Refusal of False Neutrality

Sor Juana navigated institutional demands for conformity while maintaining intellectual integrity—a delicate act that revealed how claims of neutrality often mask submission to power. In climate discourse, false neutrality appears as 'balanced coverage' that treats scientific consensus and denial equally, corporate greenwashing that claims environmental commitment while continuing extraction, or policy frameworks that present climate action and unlimited growth as compatible. Sor Juana's example shows that genuine integrity requires naming positions rather than hiding behind false objectivity. Climate justice demands intellectual honesty: acknowledging that doing nothing favors the status quo, that 'both sides' framing obscures asymmetrical power, that incremental reforms cannot address exponential crises. It requires stating clearly that protecting profit margins is not equivalent to protecting planetary survival, that corporate interests often conflict with ecological flourishing. This doesn't mean abandoning rigorous thought—quite the opposite. Rigorous thinking demands precision about trade-offs, consequences, and whose interests are served. Sor Juana's model combines passionate commitment with careful argumentation, showing that caring deeply about outcomes and thinking clearly are not opposites but companions.