in spaces regularly reserved for white people. The dominant thought is: If we just show more minoritized faces in the white marketplace, then progress is being made.”
“We need to stop expecting Eurocentric veganism to correct systemic racism. We need to let the oppressed folks articulate their own movements using their own voices. The self-proclaimed leaders need to stop trying to find their next Martin Luther King Jr. to manipulate black folks into being calm and “civilized” since what Ron [Finley] and other guerrilla gardeners are doing has nothing to do with being peaceful and everything to do with survival and protest. Black folks who are vegan are a threat to white supremacy, not a subset of the depoliticized white-vegan movement.”
“If we use the existing framework or model—the established mindset—to articulate a “solution” to a problem that that model sustains, in what way are we “dismantling”?”
I really appreciated Aph Ko's "Why Confusion is Necessary for Our Activism to Evolve" where she writes, “Part of activism is finding yourself in a new space of confusion, allowing yourself to step into new conceptual terrain. When you abandon commonly held oppressive beliefs, you might not exactly know what to do afterward, and that's where more activists need to be.” And, "Confusion is usually a symptom of decolonizing yourself from the mainstream system... [Where we] have to create new blueprints and imagine new ways of interacting with people and doing things." Also, "Confusion means you've stepped into new terrain and you actually have to think."
I highly, highly recommend this terrific book.
Other quotes:
“Animal' is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized. As long as animals are oppressed, as long as 'animal' means something degrading, we will never be set free.”
“Let's use our exclusion and invisibility as a power to create impermeable spaces for ourselves, unburdened by the ridiculous and biased premises of the dominant class. Let's use our erasure from this rotten-to-the-core Western notion of humanity to build up a different “new world,” one that is not defined in terms of dichotomies or hierarchies or emotional death—but centered on love: one in which we accept ambiguity and difference, grounded in an expansive, limitless “we.” We are at the center of a radical shift taking place in pro-animal discourse precisely because, upon self-reflection, we can see that our struggle is their struggle. I don't mean this symbolically. I mean this literally.”
“One of the shortfalls of representation rhetoric is that it advertises a simplistic blueprint for racial equality in which people of color are visually “included” in spaces regularly reserved for white people. The dominant thought is: If we just show more minoritized faces in the white marketplace, then progress is being made.”
“We need to stop expecting Eurocentric veganism to correct systemic racism. We need to let the oppressed folks articulate their own movements using their own voices. The self-proclaimed leaders need to stop trying to find their next Martin Luther King Jr. to manipulate black folks into being calm and “civilized” since what Ron [Finley] and other guerrilla gardeners are doing has nothing to do with being peaceful and everything to do with survival and protest. Black folks who are vegan are a threat to white supremacy, not a subset of the depoliticized white-vegan movement.”
“If we use the existing framework or model—the established mindset—to articulate a “solution” to a problem that that model sustains, in what way are we “dismantling”?”
December 17, 2022
"un giorno dovremo uscire dalle trincee e iniziare a costruire il mondo che abbiamo sempre sognato, ed è necessario cominciare a lavorare già oggi sulle mappe concettuali di quel mondo. L'afrofuturismo ci dà lo spazio e il tempo per iniziare a lavorarci."
Uno dei pochi testi che parla di speranza <3
Faticosa, difficile, lunga, dura ma possibile speranza
Uno dei pochi testi che parla di speranza <3
Faticosa, difficile, lunga, dura ma possibile speranza
April 13, 2021
Illuminating
Read
December 10, 2024"Why am I beautiful? Because I‘m a woman. I am always the right kind of being to admire in that particular way."
August 24, 2019
Thought provoking, simply amazing.
April 7, 2024
each thought in this book felt so carefully constructed. thoughts about race and animality, activism, coloniality. i have been reminded that it is okay to be confused when we navigate the challenge of dismantling the systems we live in. will always revisit this one.
July 14, 2019
A fascinating examination of how racism and animal rights are intertwined even while most people who work in both philosophical areas intentionally try to keep the two ideas separate. Each chapter explores feminism, race, and animal rights from a different angle, and the overall book brings everything together in a path forward that I wasn't expecting. Animal rights books for years have basically been rehashing different aspects of Peter Singer's arguments in "Animal Liberation," but this one is fresh and vibrant and much more inspiring than most books on the topic.
There is some serious graduate level race theory academic language used throughout. Soon after using a jargon bomb, the authors use a simple metaphor or real world example that makes everything crystal clear. I point this out because I could see excerpts taken out of context that would make the book seem like a chore, but I never felt overwhelmed with talk about decolonizing one's diet in a white supremacist patriarchal society.
Also, it's worth noting that people often caricature thinkers who write about such topics as shaming and judgy, but that vibe never comes across. They sound more like sisters working through their own ideas, sharing their ideas, and asking you to join them.
So here are a few excerpts/ideas to give a feel for the book.
* The authors mention how it came out during the Rodney King trial that Los Angeles public officials in the justice system routinely used the acronym N.H.I. to refer to the rights of young black men being violated: "no human involved."
* "'Animal' is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized, because at any moment you can become an 'animal' and be considered disposable."
