Advertisement

Are We All ‘Baskets of Characteristics?’ Intersectional Slippages and the Displacement of Race in English and Scottish Equality Policy

  • Ashlee Christoffersen
Chapter
Part of the The Politics of Intersectionality book series (POLI)

Abstract

This chapter will present comparative analysis of English and Scottish equality policy documents referring to intersectionality, specifically the meaning given to it and how it is deployed. It argues that, even within countries, a range of contradicting definitions are evident and that, although engagement with intersectionality is greater and at a higher level in Scotland, in both countries its deployment is largely descriptive, superficial, additive and inconsistent, leaving its potential unrealised. It also highlights a discrepancy between debates in intersectionality theory, as to the centrality of race and the social location of women of colour, and intersectionality’s meanings and uses in policy documents. It identifies the equality third sector as a key actor in influencing the recognition that is given to intersectionality and discusses challenges it faces in influencing policy. Finally it offers questions and recommendations for a take-up of intersectionality more aligned to its social justice orientation.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham; London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing Documentary Realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 56–75). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bassel, L., & Emejulu, A. (2010). Struggles for Institutional Space in France and the United Kingdom: Intersectionality and the Politics of Policy. Politics & Gender, 6(4), 517–544.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X10000358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassel, L., & Emejulu, A. (2017). Minority Women and Austerity: Survival and Resistance in France and Britain. Bristol, UK; Chicago: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Studies. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishwakarma, R., Hunt, V. H., & Zajicek, A. (2008). Beyond One-Dimensional Policy Frameworks: A Practical Guide for an Intersectional Policy Analysis. Himalaya Res Bull, 27(1–2), 19–30.Google Scholar
  7. Bowes, L., Evans, J., Nathwani, T., Birkin, G., Boyd, A., Holmes, C., et al. (2015). Understanding Progression into Higher Education for Disadvantaged and Under-Represented Groups, Bis Research Paper Number 229. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.Google Scholar
  8. Cabinet Office. (2007). Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  9. centred. (2014). The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Voluntary and Community Sector Almanac 3rd Edition. London: centred.Google Scholar
  10. Cheek, J. (2004). At the Margins? Discourse Analysis and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(8), 1140–1150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colgan, F., Chrissy, H., & McKearney, A. (2014). Staying Alive: The Impact of ‘Austerity Cuts’ on the LGBT Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in England and Wales. Retrieved from https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/StayingAlive.pdf
  12. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas [Review-Article]. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2017). Concluding Observations (2017) CRPD/C/GBR/CO/1. Retrieved July 4, 2018, from https://ohchr.org/EN/countries/ENACARegion/Pages/GBIndex.aspx
  16. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–168.Google Scholar
  17. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Department of Work and Pensions. (2012). Equality Impact Assessment of the Innovation Fund. London: DWP.Google Scholar
  19. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2009a). Disabled People’s Experiences of Targeted Violence and Hostility. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2009b). Trans Research Review. Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  21. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2010). Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Review from an Equality and Human Rights Perspective. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  22. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2012a). Attitudes Measurement Framework Series Briefing Paper No. 1. Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  23. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2012b). Individual, Family and Social Life, Measurement Framework Series Briefing paper no. 2. Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  24. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2015a). Is Britain Fairer? Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  25. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2015b). Is Britain Fairer Evidence Paper Series: Methodology paper. Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  26. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016a). Equality Measurement Framework. Manchester: EHRC. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-measurement-framework.
  27. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016b). Prejudice and Unlawful Behaviour: Exploring Levers for Change. Manchester: EHRC.Google Scholar
  28. Equality Challenge Unit. (2016). Intersectionality in Scottish Higher Education Institutions: Examining Socioeconomic Status and Protected Characteristics. London: ECU.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman, R. (2006). The Work the Document Does: Research, Policy, and Equity in Health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(1), 51.  https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-31-1-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman, R., & Maybin, J. (2011). Documents, Practices and Policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 7(2), 155–170.  https://doi.org/10.1332/174426411X579207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freeman, R., & Sturdy, S. (2015). Knowledge and Policy in Research and Practice. In R. Freeman & S. Sturdy (Eds.), Knowledge in Policy: Embodied, Inscribed, Enacted (pp. 201–218). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hancock, A. M. (2016). Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hankivsky, O. (Ed.). (2012). An Intersectionality based Policy Analysis Framework. Vancouver: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy.Google Scholar
  34. Hankivsky, O., & Christoffersen, A. (2008). Intersectionality and the Determinants of Health: A Canadian Perspective. Critical Public Health, 18(3), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hankivsky, O., & Christoffersen, A. (2011). Gender Mainstreaming in the United Kingdom: Current Issues and Future Challenges. British Politics, 6, 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hankivsky, O., & Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and Public Policy: Some Lessons from Existing Models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hankivsky, O., de Merich, D., & Christoffersen, A. (forthcoming). Mainstreaming Equality in the United Kingdom New Developments.Google Scholar
  38. Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., et al. (2014). An Intersectionality-based Policy Analysis Framework: Critical Reflections on a Methodology for Advancing Equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13(1).Google Scholar
