Intersectionality: Concept and history
The concept of intersectionality originates in Black feminist thought. Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American feminist legal scholar, coined this term in the late 1980’s to reflect the complexity of the experience of workplace discrimination of black women. Crenshaw showed that this experience could not be adequately captured by using a ’single-axis’ discrimination legal framework based on race or sex alone as this rendered invisible the experiences of those who were at the ‘intersection’ of race and gender. She used the metaphor of intersecting roads to depict intersecting roads of oppression (Crenshaw 1989, p. 149).
[See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRci2V8PxW4 animation at 4:14 ]
Furthermore, Crenshaw argued that the invisibility of black women’s experiences is not only due to the single-axis nature of discrimination law, but to the deeper problem that the groups upon which the law is based tend to focus on the more privileged amongst them. While Black male and white female narratives of discrimination are viewed as fully inclusive and universal, Black female narratives are rendered partial and unrecognizable by standard race and sex discrimination law (Crenshaw 1989, p. 151).
Since the publication of Crenshaw’s seminal work, the concept of intersectionality has travelled across multiple disciplines, national contexts, institutions and organisational practices. The concept has also been extended beyond gender and race to include other social groups/ categories/discrimination grounds, such as age, ability, sexual orientation and religion. Intersectionality is a contested concept which has been interpreted as a theory, a research paradigm, a methodology, an analytical tool, a ‘lens’ or a sensibility. There is also lack of agreement about the subject of intersectionality (the ‘things’ that are ‘intersecting’), i.e., whether these are ‘categories’, ‘identities’, ‘social groups’, ‘social relations’, ‘grounds’ or ‘strands’ (Walby et al. 2012, 229).
Yet, despite the multiple understandings and uses of the concept of intersectionality, a majority of theorists concur with the view that intersectionality is inextricably linked to an analysis of power, privilege and oppression. A good general definition to start with is the following:
“Intersectionality promotes an understanding of human beings as shaped by the interaction of different social locations (e.g., ‘race’/ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, disability/ability, migration status, religion). These interactions occur within a context of connected systems and structures of power (e.g., laws, policies, state governments and other political and economic unions, religious institutions, media). Through such processes, interdependent forms of privilege and oppression shaped by colonialism, imperialism, racism, homophobia, ableism and patriarchy are created”. (Hankivsky 2014)
[See http://vawforum-cwr.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/intersectionallity_101.pdf. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1islM0ytkE ]
An analysis of intersecting relations of power is at the core of intersectionality approaches. From an intersectional perspective, power is relational, which implies that a person can simultaneously experience both power and oppression in varying contexts and at varying times (Collins, 1990). An intersectional approach in politics and policy aims to transform the power relations that are taken for granted among the privileged, as well as the structures that create those power differentials. If intersectionality is to be a truly transformative project, researchers and practitioners must consider their own social position, role, and power. This kind of ‘reflexivity’ involves critical self-awareness, role-awareness, interrogation of power and privilege, and the questioning of assumptions and ‘truths’ in their work before setting priorities and directions in research and policy (Scully et al., 2017).
Intersectionality, multiple discrimination, and diversity approaches
These key aspects set intersectionality apart from other approaches such as “multiple discrimination” and “diversity management”.
- Intersectionality and multiple discrimination: Multiple or compound discrimination approaches focus on the individual, positing that the greater the number of marginal categories to which one belongs, the greater the extent of disadvantage that one will experience. The focus on disadvantaged people of multiple discrimination approaches obscures the role of privilege within sets of unequal social relations, which intersectionality approaches bring to the fore. (See Yuval Davis 2006; Marx Ferree 2015).
- Intersectionality and diversity management: Diversity management practices aim at increasing the number of individuals belonging to historically marginalized social groups in organisations. From an intersectionality perspective, the main critique of diversity management approaches is that they do not challenge existing power relations, as questions of unequal power and social justice goals tend to be side-lined or removed from the agenda altogether, in favour of utility arguments that address diversity as a business case (see Rodriguez et al, 2016; Hearn and Louvrier 2016; Denissen et al. 2018).
Intersectionality in EU policy
Until 2000, EU anti-discrimination law was limited to ‘sex’ discrimination, and discrimination on the grounds of nationality for EU nationals (European Commission 2016, 62). The Treaty of Amsterdam extended discrimination to other grounds to include racial and ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation, opening up new possibilities for the recognition of multiple discrimination. On the other hand, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits any discrimination based on any ground, including religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation, amongst others.
Following on these developments, two directives were added to the set of on sex and gender discrimination to cover this mandate: one concerning equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC); and the other concerning religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the workplace (Employment Equality Framework Directive 2000/78/EC). In 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive concerning discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief beyond the workplace (COM (2008) 426 final).
EU anti-discrimination law presents severe structural obstacles to the application of the concept of intersectionality in legislative processes and policy-making, because different grounds are found in different pieces of legislation and also because the various directives have differing scopes – the areas covered the racial directive being the most comprehensive in this regard.
Despite these obstacles, narratives about the importance of intersectional approaches are slowing gaining ground in EU policy and debates. Defined as an “analytical tool for studying, understanding and responding to the ways in which sex and gender intersect with other personal characteristics/identities, and how these intersections contribute to unique experiences of discrimination” (EIGE Glossary and Thesaurus https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1263), the concept is very present in the Commission´s Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 where intersectionality is a horizontal principle for its implementation.
Relevance for Institutional Change
The importance of adopting intersectional approaches in transformative projects of institutional change is increasingly being recognised. Intersectional approaches enable a more nuanced understanding of institutionalised power dynamics in organisations, and more effective policy responses to inequalities than “one-size fits all” unitary gender approaches. In the words of Acker:
“Racial definitions, exclusions and inclusions, are created in the same organizing processes that also create and recreate gender inclusions and exclusions, resulting in a much more complicated picture of differences and inequities. For example, hiring practices might be based on assumptions about racial identities as well as gender identities. Interactions at work may be shaped by racial stereotyping as well as gender and class stereotyping” (Acker 2012, 219).
Putting intersectionality theory into policy practice is, however, far from straightforward. The lack of a clear definition of the concept, the challenges of its operationalisation and the absence of a concrete methodology render its application in policy very difficult (Havinsky and Cromier 2011, 220). Adopting an intersectional approach to gender equality in organisations requires that the concept is translated into concrete interventions aimed at challenging and disrupting the dynamics of power and inequality, in a language that management can recognise, understand and use. (Verloo et al. 2012, 527).
An intersectional approach to gender institutional change must identify which inequalities to address. For these purposes, it is important to determine “which differences make a difference”. Context is fundamental in the implementation of intersectional institutional change strategies, as there are no a priori prescriptions. That is, each organisation must define its strategy, taking into account the internal and external elements conditioning its situation and its possibilities of making changes (for the importance of taking context into account, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siQefLuFuvg&t=204s).
Identifying relevant intersecting inequalities in a given context requires that the concept of intersectionality is understood in terms power rather than identity, as analyses of power can reveal those inequalities that carry significance (Tomlinson and Schwabenland 2010). Nonetheless, categorical understandings of gender, race, etc. may be necessary up to a point, as they allow for the collection and analysis of quantitative data (Acker 1992, 556).
Intersectional perspectives in baseline assessments can generate more complete information to better understand the origins, root causes and characteristics of inequality in the organisation. (EIGE 2016, 20 https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/step-step-guide/step-2 ). Lack of systematic knowledge on the situation of social groups’ standings at intersections of axes of power – particularly in the form of statistical evidence –represents a problem when moving from theory to practice (EIGE 2019, 11). Once variables are disaggregated by gender, they can be then analysed one intersection at a time (e.g. gender and age; gender and race, and so on). This may enable the identification of the groups of women and men who are the least/most disadvantaged and the areas where more targeted policy measures are needed, as well as highlighting the factors that place certain groups at an advantage. (EIGE 2019, 13 https://eige.europa.eu/publications/intersecting-inequalities-gender-equality-index).
One way of filling in the information gap provided by quantitative data is to collect and analyse people’s experiences through qualitative research, such as staff surveys and other qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews and focus groups. (For qualitative data collection and analysis, see this primer on intersectionality informed qualitative research https://www.ifsee.ulaval.ca/sites/ifsee.ulaval.ca/files/b95277db179219c5ee8080a99b0b91276941.pdf ). The Iglyo intersectionality toolkit also provides also some tools for evaluating the status quo in an organisation, and for thinking about the steps to take in order to ensure an intersectional approach (https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Inter-Toolkit.pdf).
Training is also a key activity for intersectional work as it helps to improve staff’s knowledge of intersectionality and systems of oppression, contributing to raising awareness and questioning constructs, and providing tools to construct a critical perspective that helps to rethink everyday practices. Training needs can be identified when collecting qualitative data through interviews for the baseline assessment. Once these needs have been identified, training programmes may include not only specific training on intersectionality but also the incorporation of an intersectional perspective into training in a more cross-cutting way, regardless of the subject being addressed. The igualtats-conectades toolkit to incorporate intersectionality into local policies includes a list of recommendations for training for intersectional work (http://igualtatsconnect.cat/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Publicacion-Igualtats-Connect-ENG-1.pdf):
Participatory methods are also key to effective institutional change strategies at their design, implementation and evaluation stages (for a definition of a participatory approach to GEP implementation see EIGE 2016, 21). In putting intersectionality into practice, creative participatory processes that include iterative dialogue and reflection enable the identification of exclusionary attitudes and discourses that undermine people’s agency as well as the factors that facilitate or hinder the involvement of different groups in participation spaces. (Lombardo and Rolandsen 2011:490. See also Alonso & Arnaut 2017).
Pitfalls, obstacles, resistances
There are different types of pitfalls, obstacles and resistances that may hamper the application of an intersectional approach.
Some of them are related to the very conceptualization of intersectionality. As the intersectionality concept is often interpreted in different ways (Dhamoon, 2011) there is uncertainty about what intersectional categories should be included in any given investigation (Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011; Hankivsky et al., 2014).
Many challenges are also related to the different aims that can be pursued and to their unintended consequences. Sometimes, intersectionality is used as a way to include specific groups into a “supposed” and unfortunately still largely unquestioned mainstream (Ferree, 2015), or in a way that it reinforces existing stigmas (Verloo 2015, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0045.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A01ea3b91d56e0b1524e4d8f14c2401bd).
The application of a quantitative approach to intersectionality may also meet obstacles. Among them, are:
– The paucity of statistical methods that can explore complex intersections (Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011)
– The tendency to use the dominant group in a given culture, generally white males, as the reference group against which every other category is compared, yielding results that are limited or distorted (Hankivsky & Cormier 2011, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olena_Hankivsky/publication/249802852_Intersectionality_and_Public_Policy_Some_Lessons_from_Existing_Models/links/55919c7f08ae47a34910b0e1.pdf)
– The risk of paradoxically reinforcing fixed oppressive classifications, often underlying the production of statistical data, because of the need to collect data highlighting the effects of the social dynamics of inequality (Squires, 2007).
There are also active resistances to intersectionality, often raised by those:
–Who are not open to social justice-oriented change and not interested to discover power and structural asymmetries in the context of politics and policy making (Hankivsky et al., 2014)
– Who have an a priori set of priorities in mind, such as gender or indigenous sovereignty, and do not accept to leave the determination of what is important to the process of discovery (Hankivsky et al., 2014)
– Who fear that the recognition of other equality strands could limit the focus on or could run counter to, the gender dimension (Squires, 2007).
In terms of policy-making and institutional change, intersectionality is often disregarded in institutional change efforts (Hunt, Morimoto, Zajicek, & Lisnic, 2012) on the grounds that it is impossible to apply it or that it is a complication that it is not worth pursuing (Coll-Planas & Solà-Morales, 2019). The tendency to apply it in a simplified way, at a purely technical or administrative level is also pointed out (Symington, 2004; Coll-Planas & Solà-Morales, 2019; see also their Toolkit to incorporate intersectionality into local policies, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334251653_Toolkit_to_incorporate_intersectionality_into_local_policies_Toolkit_to_incorporate_intersectionality_into_local_policies).
References
Acker, J. (1992) From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21 (5): 565-569.
