The Future is Intersectional: Promoting Equality through Intersectional policymaking

Samar Fatima Ali (CFO, Rising Gaea)

#intersectionality, #equality, #empowerment, #policymaking, #socialpolicy, #socialdisadvantage

Intersectionality is a policymaking analytical tool that may be used both in social research and social policy design. It aims to forge a shift away from linear understandings of identity and social categories to a holistic understanding of how these categories are interconnected in their implications for individuals’ lives and interactions with social policies and institutions. Despite the relevance and importance of an intersectional approach to policy making, there are barriers to its practical implementation. These barriers include ambiguities in how policymakers understand intersectionality, the lack of a clearly defined intersectional research design as well as difficulty designing policies that cater to multiple interconnected inequalities. However, these barriers can be overcome through further research into how policymakers understand intersectionality and the development of a streamlined approach to applying the concept.

Before delving into the barriers facing an intersectional approach to policymaking it is important to provide an in-depth definition of what it is and why it is worth overcoming the barriers to its application. Intersectionality is based on the notion of the ‘intersection of different markers of identity and difference’, or in other words ‘social location’ (Manuel, 2006, p.176). According to intersectional theory, taking a ‘one- size-fits-all approach’ to policymaking by generalising populations is ineffective as lived experiences and the ramifications of policies are not identical across or within social groups (Hankvisky and Cormier, 2011, p.218). Furthermore, a ‘linear’ approach, which delineates ‘identity vectors’ such as class, gender, race, ethnicity or sexuality (amongst others) as ‘static, [and] unconnected’ variables is also considered ineffective, as the lived experiences of individuals are based on the intersections of these identity markers (Manuel, 2006, p.175).

Therefore, to employ an intersectional approach, researchers and policymakers must both acknowledge and incorporate the interconnected nature of social categories into social research and policy design (Manuel, 2006). Hence, the intersectional approach takes into account not only the Hence, analytically, the intersectional lens allows for the creation of policies that work to dismantle existing power structures, because they take into account the interactions between identity makers, structure, agency and power. This is particularly relevant as without doing so, policymakers may inadvertently fail to address the power dynamics underpinning social inequalities and therefore continue to reproduce them. Instead, an intersectional approach allows policymakers to design policies based on individuals’ lived experiences therefore empowering and providing agency to those being subordinated by existing power structures (Gopaldas, 2013).

This definition of intersectionality arguably leads to the first barrier to its application – intersectionality is a concept inherently based on fluid notions of identity, structure, agency and power. This means that its definition and how it is understood is malleable and tends to vary to certain degrees between researchers and policymakers – this creates a barrier to applying the process because it appears as though there is a lack of agreement surrounding exactly what it is, its purpose and how it should be applied (Rice et al, 2019).

To overcome this barrier, Mehrotra (2010) calls for the development of a ‘continuum of intersectionality theorising’, this refers to the creation of a typology of various ways in which intersectionality can be applied. In this respect Mehrotra (2010) calls for a deepening of the typology delineated by McCall (2005) which included ‘intercategorical’ and ‘intracategorical’ approaches to intersectionality, amongst others. In this respect, intercategorical approaches would involve ‘multi-group comparisons’ focusing on the relationships across identity categories, whereas intracategorical approaches involves focusing on the overlap of identity markers within a single social group (Mehrotra, 2010, pp.421-423). Therefore, we see that while a key barrier to intersectional policy research and design is the variation in scholars’ and policymakers’ understandings of how to implement it, the creation of a continuum of typologies would allow for a streamlined method to implement various approaches to intersectionality, while retaining the depth and fluidity of the concept.

The next key barrier to implementing intersectionality in policymaking stems from the fact that the first step to intersectional policymaking is intersectional social research – which is highly complex, time consuming and often expensive (Hankvisky, 2011). Furthermore, Hankivsky and Cormier (2011) note how it is difficult to delineate a policy research and design process for intersectionality due to the consideration of multiple variables and their fluidity. Overcoming this barrier is tricky as reducing the complexity of research, cost and time required for intersectional research and policy design is unlikely – it is simply a choice between the benefits of intersectional research and policy design against the costs. However, in terms of the notion of deciding how to conduct intersectional research and policy design there are arguably multiple ways in which this can be done. Hankivsky and Cormier (2011) point multiple possible processes however, they state that the ‘multi-strand’ approach may be the most ‘fully developed and promising method’. Its steps include, mapping, visioning, road-testing and monitoring/evaluating to analyse the ‘origins and outcomes’ of different identity markers in a given policy area. (Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011, pp.220-225)

In terms of implementation of intersectionality in policymaking we see that another barrier is a lack of a standardised approach as to what counts as intersectional policymaking (Christoffersen, 2021). In this respect Christoffersen (2021) developed a typology for forms of intersectional policymaking which is arguably a step towards overcoming this barrier. These forms of intersectional policymaking include ‘pan-equality’ (policies that address issues that affect ‘all/most marginalised equality groups’), ‘multi-strand’ (addressing multiple markers ‘separately and simultaneously’) as well as ‘diversity within’ and ‘intersections of’ markers/groups (Christofferson, 2021, p.579). Lastly, a key issue is to ensure that policymakers are not inadvertently reproducing the same dynamics (Verloo, 2013). To overcome this barrier Verloo (2013) suggests that one method i.e. the ‘structural method’ is that civil servants and policymakers actively work to ‘expose’ and dismantle inequalities within policies.

To conclude, this analysis offers an initial overview of the barriers to intersectional policymaking including both social research and policy design, as well as possible solutions to overcoming these barriers. To overcome the barrier of ambiguity in defining intersectionality, we see that the creation of a spectrum of typologies would arguably improve standardisation and simplicity, without compromising on the inherently fluid nature of the concept. Similarly in terms of intersectional research, although the time and cost of the process is difficult to overcome, approaches such as the ‘multi-strand’ approach would allow for a streamlined process for intersectional research. Lastly, in terms of actual implementation we see that the creation of aa typology of forms of intersectional policymaking as well as concerted efforts to prevent the reproduction of unequal power dynamics would allow for fruitful intersectional policymaking. To reiterate, this analysis offers a brief insight into the complex field of intersectionality. However, despite the barriers to its implementation, there is a way forward for increasingly intersectional policymaking that works to promote equality and empowers the disadvantaged!

- Samar Fatima Ali

CFO, Rising Gaea

REFERENCES-

Christoffersen, A., 2021. The politics of intersectional practice: competing concepts

Gopaldas, A, 2013. Intersectionality 101. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32, pp.90-94.

Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., Ferlatte, O. and 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), pp.1-16.

Manuel, T., 2006. Envisioning the possibilities for a good life: Exploring the public policy implications of intersectionality theory. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy,

McCall, L., 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 30(3), pp.1771-1800.

Mehrotra, G., 2010. Toward a continuum of intersectionality theorizing for feminist social work scholarship. Affilia, 25(4), pp.417-430.

Rice, C., Harrison, E. and Friedman, M., 2019. Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Cultural Studies and Critical Methodologies, 19(6), pp.409-420.

Verloo, M., 2013. Intersectional and cross-movement politics and policies: Reflections on current practices and debates. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture