Neighbor, A Handbook: Part 2(Q), The Terms-Intersectional, Intersectional Feminism (with a detour to sources)

“Some of these identities give us a leg up, while others push us a rung down the ladder. The combination of identities can compound (or diminish) advantage or compound (or relieve) harm, and there are perhaps endless variations. The point of intersectional practice is to look at all these possible combinations of privilege and vulnerability, rather than just stopping with the ones that apply to us, whoever we are.” — Rinku Sen, US racial justice activist and writer (1)

To begin, a reminder

Reasons people are marginalized: gender, race, sexuality, gender identity, class, religion, disability, age, economic status, etc. See Marginalized chapter.

Definition

Intersectional: how various elements of a person’s social privilege and/or lack thereof (see above) combine to create that person’s life experiences. This includes life opportunities and challenges — particularly notable when it comes to discrimination and the benefits of privilege.

Intersectional Feminism: A sociological theory that women who are also marginalized for reasons in addition to their gender have a unique lived experience in American society, American legal culture, and American power system. This includes intensified discrimination that varies based on how their marginalization and privilege intersect.

Explanation

Today, intersectionality is used in these two ways. A person’s forms of marginalization and privilege overlap to create a life and its experiences that are unique to them. Sometimes this overlap can describe an overlap that’s unique to a Group, as in Women of Color.

The term’s purpose is to help us all understand and see that — due to socially created norms and their privileges — other people’s lived experiences are not always similar to our own.

The road illustration

One way to understand this term is to use an illustration that many creative people already have used: the image of an intersection with many roads headed into it.

Picture a line-drawing of a sun. A circle with lines coming out of it around the circumference. Before going any further, know that every line in this illustration is a road. And every one of these roads has a red light when it reaches the intersection.

So, if I’m driving on one of these roads, when I reach the intersection, I must stop and wait at the red light for my turn to go.

Ok. Next.

Everyone in this illustration is driving to the same destination.

Next.

Each road that leads to this intersection is a form of social marginalization. Anyone who is marginalized in any way must take a road that goes through this intersection. So, for example, as a woman, I must drive one of these roads to get to my destination.

Next.

If I’m socially marginalized in more than one way, I must drive on more than one of these roads to get to my destination, and on each road I have to stop at a red light. (Yes, I know this feels real-life wonky, but don’t get technical, it’s a metaphor to show us real life, it’s not an actual real life commute.)

Next.

If I’m not marginalized in any way, I drive on a different road (picture a beautiful interstate) that bypasses the intersection altogether. It looks like this:

On this road, as one might imagine, I get to my destination much faster, and with much less chance of an accident or ticket, than the people who are on any road(s) that goes through the intersection.

So what’s our own drive like?

Pop back to the checklist in the Privilege chapter. Scroll down to “A Personal Check In.” Do the exercise. Please.

Now, here’s how it works: for each box in the privilege checklist that I don’t check, I must drive on one of those roads. It’s a little bit like opposite day but here’s an example:

I, myself, haven’t checked the gender (I’m male) box because I’m female, and so I must drive on one road that goes through the intersection. Think of this as the gender road, and everyone who is not male, or does not pass as male, must drive on it. Because I have all the other forms of privilege — being White, without physical disability, privileged, straight, scraping under the age bar, etc — I’ll only need to drive on that road and stop at that one red light, the gender light.

The more boxes of privilege we don’t check, the slower our route. The more boxes of privilege we do check, the faster our route. This is because the more elements of marginalization that form our personal life experience, the more roads we must take to travel through that intersection (and the more red lights we encounter) on our drive to get to the same place as everyone else.

Getting specific

So, let’s get specific for a minute. My Asian sisters, being female, would need to drive two roads — race and gender. Actually, my sisters were immigrants, so that adds a road, especially these days. If a person is Latine, female, and bi-sexual, that puts them on three roads — race, gender, and sexuality. Being a poor female senior citizen who has a disability would put me on four roads — economic status, age, gender, ability. When the definition of intersectional is used to include people of all genders, being Muslim, a Person of Color, and male puts a person on two roads — religion and race.

See how this goes?

It’s simplistic, but what’s important to remember is:

• Each road leading to that intersection is uniquely made and unless we drive it ourselves, we can, at best, only imagine what it’s like
• Every red light creates a delay to our destination
• The more times I have to navigate a busy intersection, the more chance there is for personal harm for me (and perhaps my family)
• The people who drive on the interstate have no idea what this other route is like (or often that it even exists) unless they travel in a car with someone else who must drive it. Even then they’re still a passenger and a witness, rather than the one with direct experience, day after day, at the wheel. People who drive on only one road through the intersection have no idea what it’s like to need to drive on two or more, and so on.

Brief history of the term

This term, today often used in regular conversation in a way that can apply to anyone, was first a feminist sociological legal theory about women.

It was introduced in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw (remember? the legal scholar also credited with coining the term Critical Race Theory) in an academic paper called “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum. A link, if anyone wants to read the 30+ page paper, is in the Vox article, see citations below. The term and the legal framework arose from the Critical Race Theory discussions.

There were many on whose shoulders this theory stood, in practice and in thought, and I’ll include three here as important, but not exclusive, examples.

Sojourner Truth (c. 1797–1983) worked for equality for all women and African Americans, including Black soldiers during the Civil War.

Anna Julia Cooper is known as the Mother of Black Feminism and spoke to the importance of educational equity for African American women (1).

The Combahee River Collective (1973–80) was one of the first groups to include sexuality, class, and social resources of power alongside race and gender in their conversations about intersectionality (2) .

Crenshaw’s paper that made her term Intersectional Feminism public was based on three separate court cases where the court was unwilling, or ruled they were unable, to recognize that a Black woman experienced two intertwined forms of discrimination — one for her race and one for her gender — and that these two things made her experience of discrimination legally unique when compared solely to all women or to all Black men. Crenshaw argued “that by treating black women as purely women or purely black, the courts, as they did in 1976, have repeatedly ignored specific challenges that face black women as a group… ‘Intersectionality,’ she wrote, ‘was a prism to bring to light dynamics within discrimination law that weren’t being appreciated by the courts’” (3).

Just as with CRT, for almost 30 years the theory operated in the high reaches of law and academic thought.

Not a social fuss was made.

Then, BOOM

Then suddenly, the term Intersectional became mainstream. In 2015, it was included in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in 2017 it was part of the conversation among the organizers of the Women’s March, when the necessity of recognizing the different experiences of discrimination women faced (and the need for varied perspectives) was voiced. In part this conversation was due to the unfortunate predominance of White women and White female voices/decisions in the organization’s leadership — and their view that all women’s experience was similar to their own. (A minor but far-reaching visual example: see the color of the hats)

The term brought an important conversation into this organization, what turned out to be a divisive one.

Growth is hard. Ego and fragility can make us stumble. (The question is, always, what next?)

Though it began as a more specific legal theory, over the years, the term expanded beyond Crenshaw’s important definition to include all forms of marginalization that women can experience. This is not a bad thing, it’s just important to distinguish.

When the term includes everyone regardless of gender

In the last five years especially, Intersectional Feminism has been shortened at times to Intersectional. This term still includes all overlapping forms of marginalization, but isn’t only limited to women or those who identify as women.

The weaponization

It appears that this term is being anti-marketed in many of the same ways as Critical Race Theory.

Though five years ago most people agreed that a marginalized person’s experience was indeed different from a person whose life met U.S. social norms, in the last couple of years the discussion has changed. Now, some Groups argue that the attempt to recognize where there has been discrimination, or inequity of any systemic sort, is actually a form of righteous victimhood — dangerous to our nation. These groups state that this work discriminates especially against White men, putting them on the very bottom rung of the social ladder. There’s also much fear-messaging that marginalized people and their allies are working to create a new power structure that intends to replace White people.

