What is intersectionality and why it doesn't just mean "really, really diverse"

If there's one thing that has always united me and my co-workers, even those with whom I have the least in common, it's a shared disdain for corporate buzzwords. We all know the feeling, sitting in a particularly dull meeting, trying to ascertain exactly how you're expected to synergize, or wondering how you missed the memo on what on earth a paradigm shift is. And of course, you daren't ask, for fear you'll be asked to circle back to the topic, or worse take the conversation offline. It's a minefield.

But corporate jargon doesn't come out of nowhere - often it's borrowed, taken from other contexts and given a specific meaning in the corporate world. The word synergy (from where the particularly skin-crawling synergize comes), hails from the world of medicine, and was originally used to denote the cooperation of organs in the human body. Paradigm shift comes from the world of science, specifically from physicist Thomas Kuhn in a book published in the 1960s, not entering the corporate world until 30 years later, re-branded as marketing lingo.

So it wasn't particularly surprising, when I first entered the world of diversity and inclusion, to see that the word intersectionality, an enormously important word and concept initially coined by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, a lawyer and preeminent scholar in critical race theory, had become a new buzzword, seemingly taking on an entirely different meaning in the corporate world. From what I could gather, its liberal use in many different contexts had allowed its meanings to multiply and dilute, with many professionals deciding the word just meant "really, really diverse", or as a particularly sardonic colleague once put it "diversity on crack".

And it seems this informal definition, albeit crude, has hung around. Whenever I've quietly pressed my colleagues and contacts in the D&I world on how they define intersectionality in relationship to their work, they often baulk, or at the very least struggle to answer the question with certainty. And on some level, I don't blame them. 

The thing is, intersectionality is complicated. It's a concept, originally created by a particular person for use in a particular academic context, which has taken on a life of its own and essentially gone viral. When it was originally coined by Crenshaw in her 1989 paper, she was explaining the gap in the US legal system to protect black women from employment discrimination - that in particular circumstances black women were discriminated against both because they were black and because they were women, yet unfair dismissal lawsuits could only be based either on race or gender discrimination, but not a combination of both. Black men and white women were separately protected, but black women fell through the cracks. The law wasn't intersectional.

Crenshaw further developed the concept in subsequent papers, landing on a definition which she still uses to this day, a definition I was lucky enough to hear first-hand when I heard her speak last year at the University of Westminster (see a very excited me below), attending an event which was pertinently titled "Mythbusting Intersectionality". During the event Crenshaw defined the concept as follows:

"Intersectionality is a theoretical framework to understand how overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination affect and apply to individuals and groups".

So there we have it. A long cry from "diversity on crack".

To me, the two most important words to understanding this definition are framework and overlapping.

Intersectionality is not a belief system, or a prescribed set of behaviours, or a political position. It's not a thing your organisation needs to do, per se. Instead, it's a framework, a scheme or system to understand the complexities of discrimination. Just as the world is diverse, the way in which you can be discriminated against is diverse, and intersectionality as a concept creates room for those whose particular experiences of institutional discrimination are made up of overlapping -isms or -phobias (racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia etc.)

The easiest way for me to illustrate this is to use myself as an example. I am both gay and of South Asian descent. This means that navigating the world, I have separately experienced both racism and homophobia - such is the life of a minority! But there are also instances where I experience both concurrently, where these two aspects of my identity compound in a way that there is no name for, but which has a material impact on my wellbeing, safety, opportunities and more. This would be compounded further, say, if I were a woman. Or if I was living with a disability. This is what the framework of intersectionality exists for, to make space to highlight discrimination which has often fallen through the gaps, for which the institutions and structures around us aren't always equipped to understand or handle.

So when D&I people say their work is intersectional, what do they mean? Well, this isn't as straight-forward. With the concept of intersectionality having taken off, the way it is applied to different scenarios and contexts (for which it was not originally intended) is up for debate. The question "what makes [insert literally anything] intersectional" could be the topic of an entire article. So instead, I will share my own assessment of what intersectional diversity and inclusion work looks like to me, in line with Crenshaw's definition.

Approaching diversity and inclusion work in an intersectional way means that you are actively and rigorously assessing how those who have multiple, intersecting marginalised identities can be accommodated and included. It means not seeing different minority groups (ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+ people, people living with disabilities) as separate and siloed, but instead acknowledging the inherent diversity of each of these groups, and treating them as an interconnected patchwork. It also means acknowledging that the term originates in black feminist scholarship, and doing work (beyond this article - sorry folks!) to better understand its originating context and the struggle it was originally conceived in response to.

But Alex, I hear you yell, this is all very easy to say, but how do I achieve this in practice? What practical steps can I take to ensure intersectionality is at the heart of all of the decisions my organisation makes around D&I?

A great question, and one that I'll be tackling (with the help of some snazzy experts) in Part Two of this article series on intersectionality. You didn't think I'd give you all the juice in one article, did you? Follow me on LinkedIn to keep up-to-date on my monthly articles as part of the LinkedIn Changemakers programme.

This article was written as part of the LinkedIn #Changemakers partnership – a 12-month campaign shining a spotlight on individuals who are using LinkedIn to drive genuine change in the world of work. To find out more about the partnership, read more here: https://lnkd.in/g6TTzFW