Does the Meaning of a Word Matter ?

The heated debates around intersectionality, from Emmanuel Macron’s declaration in 2021 to Natalie Heinich’s book (2023), highlighted how a part of the French public debate came to talk about this concept, social sciences and universities. While the concept has been criticized, the debates were never just about intersectionality. It seemed to be the opportunity to state or claim who has the legitimacy to define what is republican, universalist, or relevant to the French context within social sciences. The conference organised by the College of Philosophy and the Observatoire du décolonialisme was a high point in these debates. Knighted by the then Minster for Education and inviting those attending to reflect on how to rebuild after “la deconstruction”. The program mentioned notions such as “déconstructionisme”, “racialisme”, and “néoféminisme” amongst others. Despite the “-ism”, those are not concepts recognised, nor used, through scientific consensus. But what the previous debates as well as the Minister attendance seemed to mean is that politicians can arbitrate this consensus. As the Minister used his position to approve of part of the scientific community, disallowing the rest in consequence.
But if these are not concepts recognized by scientific consensus, what to make of this word jumble?

This communication aims to make sense of this questionable association of words with Stuart Hall’s concept of discursive formation (1997). Indeed, I argue that the fact that these words were associated says something about the position of academia and social sciences within France current political climate. Namely rising reactionary politics and moral panics. The authority to define concepts seem to have been seized by some public figures, out of reach of parts of academia. I introduce the notion of the utterability order to explain how ideas such as intersectionality, multiculturalism and wokism came to be affiliated.