‘

Understanding Equal Opportunities and Diversity: The

Social Differentiations and Intersections of Inequality’

Barbara BagilholeProfessor of Equal Opportunities

and Social Policy

Equal Opportunities & DiversityLater, more sophisticated coupling of concepts EO&D

Emphasises:

Recognition of difference

Possibility of ‘multiple disadvantage’

Different treatment legitimate in pursuit of social equality, fairness & justice

‘Multiple disadvantage’ moved from rather crude idea of ‘adding up’ disadvantages sophisticated level of thinking that disadvantages are not cumulative but interactional – effect runs more than one way

E.G. Black women – racism infected & changed by sexism - sexism they encounter infected & changed by racism

‘NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK’

‘BIG THREE’ (gender, race & disability)

‘NEW SIX’ (sexual orientation, religion or belief & age)

European Union: Perceptions and Attitudes

Perception of discrimination on the basis of Rare Widespread

Ethnic origin 30% 64% Disability 42% 53%

Sexual orientation 41% 50%

Age 48% 46%

Religion or belief 47% 44%

Gender 53% 40%

European Union: Perceptions and Attitudes

Would you say belonging to certain groups is a disadvantage?

Disadvantage

Being disabled 79%Aged >50 77%Ethnic minority 69%Homosexual 62%Religious minority 39%

Women 33%Men 4%

Caution in Millieux of Diversity:

Avoid some inequalities being left out

Rivalry or competition between different interests

Recognise stronger interests may rise above others

Past UK Formula for EO Ill equipped to fully embrace social dynamics

of race, gender, disability, class, age, sexual orientation & religion or belief

Legislation – piecemeal, confusing, reactive, no collective solutions/class actions, complex, costly, & time consuming

Incremental approach bewildering for employers & public, & dysfunctional for EO&D project

Legislation for different target groups not compatible

Extent and Nature of Heterogeneity of Disadvantage

55m 58m (30 years) 1.6m more over 65 years 5.2m parent couples, 1.6m lone mothers,

180,000 lone fathers 10m disabled people 4.6m ethnic minorities 3.1m non-Christian religion 2.3-3.2m gay, lesbian or bisexual

Fundamental Continuous Disadvantage

Glass Ceiling/Gender Pay Gap – Hourly 17% (38.4% PT)

Caveat – Ethnic origin

Education – girls achieve but discipline segregation

Sex & Power

Caring Responsibilities

Heterogeneity and Relational Aspect of Disadvantage

Age - mediating factor in gender and employment

Disability & Employment – lower than non-disabled but also gendered

Ethnic Groups & Employment – EM women full time – EM men part time – Unemployment - Heterogeneity of different EM groups

Religious Belief – Muslims lowest employment – all religious groups employment activity gendered

Social Justice Agenda

Relatively Recent Major Challenges

Theoretical & Political Challenges: Post-structuarlist/modernist stances Critique homogeneity of groups or even groups as

such Deconstruction of groups Concept of diversity

‘New kids on the block’ Disadvantage dynamic & interactive

E.G. No longer acceptable to act as if women existed separate from other sources of disadvantage

Multi-discrimination

‘Double’, ‘Triple’ … disadvantage?

Potentially list is endless, but simply counting & adding on different types of disadvantage does nothing to facilitate our understanding of simultaneous, interlacing & interactional disadvantage

Fairytale AnalogyThree minority ethnic women assume the role

of Snow White, rather than the Black QueenEach in turn responds to question: ‘Mirror,

mirror on the wall, what is the greatest oppressor of us all?’

First woman: ‘being black, racism is the main cause of my oppression’

Second: ‘my life is dominated and controlled by men. Therefore, sexism is my greatest oppressor’

Third: ‘it is not possible to respond because my gender, race and class are all causes of my oppression’

EO&D at Theoretical Impasse?Post-structuralist/modernist critiques challenge validity of ‘truth discourses’ and ‘grand narrative’ Useful for EO&D

Fundamentally difficult if they only deconstruct groups, but do not reconstruct them in some way

Intersectionality to the Rescue?