Are these fears based on real things?

While I’m sure there are a few voices who do message in this way (there are always a few extreme voices everywhere in all arenas), and I do read angry essays about White people and how racial inequity goes on and on and on and on, there is no broad fact-based evidence that supports these fears and claims.

Examining a system to discover where there is inequity, plus uncover whatever -isms drive it, in order to make it fair for all is quite different from the intent to topple a race. It is called leveling the playing field.

But this does not stop the fear-mongering voices from weaponizing this term, or making it a fear and anger-based focus of news, talks shows, and social media.

Identity politics

These Groups also cry that the conversation around intersectionality is identity politics.

Identity politics: “a tendency for people of a particular religion, ethnic group, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics” (Oxford).

Here’s the thing: I have not yet seen a political party forming that exclusively (or even anywhere close) represents one marginalized group. What I have seen is the call for the diversification of representation to look and sound more like our actual country. This is not identity politics, it’s noticing who’s missing and asking they be invited to the table.

I’d suggest, as a way of considering the validity of this identity politics argument, it’s an excellent idea to look at the makeup of both political parties and see if we notice any identity (race, gender, religion, etc) represented as a super majority and ‘moving away from broad based party politics.’

Ok, that was admittedly a trick suggestion because, Yes, this is happening.

I dare us all to look and see where.

Examining the fear of this term

The question is:

Where, truly, do we find those leaders — who publicly claim they’re being vicitimized or politically hurt — stationed on the U.S. social hierarchy?

This is easy to answer on our own. Which is always the best way.

Go look at the profiles of our elected officials (google U.S. senators, for example, and look at a photo, or governors, or congress people, or judges… do it by nation or state…and yes, it’s great to also break it down by political party, as that, too, informs who is having this discussion by locating where the people claiming victim actually sit when it comes to places of social power). Go on to university presidents, heads of hospitals and research centers, heads of fortune 500 companies (and beyond), richest people in the U.S., heads of media and internet companies and film studios…

Really, go look. And keep going.

Then do some research as to what different groups earn for the same work on the dollar. The government has this data, for example. Who is being taken to court and even fired for sexual assault. How prison sentences vary by race, and how lifespans vary as well.

Checking Sources, a long sidebar

Always make sure that it’s a real source providing the information. There is a lot of lying out there. Do not go to a think tank that’s called liberal or conservative; there are non-partisan think tanks and other easy to access relatively unbiased sources. It’s easy to google a source to check its philosophical/political leaning. I just type my question into the search bar and keep looking until I get good sources and good answers.

Don’t be fooled by names.

As an example, here are some think tank names. Play a game: guess which way each one leans politically based on its name.

Ethics and Policy Center

Project on Government Oversight

People for the American Way

New America Foundation

The American Enterprise Institute

Ok, here’s a link that breaks down the Think Tanks by political leaning (plus accuracy and attempt at fair coverage). Scroll through to find these (and simply take a look). How was the guessing? Also, see how misleading a name that sounds like it’s created for the well-being of all Americans can be? It’s important to know that some think tanks are created to think more and more creatively about how to make the world a better place and some are there primarily to manipulate the country to their way of thinking rather than provide real data that sheds light on current circumstances. This list can also be helpful when checking facts.

While everything is biased because we’re human, that is NOT a reason to throw out all sources. I hear this argument all the time and it is hogwash. So is the argument that a person doesn’t have to listen to facts because they’re biased. Facts are facts. They may be presented in a person’s biased argument, but if they’re given whole (and not lied about, misrepresented/misinterpreted, or key parts of them aren’t omitted), they are facts. Because they upend our belief and/or make us uncomfortable does not make them untrue, or something to dismiss out of convenience.

Recognizing that a source is biased is always the first step. But it’s a first step, and then there are things to ask. First check this site created by the League of Women Voters that has three media check charts. These do not check accuracy but do check the political leaning of all written material. Teachers use them to help guide students in their research and we use them ourselves.

