In parallel with the doctrine of universality, another approach is gaining more and more weight in the conversation about diversity : intersectionality. What does this approach offer? What is its history ? What criticism does it arouse? How does it translate into reality and inclusion practices? We take stock.
In the beginning, a civil rights activist... And women's rights
Who cares about black women's rights?
The term intersectionality appeared in 1989 under the pen of Kimberlé Crenshaw. This legal academic is also an activist for women's rights and active in the fight against racial discrimination. However, she notes that there is little interest in the situation of black women on the part of universalist feminist movements...
And there is little interest in the status of women from racialized groups. In other words, black women remain the poor relation of all the struggles. Even though they are among the most precarious populations in the United States.
Subordination and exponentiality of discrimination
In an article titled " Shifting the Intersection of Race and Gender : A Black Feminist Critique of Anti-Discrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Anti-Racist Policy," Crenshaw lays the groundwork for thinking that intersects with two sociological dynamics:
- The exponentiality of multidiscrimination
- The subordination of discrimination
By exponentiality of discrimination, we mean the fact that the accumulation of discriminatory markers has a multiplier effect: one is not discriminated against twice as a woman and a black person, but discriminated against more than two women or more than two black people as a black woman.
By subordination of discrimination, we mean the fact that in the presence of several criteria of discrimination, it is the most socially disadvantaged that has the highest multiplier coefficient. Thus, in a society where patriarchal culture runs through the entire social body, being a woman will always be more disadvantageous, even in contexts where human rights are promoted. But if we place ourselves in an environment where gender equality is achieved, but heteronormativity is very significant, it will be the fact of being LGBTQI+ that will have the biggest multiplier of the other criteria of discrimination.
How can intersectionality be objectified?
An inefficient numbers approach
But if we no longer consider situations of discrimination by major types of socio-groups segmented according to gender, sexual orientation, or condition of validity/health, or real or supposed origin, or religion, etc., how can we carry out policies to reduce inequalities ?
Doesn't the principle of intersectionality inevitably lead to the multiplication of micro-communities or even to the individualization of situations of discrimination ? A simple calculation on the basis of the 25 discrimination criteria identified by the Defender of Rights indicates millions and millions of possibilities to accumulate the grounds for being discriminated against. In other words, it is impossible to cover the scope of discrimination in an intersectional approach by means of figures.
The measurement of a dynamic
Except that the business world, more than any other, needs to evaluate in order to make subjects exist. So, how ? This is consistent with the very idea of intersectionality : measuring dynamics rather than volume. Let us explain : what the intersectional approach brings to the reflection on discrimination is the overcoming of statistical categories in favor of the apprehension of the potential for inclusion of a given environment.
You no longer ask yourself how many women and how many men (how many Generation Z, Generation X, Boomer ; how many Caucasian people and people of color, etc.) you have in the organization, but you ask yourself the question of the organization's ability to accommodate any situation... By guaranteeing the principle of fairness ! From there, everything put in place must bring the same level of benefits to each individual.
Why are there so many tensions between the intersectional approach and the universal approach?
For a universal set of effective rights
If it is a question of putting in place things that suit everyone, then it is enough to create and enforce a right that responds to the common denominators of all humanity, right ? The universalist ideal promotes this vision that would make us forget the gender distinction behind " the man with a capital H ", the social gaps behind citizenship, the age differences behind the moments of life etc. In this conception of things, fundamental rights that apply to all are the basis of equality in principle.
To move towards real equality, we give ourselves the duty to guarantee equal opportunities : giving rights to all is not enough, we must allow everyone to effectively enjoy the same rights as everyone else. This may require the use of corrective measures, in particular in the form of a helping hand to those who appear to be particularly disadvantaged and have fewer means to make their rights effective.
A denial of de facto social hierarchies?
Attracting a broad consensus on paper, the universalist approach is questioned for the limits of its effectiveness in reality. This is because the ideal comes up against the force of de facto social hierarchies which mean that even if we declare perfect equality of rights, we observe differences in conditions.
