Opinion piece by Margarida Caldeirinha.
Introducing our guest writer
For the first time, "Science-by-trianon" is inviting a guest writer, Margarida Caldeirinha. Future journalist, she would like to become a sport journalist, make that field more inclusive and allowing that women's vices and experiences are heard and valued.
At a moment where the youth seems more engaged than ever in raising awareness and making people act to find solution about climate change, at the moment where they expressed very clearly their feeling of sorrow and mourning at the present and projected future, at Trianon Scientific Communication, we thought that giving one of them the floor would be a good idea...
Margarida Caldeirinha
Ever since its introduction to the scholar world in 1989 by UCLA law professor and civil rights activist Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality, as a relevant framework in the analysis and problem-solving of equality-related policies, has continuously gained popularity among governments and EU organizations.
Kimberlé Crenshaw
But, what is intersectionality?
Simply put, this concept expresses the connection which exists between several forms of oppression. The discrimination one faces is not analysed by one factor, but the multiple intersected social categories to which one belongs. Therefore, the intersectional experience [1] is different for everyone and influenced by categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and identity, class, physical abilities and so on.
Social problems are complex by nature and when looking at them through this vision, they become even more convoluted.
However, if the existence of such reality is completely unacknowledgeable during the search for a solution to a discriminatory related problem, we are immediately blind to a fundamental part of it.
Looking at social groups as a homogenous agglomeration of people is an outdated conception which, therefore, brings ineffective fixes.
The issues with ignoring the intersectional experience when problem-solving can be easily pictured when comparing it to a similar problem: solving an issue through an equality approach instead of an equity approach.
@restoringracialjustice
The above iconic image that has been circulating the internet for years is an interesting way to demonstrate how having to account all the factors that contribute to someone’s struggles is essential to fully understand said struggle. Equity and intersectionality are connected in that way, since both have that exact aspect at its core.
In the illustration, we see three people which look to belong to the same gender (masculine). They are all trying to watch a baseball game, but they have a problem: they do not have tickets to watch the game on its stadium, so they resort to watching it through a tall fence outside.
If when looking at this situation we evaluated it as all individuals belonging to a singular homogenous group (male identifying persons), while ignoring other characteristics that contribute to their visibility problem (such as their age and their height compared to the fence and compared to each other), we would solve this by giving each of them one box to elevate themselves and peek through their obstacle.
This solution, however, would only help the member of the group which had fewer characteristics that made him vulnerable to the problem and leave out the ones most affected by it.
If when looking at this situation we evaluated it as each individual belonging to diverse sections of the same social group, with contrasting particularities that make the same problem affect them differently, we would solve the problem effectively by distributing said boxes depending on the age and height of the person affected. This way, all members of the group are aided and no one’s experience is ignored.
Just like in this hypothetical situation, in the real-world problems which are somehow connected to discrimination and inequality should be studied and fixed while having in mind that everyone’s experiences and the way they feel oppression are different.
In this way, creating policies to protect ‘women’, for example, if they only include cis-gendered, upper-class, heterosexual, able-bodied, white women, while leaving out the vast rest of individuals that make up this categorization, ends up not helping ‘women’ at all.
Why is this relevant when we talk about sustainability?
When it comes to the environment and the crisis we are currently living, and will continue to live in, just like the societal problems previously mentioned, such as women’s issues and the gender gap, sustainability is another important issue whose problem-solving would massively, and crucially, benefit from an approach with intersectional lenses. [2]
As recently as 2020, the term intersectional environmentalism [3] started to shine in environmental conversations when climate activist, Leah Thomas, popularized it during the racial inequalities protests that sparked up in the USA early that year. Even though the intersectional approach and its relation to climate change had already been used before this occasion, Leah Thomas made it understandable and accessible to everyone when she stated that:
“Intersectional Environmentalism is an inclusive version of environmentalism that advocates for both the protection of people and the planet.
It identifies the ways in which injustices happening to marginalized communities and the earth are interconnected.
It brings injustices done to the most vulnerable communities, and the earth, to the forefront and does not minimize or silence social inequality.”
Leah Thomas
But how are marginalized groups and climate problems connected? Why is the intersectionality so important to this issue?
Applying the same mentality as we did to the men and the baseball game, it is only by considering the different backgrounds and factors that might put a group of people in vulnerable positions that a clear picture of what the problem is and how it can be solved is created. It has statistically been proven that certain societal groups are more affected by the climate crisis than others.
Consequently, identity is directly connected to the level of intensity of environmental consequences that one feels.
Having these identities (and communities) [4] in the centre of the picture when coming up with policies against climate change issues is, thus, fundamental if we truly want to go beyond the surface.
People of non-Caucasian descent, people from lower socio-economic class, in western society, the ones the most exposed to environmental consequences.
Mainly because they are more likely to live in locations where they are exposed to harmful levels of pollution [5] from toxic waste, factories, highways, construction sites [6] among others.
These, of course, lead to health problems that upper class white people are less inclined to get.
Another big consequence that unfortunately has already been documented on several occasions is that in cases of environmental crisis, such as hurricanes, floods or droughts, these groups are less likely to have access to resources, information, and support; [7] and less capable of reacting by evacuating their homes and finding another place to stay.
Consequently, they become even more vulnerable than they were before.
Flooding in Bangladesh
This form of environmental injustices is a direct consequence of already systematic and systemic, established power dynamics and inequalities, stemming from our capitalist and post-colonialist societies. [8]
This situation is labelled under the term environmental racism [9] and is one of the big problems intersectional environmentalism seeks to battle.
Acknowledging that different identities are affected disproportionately by these issues and working directly with these groups is, thus, the only fair way to move forward in discussions and planning on sustainability. Fighting environmental related problems without the intersectional glasses can lead to dangerous and inefficient paths, such as ecofascim. [10]
Conclusion
Giving vulnerable and diverse groups the opportunity to have a seat at the table is fundamental, so decisions are not swayed in a single direction, one that only benefits a small part of society who is already in a position of privilege.
[5] doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300121
コメント