* "Intersectionality is a wonderful and useful tool to help oppressed folks navigate current systems of oppression that we never created, but it was never designed to map out the future. This is, in part, why some movements that claim to be 'intersectional' feel stagnant; they keep dogmatically regurgitating the same analyses. Many intersectional movements assume liberation rests in finding newer intersections of oppression and creating new terms to add to the lexicon of oppression. These activists tend to replicate cosmetic diversity under the guise of intersectionality. Unfortunately, intersectionality doesn't really trouble the systems looming over us that we never created. Intersectionality maps out the world that has been imposed on us; it doesn't begin the process of mapping out the future."
Grade: A
There is some serious graduate level race theory academic language used throughout. Soon after using a jargon bomb, the authors use a simple metaphor or real world example that makes everything crystal clear. I point this out because I could see excerpts taken out of context that would make the book seem like a chore, but I never felt overwhelmed with talk about decolonizing one's diet in a white supremacist patriarchal society.
Also, it's worth noting that people often caricature thinkers who write about such topics as shaming and judgy, but that vibe never comes across. They sound more like sisters working through their own ideas, sharing their ideas, and asking you to join them.
So here are a few excerpts/ideas to give a feel for the book.
* The authors mention how it came out during the Rodney King trial that Los Angeles public officials in the justice system routinely used the acronym N.H.I. to refer to the rights of young black men being violated: "no human involved."
* "'Animal' is a category that we shove certain bodies into when we want to justify violence against them, which is why animal liberation should concern all who are minoritized, because at any moment you can become an 'animal' and be considered disposable."
* "Intersectionality is a wonderful and useful tool to help oppressed folks navigate current systems of oppression that we never created, but it was never designed to map out the future. This is, in part, why some movements that claim to be 'intersectional' feel stagnant; they keep dogmatically regurgitating the same analyses. Many intersectional movements assume liberation rests in finding newer intersections of oppression and creating new terms to add to the lexicon of oppression. These activists tend to replicate cosmetic diversity under the guise of intersectionality. Unfortunately, intersectionality doesn't really trouble the systems looming over us that we never created. Intersectionality maps out the world that has been imposed on us; it doesn't begin the process of mapping out the future."
Grade: A
August 23, 2020
This book succeeds in conceptualizing and conveying new ideas about animal advocacy, social justice, of which the sibling authors adequately show how interconnected they are.
The way they attempt to re-think the link between the 'human' and the 'animal', and how those two are structured not only along speciecist but also racial lines. They argue that exploitation and injustice is often justified not only by racial hierarchies or species-hierarchies, but that the two are interrelated, in such a way that both some humans and animals are subsumed under a inferior category, and that as such, also some humans are animalized.
What they also show is that simply referring to similarities between races, or between humans and animals is not sufficient to end exploitation and injustice. This is because "the difference between humans and animals, the crucial factor that fuels the phenomenon of speciesism was not born from the observation that animals are irredeemably foreign or dissimilar to us [because the difference] is a concept we create knowing full well the similarities between us" (Ko siters, p. 41).
This difference is a functional device, and only showing similarities (through philosophy, or (social) sciences) between races and humans and animals will thus never be sufficient for facilitating the liberation of the latter by the former. This is also because, the sisters argue, similarities can also be used as justifications for experiments on animals, or to eat them (if animals are similar to us, we can test anti-depressants on mice, and since animals eat each other, we are also entitled to do so).
The only weakness of the book in my view is that since it's a bundle of earlier written blogs and essays, that were edited for this book, it contains some repetitions and redundancies.
Apart from this, I find the book contains a lot of inspiring ideas that can offer new perspectives on our epistemic and ontological approaches to how we view the differences between humans along racial lines and between humans and animals, and see how they can help us think differently about systems of oppression that rely on other, often unchallenged metaphysical and essentalist epistemic systems. The former can thus help challenge the latter by inspiring new insights for a Critical Theory that might be utilized to help transform the way we treat those that are deemed inferior by the status quo which might help emancipatory efforts forward.
The way they attempt to re-think the link between the 'human' and the 'animal', and how those two are structured not only along speciecist but also racial lines. They argue that exploitation and injustice is often justified not only by racial hierarchies or species-hierarchies, but that the two are interrelated, in such a way that both some humans and animals are subsumed under a inferior category, and that as such, also some humans are animalized.
What they also show is that simply referring to similarities between races, or between humans and animals is not sufficient to end exploitation and injustice. This is because "the difference between humans and animals, the crucial factor that fuels the phenomenon of speciesism was not born from the observation that animals are irredeemably foreign or dissimilar to us [because the difference] is a concept we create knowing full well the similarities between us" (Ko siters, p. 41).
This difference is a functional device, and only showing similarities (through philosophy, or (social) sciences) between races and humans and animals will thus never be sufficient for facilitating the liberation of the latter by the former. This is also because, the sisters argue, similarities can also be used as justifications for experiments on animals, or to eat them (if animals are similar to us, we can test anti-depressants on mice, and since animals eat each other, we are also entitled to do so).
The only weakness of the book in my view is that since it's a bundle of earlier written blogs and essays, that were edited for this book, it contains some repetitions and redundancies.
Apart from this, I find the book contains a lot of inspiring ideas that can offer new perspectives on our epistemic and ontological approaches to how we view the differences between humans along racial lines and between humans and animals, and see how they can help us think differently about systems of oppression that rely on other, often unchallenged metaphysical and essentalist epistemic systems. The former can thus help challenge the latter by inspiring new insights for a Critical Theory that might be utilized to help transform the way we treat those that are deemed inferior by the status quo which might help emancipatory efforts forward.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews