Intersectionality in the context of diversity and inclusion: what is it and why is it so important?

Author: Georgie Williams

Georgie Williams explains intersectionality, how it might play out in the workplace and how adopting an intersectional approach can make your diversity and inclusion practices more effective.

What does the word intersectionality mean to you? We often come across words that are used in passing and develop a colloquial, and at times, inaccurate meaning. Intersectionality is one of these words.

What is intersectionality?

The history of the word provides some insightful context into the appropriate use of it. Intersectionality was coined by esteemed civil rights advocate and critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. Originally developed in a legal context, Crenshaw sought to explain how African-American women experience prejudice and discrimination as an intersection of two aspects of their identity; their race and their gender. Crenshaw postulated that the lived experience of these women was not merely a sum of being African-American and women; instead, a unique lived experience existed at the intersection of these identities.

Take this example; if a red line overlaps with a blue line, what exists in the middle is not "red plus blue", it is purple. The combining of identities creates a unique identity that is more than the sum of its parts.

Intersectionality explains to us how unique and unquantifiable identities emerge at the "intersections" of protected characteristics; and how the experiences of white women differ from those of black women, or how the experiences of disabled men differ from those of non-disabled men, to give just a few examples. Intersectionality highlights that one individual cannot represent their entire community as a spokesperson, and our policies and practices for inclusion have to consider and account for more than the concept of discrete, non-overlapping identity categories.

The adoption of an intersectional approach can also help to push beyond "performative activism", which is where activism is done to increase a person's social capital and reputation rather than their commitment to a cause.

What does an intersectional approach look like in practice?

Let's imagine a scenario in which an organisation decides to establish a panel of employees to be consulted on accessibility issues that need to be addressed in a shared workspace or office. If our panel includes a group of individuals, where one person is transgender and another person is disabled, we may consider this panel to be diverse. If all panel members are given fair and equitable time to voice their concerns, we may consider this panel to be inclusive. However, there may be aspects of accessibility that are not covered by this panel simply because the members have been elected to speak on behalf of their entire community, which will encompass issues they themselves may not be aware of.

For example, the disabled panel member may raise the importance of accessible bathrooms, and the transgender panel member may raise the importance of having gender neutral bathrooms available for transgender and/or non-binary employees. However, in unintentionally ignoring the intersection of these characteristics which can and often does occur within a population, we may fail to ensure that the bathrooms that are accessible are also gender neutral and vice versa. If our gender neutral bathroom is up a flight of stairs (or, as often happens, there is only one bathroom which is both gender neutral and accessible), the people who need these facilities may either struggle to use them or have to wait an unreasonable length of time to access them.

Another example of where an intersectional issue can arise is social events. If we are arranging an event to celebrate Pride month but our planning committee are all from a middle-class background, we may end up planning an event that LGBTQ+ working class individuals cannot feasibly attend. This may be due to transport costs, the price of the chosen accommodation and other economic factors, which the committee may not have seen as a hurdle. This "in-group out-group bias" is a known facet of human behaviour that often predisposes us - consciously or unconsciously - to favour people we are most similar to.

When we talk about in-group out-group bias, we are talking about the psychological phenomenon in which an individual identifies as a member of one group (the in-group) and perceives individuals outside of it as having differing or even opposing beliefs or values to them (the supposed out-group). We see this phenomenon occur when people identify themselves through their peer groups or political parties, sports teams or even nationality or religion. Intersectional practices require us to consciously resist this - even if we share a protected characteristic with members of an in-group.

As with the previous example, if we are gay but also middle class, we are less likely to favour the company of - and thus have a dialogue with - working class individuals who, based on these class differences, we may subconsciously perceive as being in the out-group. Beyond avoiding homogeneity in our approach, intersectionality is about ensuring we do not platform ourselves as representatives of an entire group to which we belong, given the differences caused by other protected characteristics, which may create divisions and in-group out-group biases.

