"Intersectionality" and Equality

Intersectionality Toolbox

In their highly regarded text, Intersectionality,Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge write, “Intersectionality is a way of understanding and analyzing the complexity of the world, in people, and in human experience.” (2)  This intersectionality technique shows how many peoples interact and influence each other. Their guide is helpful to understand and analyze how differing contexts of human experience impact social and political results. By suggesting multiple possibilities for study, that might otherwise be overlooked by stereotyped bias, it promises that a specific inequality is not as likely to fall through the cracks. The authors note, “… intersectionality can be a useful analytic tool for thinking about and developing strategies to achieve….equity ((3)”.

Major social elements such as race, class, gender, sex, etc. exist in nearly infinite range of possibilities. Considering complexities and permitting unexpected combinations can produce positive results. Intersectionality rejects the usual “normative” position in order to open up to the possibility of a more equal and level playing field.

Inequality issues of gender and LGBTQ can also be studied in the intersectionality framework. This is helpful on constructing gender identity for those not able to advocate for themselves. The authors note, “Relational thinking rejects either/or binary thinking…opposing theory to practice, scholarship to activism, or blacks to whites. Instead, relationality embraces a both/and frame…examining their interconnections (27)”. These interconnections pave the way for inclusiveness.

 In an interesting example, intersectionality shows how powerful wealthy business interests interfered with the political and social structure of Brazil during the 2014 World Cup. FIFA soccer lobbied for laws that restricted everything from travel to food concessions outside the venue. Without considering the way all Brazilians might be affected, the concerns of poor men and women were not included in tournament planning. Because many people enjoy sports, it was assumed that even poverty stricken people would be in favor of the extravagance. The opposite occurred. Brazilians suffered hardships from the exclusivity of arrangements aimed at an international clientele instead of local population. In spite of high expectations, Brazil lost the games and lost millions of money. The scandal following the games suggested massive bribery and corruption. The power domain enjoyed by the organizers had been based on the assumption that sports benefit everyone. That was certainly not the case for women because only men can compete in the tournament. That was not the case for non-athletes because the sport is exclusively for extraordinarily talented athletes. A level playing field, for most of the country outside FIFA, definitely did not exist.

Intersectionality, used to study Brazil, discloses many social aspects not addressed by the common assumption that there are no racial barriers. About a thousand Brazilian feminists felt they were discriminated against and gathered to express their African roots. This was contrary to Brazil’s policy of racial democracy which emerged from its history as a colonial mix of native and outside nationalities.

The authors note that the black women’s movement in Brazil, “shows how intellectual and political activism work by growing by a specific set of concerns in a specific social situation, in this case the identity politics of the Afro-Brazilian women (28)”. This focuses thinking about social inequality and power relationships in various contexts.  The importance of context broadens the appreciation of specific kinds of problems in social situations across the world and the awareness that one size does not fit all.