Intersectionality: Definition and Practical Usefulness (or Lack Thereof)

[Debater Slayer]

Merriam-Webster defines intersectionality thus:

the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups

Per the above definition, a lot of what I have observed--some of which has also been demonstrated in multiple statistics and past events--where I have lived seems to match an intersectional perspective of discrimination. For example, an ex-Muslim man in Saudi Arabia may face high levels of hostility if he publicly declares his non-belief in Islam, but an ex-Muslim woman also often encounters the added discrimination based on her gender.

As I haven't delved more into intersectional literature, I can't speak much as to whether the above definition from Merriam-Webster fully or accurately represents how intersectional theory is applied in practice. The World Economic Forum has an article listing some statistics that also indicate the presence of overlapping factors of discrimination in some workplaces, though.

What is your take on the above definition and, if you have read it, the above article? Within the context of identifying and addressing overlapping factors that may lead to discrimination in various settings, is intersectionality a useful concept?

 

[sun rise]

is intersectionality a useful concept?

This is new to me but I'd say "yes" it's useful. It makes sense to me that if there's bias in more than one area, there would be more bias than in a single area. I would expect something like "at least he or she is not (something else)" when it comes to bias. So someone who, as it were, checks off more bias boxes would face more bias.

 

[Augustus]

Within the context of identifying and addressing overlapping factors that may lead to discrimination in various settings, is intersectionality a useful concept?

It obviously highlights a real phenomenon, that people may face issues relating to different aspects of their identity.

So a black, gay woman may experience a different level of discrimination than a white gay woman.

It's also pretty self-evident that it can be used as a method of gaining social credit. So an upper class black gay woman may claim "victim" status and use it to boost her 'social credit" at the expense of a working class white male despite having far greater privilege overall.

Like many things, it can increase understanding or it can be used for self-interest to leverage power for one group at the expense of another.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's also pretty self-evident that it can be used as a method of gaining social credit. So an upper class black gay woman may claim "victim" status and use it to boost her 'social credit" at the expense of a working class white male despite having far greater privilege overall.

I would argue that in many scenarios, class is a greater socially differentiating factor than ethnicity or gender. There are situations where that is definitely not the case, of course, hence my opinion that a useful understanding of intersectionality needs to be especially mindful of nuance and not be framed in absolutes.

 

[joe1776]

Merriam-Webster defines intersectionality thus:



Per the above definition, a lot of what I have observed--some of which has also been demonstrated in multiple statistics and past events--where I have lived seems to match an intersectional perspective of discrimination. For example, an ex-Muslim man in Saudi Arabia may face high levels of hostility if he publicly declares his non-belief in Islam, but an ex-Muslim woman also often encounters the added discrimination based on her gender.

As I haven't delved more into intersectional literature, I can't speak much as to whether the above definition from Merriam-Webster fully or accurately represents how intersectional theory is applied in practice. The World Economic Forum has an article listing some statistics that also indicate the presence of overlapping factors of discrimination in some workplaces, though.

What is your take on the above definition and, if you have read it, the above article? Within the context of identifying and addressing overlapping factors that may lead to discrimination in various settings, is intersectionality a useful concept?

What am I missing?

If we understand that a black female can be discriminated against by the intersection of biases against both her race and her gender, how does that in any way lead to a better understanding of the causes of those effects or to a better way of dealing with them?

 

[Revoltingest]

For example, an ex-Muslim man in Saudi Arabia may face high levels of hostility if he publicly declares his non-belief in Islam, but an ex-Muslim woman also often encounters the added discrimination based on her gender.

Don't forget discrimination that men in particular face,
eg, military conscription (something that bit you).
And here, 95% of people killed by cops are men.

I wouldn't trade places with women, but it
isn't all unicorns & rainbows for men either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is your take on the above definition and, if you have read it, the above article? Within the context of identifying and addressing overlapping factors that may lead to discrimination in various settings, is intersectionality a useful concept?

Yes, I've found it useful.