Then, while reading, ask, How biased is this article? What’s left out, who’s left out, what perspective is left out, what’s highlighted and how are different issues/kinds of people portrayed? What does the photo look like? Flattering or awful? (that’s always a choice). What kind of facts are reported and how are they cited (are their sources included, can we verify their truth?)? Is the article more opinion-based (this includes interviewing everyday people who say what they think) or in-depth fact-based reporting? Has the source been successfully sued for providing false news? An article published by a biased source can still be excellent (see the Vox article I use here), it’s just important to understand what our source is and what we’re asking it to provide us.

The next way to combat bias is to read several sources (not all from the exact same school of thought). See how things vary. When I read something I think I’d better check (because I don’t agree or really agree), I type the topic into my search bar and look for some varied sources to confirm it.

The next is to cross-check the sources to confirm that their news/data is supported by solid facts. I google specifics in an article to see if they check out. With the computer it’s all fast.

This sounds like a lot, but it isn’t really — and it is worth it. There is no antidote like facts.

Back to examining the source of the weaponization

I’m going to stop now, but none of us have to. This exercise of examining voices and where they stand in the social hierarchy of power and privilege could go on and on. I think it’s healthy if it does. And for all of us who have done this honestly, the answer begins to appear to the final question: why the weaponization?

• People often do not want to lose power they wield over others.
• People often do not want to be made uncomfortable by looking.
• People often want to maintain their life of comfort and ease.
• Blame is an easy avoidance tool.
• People can be afraid there isn’t enough and so fight the idea of anyone else getting more.
• People believe the lies and so repeat them.
• People want to be elected, and continue to be supported in whatever leadership position they hold.
• People are willing to manipulate their followers through fear to keep the above intact.

Follow the trail of the weaponization back to the source.

Power and money and comfort.

Fear is an excellent means of keeping all these in place.

Why the term Intersectional is important

So, here we are at the heart of this book again. When we understand one another’s experiences, we’re better Neighbors. We create a better society. We take care of one another better. We are better at finding and fixing what’s wrong in the interest of living in a country where things are right.

Society and its social norms can divide us. It does this in part through rules of conduct that we don’t realize we’ve ingested. (See Norms chapter). Learning about one another and our individual and Group experiences is a way to interrupt the power of these dividing rules and norms.

Crenshaw’s theory was not formed to give one group power and take away another’s. Her theory, as well as CRT, was created so we could get rid of a power hierarchy (meaning: some specific Groups being higher than others, both socially and economically) and fairly “level the playing field” (Vox).

Every person who experiences inequality experiences it differently.

Understanding intersectionality is the willingness to be open to how other people’s experiences are different than mine. To listen. To imagine in. To do my homework. To really understand.

And then to see and act for us all.

In order to bring us together as Neighbors, working with one another for the whole, Neighbor: a Handbook is written with the hope of de-weaponizing both contemporary ‘hot’ language and our current divisive human practices. It’s audience is anyone it speaks to, but most especially people who are privilged in some way like I am. I’m releasing it one chapter at a time, and the first chapter is “Part One: Introduction.” This chapter will give you an overview of the whole project and its intent. If you’re enjoying Neighbor and haven’t yet followed me on Medium, please feel free to click the ‘follow’ option. If you’d like to receive an email when a new chapter is released, there’s an email icon next to the follow button that will make this happen. And of course, please feel free to share this book with anyone you feel would enjoy or benefit from it. Our Neighbor work begins with us, and then it extends beyond, so if you share it, please do so with Love. Most of all, thanks for traveling with me. I wish you well.

Sources

1. JASS Also an excellent discussion on intersectional feminism, including exercises.
2. https://blackhistory.news.columbia.edu/people/anna-julia-cooper
3. https://combaheerivercollective.weebly.com/history.html
4. Vox