The whole problem of the glass ceiling is there. If we take the example of France, it is clear that the legal arsenal of professional equality is complete, that many measures are put in place to strengthen equal opportunities between women and men and correct de facto differences, some of which are even quite radical such as quotas or the obligation to introduce a salary catch-up budget in the event of underperformance on equal pay criteria. But invisible and unconscious brakes and obstacles come to sabotage the work.
All these obstacles have the same origin : stereotypes and biases that make women internalize forms of inferiority (feeling of having less self-confidence, stronger expression of the impostor complex, greater concern about domestic and family responsibilities…) and that society shows a low level of acceptance of deviations from the gender norm (biased perception of women's ambition, suspicious view of those who subvert the norms of femininity and scabrous view of men who do not perform masculinity sufficiently , accusatory look at those who do not seem to make family life a priority, etc.). In other words, universalist law does not automatically produce substantive equality .
The challenge of interculturalism
The universalist approach is challenged even more vigorously when we come to the intercultural field... Because the question arises of whom, from what point of view, with what vision of humanity is legitimate to define what suits everyone.
To understand what is at stake, let's look at the most thorny debates : those that put the vision of equality between women and men and/or religions and/or opinions and/or real or supposed belonging to an ethnic group in tension . The textbook case is the one that will oppose a secular woman of Western culture to a veiled woman of immigrant origin.
The French universalist gaze will readily designate the second as a victim (forced, influenced or in a situation of voluntary servitude) of a patriarchal order in reverse of the first, perceived as a free and liberated woman. But the intersectional gaze will challenge this reading on the one hand by defending a woman's freedom to veil herself without being immediately suspected of being incapable of deciding for herself, on the other hand by emphasizing that the Western-liberated woman is only liberated within the limits allowed by the Western patriarchy...
And finally, by questioning the exploitation of the condition of women for the purpose of stigmatizing a culture and/or religion. Without settling the debate here, we have at least a glimpse of what is at stake when affiliations intersect.
Competition or the hierarchy of discrimination ?
It is clear that, in reality, there is a certain rivalry between discriminations at the risk of conflicts between discriminated populations. The problem of inequality today in the United States provides a telling illustration of this, as the thinkers of the " poor white trash " analyze: the " little whites " with few qualifications and economically precarious no longer designate the privileged social classes as their opposites but point the finger at women and minorities who would take a piece of the wealth pie by helping themselves to their plates.
We can cite other systems of rivalry of this type, such as, within gender issues, the clashes around the notions of cis women and trans women that collide with body rights/reproductive rights/sexuality issues, subjects of gendered socialization (the fact of having been perceived by others, during part of one's existence, how does a man build the same relationship to his identity and his place in the world as when he has always been treated as a woman ?), new issues of gender equality (do trans women and trans men have the same experience of discrimination) etc.
For some, such imbroglios can be easily resolved by developing a scale of priority for combat. It is a political project in itself to decide whether social diversity comes before or after gender equality, intergenerational before or after interculturality, respect for opinions before or after that of religions... But it is not certain that this is, in essence, a project completely in line with the very spirit of the fight against discrimination.
Addressing intersectionality through productive conflict
Undeniably complex but quite inevitable, the intersectional approach seeks its method, particularly for application in the world of work. It seeks it through debate, and if one is in favour of productive conflictuality, this is rather a good way to proceed. Indeed, intersectionality raises new questions, addresses new dilemmas, and reveals the blind spots of our traditional policies to fight against exclusion, inequality and discrimination. By bringing out the non-existent and the unsaid, the debate creates common interest in the questions asked.
From this shared awareness that questions interest us and perhaps disturb us, it is possible to establish a methodology for developing solutions. This consultation on methodology is an important step, because it is precisely the reshuffling of the cards in terms of power relations, positions and rules of the game. It's time to accept that our usual reading grids will be challenged.
How can we renovate, for example, the concept of the glass ceiling by cross-referencing the issues of gender inequalities with those of social inequalities and generational differences ? How can we reinvest the software of women's right to control their bodies by combining it with questions of discrimination based on appearance, social classes, religions, and cultural differences? How can we think about the necessary articulation between the fight against racism, of which young racialized men are more the victims than men who are not, but also women who are racialized in the professional sphere, and the fight against sexism in all areas of society ?
These are just some of the sensitive questions that can be answered in the search for fair compromises (without compromises).
