Intersectionality: The Good, Bad, Ugly, Good
Intersectionality: The Good, Bad, Ugly, Good
“Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me—and ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it— and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have born thirteen children, and seen most of ’em sold into slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me—and ain’t I a woman?”
—Isabella Baumfree (aka Sojourner Truth)
The conundrum of identity has both uplifted and, unfortunately, led to tragic misconceptions. There was a time in world history when, for many, identity was chosen for another—by one with power over.
In modern times, one has greater agency when choosing identity. We have also been informed differently about what it means to choose one identity vs. parse our decision-making influence across our many identities.
Few of us have been informed that our identities change and that how we view, adapt to, and engage with the world changes with our identities. We can change our identities by choice; and, we have a choice in how we respond to external changes to our identities.
In some cases, life circumstances arise, which add an identity to ones we have established as “Who I am.” For example, in February 2022, my niece Jazmine survived a near-fatal car crash. In surviving, her injuries required a below-knee amputation.
It is easy to recognize the changes in her identity that have ensued. While I don`t believe she thinks about herself as “disabled” or an “amputee,” the experiences she has place her, for many, into such a category.
Her prerogative is how she engages with the world concerning her altered physical circumstances.
Of course, identity doesn`t only reside with an individual. Those around us change their identities when we change ours.
My niece was five years old when her father, my older and only biological brother (I have many spiritual brothers/brothers from another mother) passed away. When he transitioned to another realm, the relationship with my niece shifted.
I became more of a father figure. I was still her uncle (only biological and favorite–of course!). And her reference for her dad mostly lay with her grandfather (my father) and me.
Thus, when we had to determine the next steps for her medical care when she was faced with a decision about what to do next with a foot hanging onto her leg by a tendon, nerve, and blood vessel, we had the conversation together. With that decision, my identity, as it relates to her, changed, too.
And the way I see the world of people living with a disability–physical, mental, visible, or invisible–has changed, too.
That brings me back to Sojourner Truth and her “Ain`t I a woman?” speech.
In chapter 9 of Reconstructing Inclusion, “Intersectionality: The Good, Bad, Ugly, Good”, I wrote:
“Invoking the women’s rights activist, abolitionist truth-teller, and feminist Isabella Baumfree, who we know historically as Sojourner Truth, is important for two reasons as we discuss intersectionality. The first reason is that Truth’s 1851 “Ain’t I a woman?” speech, where the above passage comes from, underscores the binaries that predominate our lives on a scale never experienced before. For Truth, it was the question of “Who (in fact) is considered a woman?” [and why?].
For Truth, this was not merely about one’s femaleness. Rather, it was about a more complete and significant description of who she was as a woman.
Contentious binarity, the notion that someone or something could only identify with one attribute or another, was in operation then. It operated subtly, in a similar manner to the current day, ironically enough.
In fact, social media algorithms only seem to perpetuate and reinforce binary thinking. This is not to point a finger at social media as the only accountable party. It simply serves as a mirror to our reductionist framing of the world.”
In their highly-cited paper, “Economics and Identity”, Akerlof and Kranton state that, “Because identity is fundamental to behavior, choice of identity may be the most important ‘‘economic’’ decision people make. Individuals may—more or less consciously—choose who they want to be. Limits on this choice may also be the most important determinant of an individual’s economic well-being.” (emphasis mine).
Understanding identity is critical. As Akerlof and Kranton articulate, there is perhaps nothing more important to one`s material life, and I would add, “and beyond.”
Stalwarts of intersectionality recognize this. What few recognize is that an orthodox interpretation of it is unhelpful. That is, it can serve to impose limits on how we identify based on ascribed categorization.
That is, if you belong to a subset`X,` then `X`is who you are. No subscription necessary.
If we better understood identity in all of its multitudes, similar to how Sojourner Truth frames her identity, beyond race and gender we`d be better able to center our superset (humanity) while mindfully engaging across our subsets (inherent and acquired diversity).