It is important that we establish here that the intersectional approach is not about denying a platform or voice to individuals who do not represent every subsection of their community. It would be easy to allow intersectional methods to devolve into a quantifying approach to protected characteristics, where the person who "holds the most" is the one who gets to speak. This is a harmful approach which implies that only individuals whose identities align with certain characteristics have opinions and perspectives that need to be shared. Instead, an appropriate approach to implementing intersectionality within workplace policies requires a self-aware individual practice for both implementers and participants called reflexivity.

Reflexivity - how does your position in society affect your world view?

Reflexivity is a practice that has emerged as part of the methodology of social science research but now holds value in a business context. The idea is that an individual considers both their positionality (how their characteristics inform their position within society) and also attempts to, with as much objectivity as possible, consider and assess how their own personal beliefs and assumptions about the world and their peers inform their individual lens.

Using myself as an example, I have become aware as a researcher that, despite my individual world view as a transgender, non-binary, queer and disabled person making my perspective on social norms and values different to others, there are social issues that - in spite of my attempts to correct my biases - I will always be less aware of. If I attempt to conduct research into, or advocate for, racial awareness and equality, there are aspects of that inequality such as microaggressions or social practices, which would be "under my radar". I might not notice these things because my learned assumptions about what is offensive or harmful will never be the same as someone who is not white and has had to navigate the world differently.

It may sound straightforward - to try and be self-aware of how our characteristics and experiences create the lens through which we see the world - but reflexivity is a muscle that we must build and use, or we will not get into the habit of utilising it. Ultimately, this is a conscious practice that requires less conscious effort the more we apply it. In a similar way to how prejudice is unlearned - consciously challenging our assumptions and internal thoughts when confronted with a situation that triggers these assumptions, reflexivity is that purposeful step back; who am I in the context of this situation? What lens am I bringing to the situation? Is my approach to this situation grounded in past experiences or perspectives that I have adopted from others, or even anxieties I have about a subject or issue that is sensitive or unfamiliar to me?

In reflexive methodological research, researchers often list and describe themselves as a material in their work. In the workplace, allocated panels and/or organisers should consider themselves as components to assess in the processes with which they engage; where are we speaking from, and who can we speak for? What is potentially outside of our shared lens and how do we account for that? Beyond ticking off protected characteristics, what experiences and perspectives are not accounted for based on the intersections of some of those characteristics?

Implementing an intersectional approach

Naturally, with new or more progressive DEI practices, the question of implementation is very important. At the core of intersectionality is the fact that you cannot just make infinite subcategories for identity and find people to fill them; applying true intersectionality means approaching events and panels and workplace groups on a case by case basis. The nuances of human identity require a nuanced and human approach; the intersectional methodology is also a mindset and one which means that when we assess our own practices and processes, we do so with a self-critical and self-aware perspective.

Where an individual has been designated to oversee a process or event, they should consider deferring to another individual whose own intersectional identity and personal standpoint may allow them to assess the process or event from their own, more informed standpoint.

Consider the value of facilitating coalition events; instead of assuming all protected characteristic groups in one environment wish to convene and socialise separately, encourage and (where desired) facilitate bringing these groups together. Shared experiences of marginalisation and social invisibility (for example, microaggressions, socioeconomic inequality, access to essential services such as healthcare) can often bring groups together and mobilise them to vocalise the issues they face and advocate for themselves more actively. Sometimes a representative of one community may not speak up on a matter affecting them in the workplace as they believe it only affects them and therefore a small percentage of the workforce. These shared events can create coalitions across groups that facilitate greater awareness of intersectional issues.

There are no hard and fast rules for how we implement intersectionality in our individual and workplace practices; this we can attribute to the fact that Crenshaw developed intersectionality as a term to explain social mechanisms. Understanding it, discussing it and applying it to how we perceive social inequality is something that requires practice. Ultimately, the value of an intersectional approach is lost if we do not disseminate this knowledge to others; an intersectional approach is, at its core, all about perspective. If you can shift your perspective and the perspective of others into one which accounts for the experiences of those who exist at the intersections of different identity groups, it becomes less of a policy and more a natural behaviour. An intersectional view of the world allows us to remove people from the boxes we envisage for the experiences of others and deconstruct identities; no longer a sum of their parts, but a complex and incalculable interplay which require sensitivity, nuance and above all else, empathy.