Acker, J. (2012) Gendered organizations and intersectionality: problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3): 214-224
Alonso, A. and Arnaut, C. (2017) Democratising intersectionality? Participatory structures and equality policies in Portugal. Inverstigaciones Feministas, 8(1): 165-181
Canadian Institute for Health (2020). Intersectionality & Knowledge Translation (KT), CIHR
Coll-Planas, G. & Solà-Morales, R. (2019) Toolkit to incorporate intersectionality into local policies
Christoffersen, A. (2017). Intersectional approaches to equality research and data. Equality Challenge Unit
Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum 140: 139–167.
Denissen, M., Benschop, Y., and Van den Brink, M. (2018) Rethinking Diversity Management: An Intersectional Analysis of Diversity Networks. Organization, 41 (2): 219-240
Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230-243.
European Network Against Racism (2018) Intersectionality and policy-making on discrimination in the European Union, ENAR
Ferree, M. M. (2015). Beyond the Us-Them Binary: Power and Exclusion in Intersectional Analysis. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1-2), 33-38.
Fredman, S. (2016). Intersectional Discrimination in EU Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination Law. Brussels, UK: European Commission.
Hankivsky, O., & Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217-229.
Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., … & Clark, N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International journal for equity in health, 13(1), 119.
Hankivsky, O., & Mussell, L. (2018). Gender-based analysis plus in Canada: Problems and possibilities of integrating intersectionality. Canadian Public Policy, 44(4), 303-316.
Hearn, J. and Louvrier, J (2016) Theories of Difference, Diversity, and Intersectionality: What Do They Bring to Diversity Management. In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, and A.J. Mills (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, V. H., Morimoto, S., Zajicek, A., & Lisnic, R. (2012). Intersectionality and dismantling institutional privilege: the case of the NSF ADVANCE program. Race, Gender & Class, 266-290.
Kantola, J. (2009). Tackling Multiple Discrimination:Gender and Crosscutting Inequalities in Europe. In Franken, M., Woodward, A. E., Cardona, A. C., & Bagilhole, B. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching Intersectionality: Putting Gender at the Centre. ATHENA3, Advanced Thematic Network in Women’s Studies in Europe.
Lombardo, E. and Rolandsen-Agustin, L. (2011) Framing Gender Intersections in the European Union: What Implications for the Quality of Intersectionality in Policies? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 19 (4): 482–512
Mackay, F., Kenny, M. and Chappell, L. (2010) ‘New institutionalism through a gender lens: towards a feminist institutionalism?’ International Political Science Review 31(5): 573-588.
Mergaert, L. and Lombardo, E. (2014) ‘Resistance to Implementing Gender Mainstreaming in EU Research Policy’, in E. Weiner and H. MacRae (eds.) ‘The Persistent Invisibility of Gender in EU Policy’ European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), Special issue 1(18), Article 5, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2014-005a.htm, 121.
Nichols, S., & Stahl, G. (2019). Intersectionality in higher education research: a systematic literature review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1255-1268.
Rodriguez, J. K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J. K., & Nkomo, S. M. (2016). The theory and praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here? Gender, Work and Organization, 23 (3): 201–222.
Scully, M., Rothenberg, S., Beaton, E. E., and Tang, Z. (2017). Mobilizing the wealthy: Doing ‘privilege work’ and challenging the roots of inequality. Business & Society, 57(6): 1075–1113.
Squires, J. (2007). Diversity mainstreaming: Moving beyond technocratic and additive approaches. Femina Politica–Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft, 16(1).
Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A tool for gender and economic justice. Women’s rights and economic change. Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) No, 9(4).
Tomlinson, F., and Schwabenland, C. (2010). Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The UK nonprofit sector between social justice and the business case. Organization, 17 (1): 101–121.
Tomlinson B (2018) Category anxiety and the invisible white woman: Managing intersectionality at the scene of the argument. Feminist Theory 19(2): 145–164.
Verloo, M. (2015). Intersectionality and Positive Action. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1-2), 45-50
Verloo, M., Meier, P., Lauwers, S., Martens, S. (2012) Putting Intersectionality into Practice in Different Configurations of Equality Architecture: Belgium and the Netherlands, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society,19 (4): 513–538, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxs021
Waylen (2014) Informal Institutions, Institutional Change and Gender Equality’, Political Research Quarterly, 67(1): 212-223.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193-209.