I do a fair bit of public consultation in my work. I find it good to keep in mind that just because we've heard separately from, say, women, racialized people, and LGBTQ people on our project doesn't necessarily mean that the feedback we've received reflects the concerns and views of racialized LGBTQ women.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Don't forget discrimination that men in particular face,
eg, military conscription (something that bit you).
And here, 95% of people killed by cops are men.

I wouldn't trade places with women, but it
isn't all unicorns & rainbows for men either.

Not all unicorns; this is just discussing averages and general cases. In Saudi Arabia, being a man, all else being equal (or almost there), grants one an automatic advantage over a woman.

The notion that only men should be conscripted or allowed to volunteer in the army seems to me directly traceable, at least where I live, to patriarchal notions of men as the "stronger sex" and "protectors." It's one reason I believe such notions can be just as harmful to men as they are to women.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What am I missing?

If we understand that a black female can be discriminated against by the intersection of biases against both her race and her gender, how does that in any way lead to a better understanding of the causes of those effects or to a better way of dealing with them?

One aspect I can think of is that it could give an organization or other workplace a clearer and more comprehensive awareness of the causes and extent of the discrimination, which would help in tackling and resolving them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What am I missing?

If we understand that a black female can be discriminated against by the intersection of biases against both her race and her gender, how does that in any way lead to a better understanding of the causes of those effects or to a better way of dealing with them?

It reminds us that the discrimination faced by a black woman isn't just the sum of the discrimination faced by a white woman and a black man.

When it comes to inclusion, one of they key questions to ask is "who isn't at this table?" Reminding yourself that every intersection has its own unique issues is important when trying to answer that question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One aspect I can think of is that it could give an organization or other workplace a clearer and more comprehensive awareness of the causes and extent of the discrimination, which would help in tackling and resolving them.

A practical example that I've seen in public consultation: providing child care at citizen meetings.

This wouldn't matter at all to a low-income person without kids, and a well-off single parent might not see it as a big deal to pay for a babysitter to attend a meeting on an issue that's important to them... but for a low-income single parent, providing child care can make the difference between them being able to participate or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all unicorns; this is just discussing averages and general cases. In Saudi Arabia, being a man, all else being equal (or almost there), grants one an automatic advantage over a woman.

The notion that only men should be conscripted or allowed to volunteer in the army seems to me directly traceable, at least where I live, to patriarchal notions of men as the "stronger sex" and "protectors." It's one reason I believe such notions can be just as harmful to men as they are to women.

Whatever the origins of discrimination,
it's useful to consider the full picture
of what burdens whom.

 

[joe1776]

It reminds us that the discrimination faced by a black woman isn't just the sum of the discrimination faced by a white woman and a black man.

I see. Well, I missed that because I didn't need to be reminded of that fact. To me, it's obvious.

When it comes to inclusion, one of they key questions to ask is "who isn't at this table?" Reminding yourself that every intersection has its own unique issues is important when trying to answer that question.

I don't see that it matters. If you give a woman equality because she's a woman, or give her equality because she's black, or give her equality because she's a black woman, the degree of difficulty in fixing the problem doesn't escalate, and the result is the same.

 

[joe1776]

One aspect I can think of is that it could give an organization or other workplace a clearer and more comprehensive awareness of the causes and extent of the discrimination, which would help in tackling and resolving them.

Businesses only have to comply with our national policy to give all citizens equal rights in the workplace. Thankfully, that task doesn't require them to understand the causes or the extent of human biases. We have social scientists working on those problems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see. Well, I missed that because I didn't need to be reminded of that fact. To me, it's obvious.

If it's obvious to you, great. It's not obvious to many people, which is why intersectionality is getting so much attention.

I don't see that it matters. If you give a woman equality because she's a woman, or give her equality because she's black, or give her equality because she's a black woman, the degree of difficulty in fixing the problem doesn't escalate, and the result is the same.

I think the clearest example I can give of why considering intersectionality is important is in my last post: if you're doing public consultation - and want to get meaningful feedback from the whole public - even if you meet all the needs of low-income people without kids and well-off single parents, you probably won't have done a good job of addressing the needs of low-income single parents unless you take the extra step of finding out the specific needs of people in that intersection of the two groups (i.e. the intersection between low-income people and single parents).