  39. Hermanin, C., & Squires, J. (2012). Institutionalizing Intersectionality in the “Big Three”: The Changing Equality Framework in France, Germany and Britain. In A. Krizsan, H. Skjeie, & J. Squires (Eds.), Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes (2012 ed., pp. 89–118). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jordan-Zachery, J. (2013). Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: My Political Fight against the Invisibility/Erasure of Black Women in Intersectionality Research. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(1), 101–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2012.760314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kairos in Soho. (2011). The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Voluntary and Community Sector Almanac (1st ed.). London: Kairos in Soho.Google Scholar
  42. Kairos in Soho. (2012). In A. Christoffersen (Ed.), The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Voluntary and Community Sector Almanac (2nd ed.). London: Kairos in Soho.Google Scholar
  43. Krizsan, A., Skjeie, H., & Squires, J. (2012a). Institutionalizing Intersectionality: A Theoretical Framework. In A. Krizsan, H. Skjeie, & J. Squires (Eds.), Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes (2012 ed., pp. 1–32). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krizsan, A., Skjeie, H., & Squires, J. (Eds.). (2012b). Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes (2012 ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Mackay, F. (2010). Gendering Constitutional Change and Policy Outcomes: Substantive Representation and Domestic Violence Policy in Scotland. Policy & Politics, 38(3), 369–388.  https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310X521062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mohanty, C. T. (2013). Transnational Feminist Crossings: On Neoliberalism and Radical Critique. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 967–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Opportunity Agenda. (2017). Ten Tips for Putting Intersectionality into Practice. Opportunity Agenda. Retrieved from https://opportunityagenda.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/Intersectionality-into-Practice-Edits05.30.17.pdf.
  50. Parken, A. (2010). A Multi-Strand Approach to Promoting Equalities and Human Rights in Policy Making. Policy & Politics, 38(1), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scottish Funding Council. (2015). University Outcome Agreement Guidance for Academic Year 2014–15 to 2016–17: Refresh. Edinburgh: Scottish Funding Council.Google Scholar
  54. Scottish Government. (2003, February 10). Equality Proofing Budget Seminar [Minutes]. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2003/02/16316.
  55. Scottish Government. (2010, November 17). Equality Statement Scotland’s Budget 2011–12 [Publication]. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/11/17115419/0.
  56. Scottish Government. (2011, September 21). Equality Statement Scottish Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012–13 [Publication]. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/09/26110945/26.
  57. Scottish Government. (2013a, March 7). Scottish Government Equality Outcomes. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Equality/EqualityOutcomes.
  58. Scottish Government. (2013b, October 15). Rights to Reality: A Framework of Action for Independent Living in Scotland 2013 to 2015 [Publication]. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/10/1226.
  59. Scottish Government. (2014, February 13). Equality Evidence Strategy 2014 [Info Page]. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Equality/Equalities/EqualFramework/equalityevstrategy2014.
  60. Scottish Government. (2015, November 19). Active Scotland Outcomes: Indicator Equality Analysis [Research Publications]. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/11/9439.
  61. Scottish Government. (2016a). CEMVO Consultation Response Public Sector Equality Duty Amendment Regulations 2016. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  62. Scottish Government. (2016b, March 21). Race Equality Framework for Scotland 2016–2030 [Publication]. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/4084.
  63. Scottish Government. (2016c, March 23). EQIA Public Sector Equality Duty Amendment Regulations 2016 [Publication]. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/9832/1.
  64. Scottish Government. (2016d, March 23). Equally Safe [Publication]. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/7926.
  65. Scottish Government. (2017a). Equality Outcomes and Mainstreaming Report 2017 (Report). Retrieved from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/04/4384.
  66. Scottish Government. (2017b, February 23). Race Equality Framework Implementation Approach [Guidance]. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/02/7935.
  67. Solanke, I. (2011). Infusing the Silos in the Equality Act 2010 with Synergy. The Industrial Law Journal, 40(4), 336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Squires, J. (2008). Intersecting Inequalities: Reflecting on the Subjects and Objects of Equality. Political Quarterly, 79(1), 53–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2008.00902.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Squires, J. (2009). Intersecting Inequalities: Britain’s Equality Review. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stanley, L. (2016). Archival Methodology Inside the Black Box. In N. Moore, A. Salter, L. Stanley, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), The Archive Project: Archival Research in the Social Sciences. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Sudbury, J. (1998). “Other Kinds of Dreams”: Black Women’s Organisations and the Politics of Transformation (1st ed., Later Printing ed.). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. The Socio-Economic Duty: A Consultation Equality Sector Response. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.closethegap.org.uk/content/resources/Socioeconomic-duty-consultation-equality-sector-response-September-2017.pdf.
  73. Tomlinson, B. (2013). Colonizing Intersectionality: Replicating Racial Hierarchy in Feminist Academic Arguments. Social Identities, 19(2), 254–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tracey. (2017, October 12). Women’s Budget Group, Runnymede Trust, RECLAIM and Coventry Women’s Voices Report: Intersecting Inequalities, The Impact of Austerity on Black and Minority Ethnic Women in the UK. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from http://www.edf.org.uk/womens-budget-group-runnymede-trust-reclaim-and-coventry-womens-voices-report-intersecting-inequalities-the-impact-of-austerity-on-black-and-minority-ethnic-women-in-the-uk/.
  75. Vacchelli, E., Kathrecha, P., & Gyte, N. (2015). Is It Really Just the Cuts? Neo-liberal Tales from the Women’s Voluntary and Community Sector in London. Feminist Review, 109, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and Feminist Politics. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashlee Christoffersen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Social Policy School of Social and Political Science (SPS)University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Center for Intersectional JusticeBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations