WRD DSRPTR 2.0.21 Pixels on screen. 2022. 2500 x 3333 px.
WRD DSRPTR 2.1.21 Pixels on screen. 2022. 2500 x 3333 px.
REPLY DEPLORABILITY REWARDS
REPLY INTERSECTIONALITY REWARDS
For the way that they’re constructed, it is not always clear what each WRD DSRPTR noun phrase precisely means. To take the example here of the word “reply.” Does this communicate that the the implied protagonist is replying to the proffer of “intersectionality [rewards]” or “deplorability rewards”[?] Or is he replying with those rewards, proffering them to someone else? What furthermore is the nature of this reply? Is it made via email, in the manner of EMAIL PROTEST / RALLY BONUS POINTS, or it is made via social media in direct response to a comment or a post? The reader can’t be so sure of any answer. But pray the reader’s imagination will entertain all possibilities. Only then is the exploitative potential of WRD DSRPTR as a technology fully realized.
Now, something insidious is afoot with these “rewards,” for both the “intersectionality rewards” and the “deplorability rewards” imply that one receives either on the basis of, and for the reason of, his identity —the condition of being intersectional or deplorable. And not only are these identities rendered a kind of production, that is an act of production, that is capable of being compensated by earning rewards, but the rewards themselves incentivize this ongoing act of production, a continued condition of being intersectional or deplorable, so much so one risks becoming ossified in either identity for the purpose of ensuring compensation, of ensuring the rush of being rewarded for being “yourself.” You see, such a mechanism for affirming identity cements it; and once one’s identity is cemented, it can be manipulated. In this instance, manipulation occurs in the form of guiding the recipient of the rewards toward the purchase of some prescribed product. After all, rewards are only redeemable for certain products or in certain venues. What a naked and callous way to target a demographic for the purpose of making the individuals thereof loyal customers.
What else? The analogue of “intersectionality” and “deplorability” deserves brief discussion. It was important to me to include the word “intersectional” in one form or another in this series, for in my mind it epitomizes some core worldview of the progressive left, one in which identities are fixed, with hard edges, meeting on a two[-]dimensional plane or grid. There is a disconcerting insinuation of flatness in the term, of a reality in which people exist in neat categories with little nuance —almost in the manner of one’s title on an Instagram business page / profile. What more is there to know? What more should there be to know? The rigid mental picture that “intersectional” suggests prompted my creation of the WRD DSRPTR 2.0 typeface in the first place: a stridently angular typeface wherein letter components intersect at points, and wherein the components themselves bear the colors of our politics, CMY / RGB.
But I digress. “Intersectionality” proposes a coming together of various identities, and of the various people possessing them, at points on a grid; the collection of individuals borne thereby is vast and varied. Indeed, presumably it may encompass all of America. My contention is that “deplorability” is capable of the same encompassment. Specifically, “deplorability” proposes a coming together of various identities en masse. The fundamental difference between the two umbrella terms is that, whereas “intersectionality” seeks to retain and emphasize individual differences, “deplorability” is able, intentionally or not, to efface those differences toward greater group cohesion. And yet, ultimately, the aim of each is the same: to gather individuals of disparate identities under one master identity, or framework for identifying each other and for identifying those who do not subscribe to the same framework.