Or think about, say, homeless youth: they're going to have specific issues and concerns that might not be captured by considering homeless adults and housed youth separately.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Businesses only have to comply with our national policy to give all citizens equal rights in the workplace. Thankfully, that task doesn't require them to understand the causes or the extent of human biases. We have social scientists working on those problems.

It might require more than complying with equality laws. It likely requires education for employees, which will mean an understanding of biases. It's one thing to have an equal workplace in terms of hiring and opportunity, and another to have an environment where a person can thrive as an individual.

 

[Augustus]

It likely requires education for employees, which will mean an understanding of biases. It's one thing to have an equal workplace in terms of hiring and opportunity, and another to have an environment where a person can thrive as an individual.

It is highly debatable the extent to which diversity education actually works, and there is a case to be made that it could even be counterproductive (some studies have shown greater emphasis placed on differences between groups leads to greater discrimination).

There is at least a reasonable chance that much of contemporary DEI policy will have a negative effect imo, although I may be wrong on this of course.

 

[rosends]

Merriam-Webster defines intersectionality thus:



Per the above definition, a lot of what I have observed--some of which has also been demonstrated in multiple statistics and past events--where I have lived seems to match an intersectional perspective of discrimination. For example, an ex-Muslim man in Saudi Arabia may face high levels of hostility if he publicly declares his non-belief in Islam, but an ex-Muslim woman also often encounters the added discrimination based on her gender.

As I haven't delved more into intersectional literature, I can't speak much as to whether the above definition from Merriam-Webster fully or accurately represents how intersectional theory is applied in practice. The World Economic Forum has an article listing some statistics that also indicate the presence of overlapping factors of discrimination in some workplaces, though.

What is your take on the above definition and, if you have read it, the above article? Within the context of identifying and addressing overlapping factors that may lead to discrimination in various settings, is intersectionality a useful concept?

The way intersectionality is being used (that is, if I understand it, the overlapping and convergence of many different dimensions of discrimination, forcing us to recognize that levels of hostility have many causes and we cannot solve hatred by fixing only one of them and ignoring the others) is very different from how I have seen it in practice.

My experience with it has been more along the lines of "if you are against this form of discrimination, you must, by definition, be against the other forms that we think of as being related, and if you aren't against all the ones we include, then you can't be against the one we are against." I find this form hurtful and useless and it is the one that I have actually seen.

Example -- if you want to champion a woman's right to choose, but don't also favor equal rights for transgender athletes, or you don't march against funding the police then you can't actually be in support of a woman's right to choose.

Intersectionality becomes prescriptive, demanding that you see and validate someone else's vision of the confluence of hatred in order to properly ally yourself with any segment of a victimized community. Feh.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is highly debatable the extent to which diversity education actually works, and there is a case to be made that it could even be counterproductive (some studies have shown greater emphasis placed on differences between groups leads to greater discrimination).

There is at least a reasonable chance that much of contemporary DEI policy will have a negative effect imo, although I may be wrong on this of course.

You are correct. Bias education alone seems to have the effect of making folks complacent, increasing bias, and alienating majority groups. The key appears to be making diversity education part of a larger approach without some of the alienating factors and including some choice in the education:

"The key to improving the effects of training is to make it part of a wider program of change. That is what studies of workplace training in other domains, such as health and safety, have proven. In isolation, diversity training does not appear to be effective, and in many corporations, colleges and universities, training was for many years the only diversity program in place. But large corporations and big universities are developing multipronged diversity initiatives that tackle not only implicit biases, but structural discrimination. The trick is to couple diversity training with the right complementary measures."

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf

 

[joe1776]

It might require more than complying with equality laws. It likely requires education for employees, which will mean an understanding of biases. It's one thing to have an equal workplace in terms of hiring and opportunity, and another to have an environment where a person can thrive as an individual.

You say it "requires,,, an understanding of biases." Do you know what causes biases against race, religion, gender and sexual orientation? I have yet to read that psychologists can explain the phenomenon and know how to deal with it. I don't think we can expect businesses to do more than comply with the equality measures in civil rights legislation.