I concluded the section about Truth in chapter 9, stating, “The second reason for starting with Truth is the importance of the question she poses. Truth’s question speaks to how people are categorized in the world and how they would choose to be seen. In articulating her multiple identities in the world, Truth could be considered both inwardly contemplative and outwardly condemning. She contradicts what was considered the default at that time about all women being fragile and weak, and at the same time, speaks to those feminine traits—mother, mourner, of God’s faithful—she possesses in parallel with the trope of white women.”
She emphasizes similarities, differences, and their indivisible dependencies, with aplomb.
Others may read the entirety of Truth`s speech and from their perspective, she speaks exclusively for and about women who she identifies with by race.
Perhaps she was. And, even if that were the case (I don`t believe it was from my reading of the full text) to interpret her message with such a limited perview leaves her “intellect” and legacy, diminished.
I combed through my Google alerts and read more articles with the keyword, intersectionality than I had since doing the research for Reconstructing Inclusion. What I vividly recall is that there were dramatically fewer people talking about intersectionality then (2019-2021) from one month to the next, than now.
The televised murder of George Floyd, protests that accompanied it, the subsequent increase of anti-racism books, articles, and consultants, the growth of DEI, and the inevitable blowback against the above, has accounted for this uptick.
My alerts for intersectionality over the month of September 2023 alone produced around 100 sources mentioning intersectionality. Of that 100 about 20-30 were articles written about “woke ideology” or something related, castigating the term intersectionality along with other common lexicon of DEI professionals.
The other 70-80% were publications catering to DEI professionals and in quite a few cases, defending intersectionality via a standpoint of it and other related terms that their identities (and often their livelihoods) were built on as “right” and those contrary as “wrong.” Inherently biased. Inherently binary. Inevitably contentious.
I will continue my research over time. More to come. And, I will leave you with three references that allowed me to add to my obscure DEI definitions list, confused me as to how such silly questions require equally silly and generally unhelpful responses to a serious issue, and one that left me with a hardy laugh.
First, the new term: Intersectional Microagressions. It is new to me. I have opinions. I am on holiday, thus reserve the right to withhold my opinions for a later time.
This one puzzled me as to how it would be reasonably helpful. It occurred as a tennis ball question with a wiffle ball response.
And, I chuckled over this one:
Clovis North sacks JSerra Catholic in big intersectional statement win
Definitely not expected. And, it summed up how seriously we take certain words when its how we make meaning of them, together, which actually allows us to make accessible, actionable, and sustainable change.
A note on brilliance:
While in Boston a couple weeks back (discussed it a bit last week) I got the privilege to spend time with my sister and ever-present wonderfriend, Yvonne Wolf. We talked about many things.
One topic was the leadership of Chief Human Resource Officers (CHRO`s). Yvonne is a 4x CHRO. She has worked in some of the greatest, most competent and innovative companies for HR and has seen her share of mediocre (i.e. on the left side of the bell curve). (My words, not hers, by the way.)
It occurred to me as I was thinking about this article, that what Yvonne was breaking down was how many (average CHROs) see their choices about who to support as binary. For many, there is a belief that they have to be “loyal to the company” (read: senior/most influential management) or to the employees. Self-interest in this zero-one scenario leads to the inevitable.
This is not entirely their fault. Boards play a role as do executives. And, when you hold the position, one`s job is to support what creates the conditions for the organization to thrive and contribute extraordinary value to its stakeholders.
Those stakeholders–from the retired widower living in a city impacted by your taxes, to the shareholder counting on you for her retirement, to the children affected by every decision the company makes on environmental stewardship–all matter.
Imagine if all CHROs operated and were rewarded for fostering the conditions for organizational and stakeholder thriving. What could that create for the role and for their respective organizations?
Thank you for your brilliance and wisdom, dear sister, dear friend, Yvonne. This post you shared provides a little more context and exploration.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we explore the current state of DEI, both within the United States and its global impact. While the U.S. has long been a significant influencer in DEI practices, recent developments have sparked debates about the direction and impact of these efforts. Some argue that the U.S. has been influential to a fault, while others believe there is room for more positive change.