I’m still in the process of mapping out my definite scholarly objective; but I do know for sure I will be applying an intersectional approach to whatever I will be studying in the future. In other words, I believe in examining identities as not a singularly determined concept, but as layered and complex intersections of many factors. I am not just a woman, but an Asian-Canadian, middle-class woman. It sounds simple enough, but It’s very hard to account for the complexity of our in-the-flesh lives without reducing it to a neat word or a statistic when it comes to capturing it on paper.
Without an intersectional framework identity becomes misconstrued as a singular, immovable trait, where you feel you must “choose” only one aspect (whether it is gender, race, or class identifications). When one identity group becomes what I would call “silo-ed,” they start competing with, and ultimately marginalizing other groups.
The dangers of overlooking intersectionality can be staggering. One glaring case that comes to mind is a couple of posters from The Political Loudmouth. One of the posters on the website reads: “Gay couples don’t have abortions. Please. Support gay marriage. For the Children.” The other says: “Two girls kissing is hot. Two wives kissing is hotter. Support gay marriage. Make a frat boy’s day.”
Taken together, the slogans yield a problematic and oppressive message due to a lack of intersectional approach. The first slogan trumps the pro-choice movement. The second one objectifies women’s bodies and makes lesbian sexuality valid only under the heterosexual male gaze. Notice that in both cases, the lack of intersectional approach continues to marginalize and belittle one coherent minority group: women.
In some of the aggressive, militant and single-minded models of activism and identity politics, women often get left out and continue to be forgotten and discriminated. It’s especially detrimental for women of colour or women of lower socioeconomic status. In her study of women of colour in shelters, Kimberle Crenshaw (who popularized the term “intersectionality” in the first place) discusses how issues surrounding women of colour are never straightforwardly dealt with; instead, they continue to be ghettoized as “minority” problem, but are not dealt with by the “minority” groups themselves. Intersectionality makes us aware of our multilayered existence, allowing for partnerships and coalitions:
In the context of antiracism, recognizing the ways in which the intersectional experiences of women of color are marginalized in prevailing conceptions of identity politics does not require that we give up attempts to organize as communities of color. Rather, intersectionality provides a basis for re-conceptualizing race as a coalition between men and women of color.
Or simply, as I casually explained the message of my research project to my friend: “ever notice that you can’t be black, poor and be a lesbian at the same time? What’s up with that?”
politicalloudmouth
/ June 12, 2010Hi Rosel,
Thanks so much for taking a look at our posters! I’d love to hear more about your take on them.
Our intent is not to be oppressive towards women, but to use the language and attitudes traditionally associated with the white male patriarchy as a means of deconstructing that worldview. “Gay Couples Don’t Have Abortions,” if you parse it, actually means almost nothing at all. And the “Make a Frat Boy’s Day” line is designed to be an absurdly reductionistic rationale for gay marriage.
We’re planning on doing a set of pro-choice posters in the next couple of months, and I’d love to hear your ideas about what it could be useful to say about this topic.
Thanks again,
Political Loudmouth
jroselkim
/ June 17, 2010Thanks for your comment.
I understand that your intent was not to offend anyone, or to oppress anyone. And I really do think it’s great to have a message out there that can start a discussion, which seems to be your main goal. However, what I was trying to point out was that even if your intent may not be to oppress or single out one identity “group” sometimes the message can become problematic if not executed properly. We all have our blind spots and stumbling blocks when it comes to anti-oppression politics and ideas, god knows I do. We sometimes forget about the messiness of our existence that does not neatly categorize us into one group and forsake the complexity altogether. I was simply trying to say that the overall effect/message may be problematic as a result.
Looking forward to the pro-choice posters, and I do hope that you can think about the intersections of identities a bit more with the next slogan.
politicalloudmouth
/ June 17, 2010Thank you, Rosel. If you would be interested, we’d love to circle back around and talk a bit more when we start working on the pro-choice campaign. We’d like to gather as much information from as many different viewpoints as we can, so we can make a set of communications that are accurate and impactful, and possibly broken into sub-campaigns targeted at different groups.
Thanks again,
Political Loudmouth