Concept and methodology of ‘intersectionality’ Crenshaw (1989)

Acknowledges & stresses importance of intersections of disadvantage between & within social groups. ‘Intersectionality refers to particular forms of intersecting oppressions … Intersectional paradigms remind us that oppression cannot be reduced to one fundamental type, and that oppressions work together in producing injustice’ Hill Collins (2000: 180)

Intersectionality to the Rescue?

Focuses on the inter-relationships between different social divisions – as either reinforcing or counteracting each other

Reconstruction of different socially disadvantaged groups

Need to fine tune policy

•Acknowledges that where disadvantages interplay & coincide or conflict between & within groups new policy approaches need to be considered

Need to fine tune policy•Need for analysis that looks at whole people rather than breaking them up into component parts (e.g, race separate from gender)

•Individuals possess identities that encompass multiple, intersecting oppressions that are complex and shifting

•Intersectionally informed policies can address issues that may be only relevant for people at a certain period in their lives, e.g., policies for lesbian mothers with small children, or for young black men

•Women’s different experiences of exclusion help us to understand - power relationships based not only on gender, but also on sexual orientation, age, disability, race, & religion or belief

•Sex only one of many inequalities that construct gender; gender is constructed through & by distinctions of race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability, religion or belief, age

INTERSECTIONALITY TO THE POLICY MAKERS RESCUE?

EU policies on diversity and feminist theories of intersectionality point in same direction

Democratic process that ‘can on the one hand look for commonalities without being arrogantly universalist, and on the other affirm difference without being transfixed by it’. (Yuval-Davis)

‘REALPOLITIK’

Concept of intersectionality illuminates multiple, intersecting, interlacing nature of complex social relations both between & within socially disadvantaged groups

Useful for development of EO&D policy

but complexity must in some way be contained to allow its utility for reality & practicality of EO&D policy making

Containing Complexity?

Function in the context of the ‘Realpolitik’

TAMING COMPLEXITY : 2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

‘Intercategorical’ – across categories, quantitative evidence

‘Intracategorical’ – inside category, qualitative evidence (McCall, 2005)

Recognition of multiple & intersecting disadvantage

Strategic reconstruction of recognition of group social disadvantage that policies can be based on

‘Intercategorical’ approach

Strategically using existing social groups, as imperfect & ever changing as they are

E.G. effect of race on income, measure how differs for men/women, for women of higher/ lower class, and men of higher/lower class? (McCall, 2005)

Comparative approach lends itself to quantitative methodology

‘Intracategorical’ approach

Intensive, qualitative in-depth case study of Asian women revealed complex nature of daily lived experiences of previously invisible group (Brah 1992)

Intersectionality accepts traditional categories albeit critically & uses them to identify & study finer points of intersections

Domestic Violence

A Policy ExampleQuantitative analysis by race, ethnicity, class, disability, sexual orientation, religious belief, & age

Further qualitative analysis of particular groups to analyse particular issues

Produce specialised positive action measures

Northern Ireland Single Commission – A Model to follow?

History of Radical Intervention – Religious Belief

Proactive Fair Employment Agency Investigations of organisations (NI Civil

Service) Compulsory Monitoring Affirmative Action (short of quotas) Employment Targets & Timetables

Mainstreaming Equality Statutory Policy Appraisal – Religion & political

opinion, gender, race & ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status & those with dependants

All new policies & service changes assessed impact on 9 equality groups – adverse impact ameliorated where possible or justified

Monitoring

Consultation

Complexity of Diversity Mainstreaming

Definition & Scale of Adverse Impact?

Statistical Evidence v Qualitative data (Sexual Orientation)

Reconciliation of Conflicting Adverse Impacts

Conclusion NI model - a way forward -

exemplary e.g. of EO&D mainstreaming with potential for duplication in other countries?

Most useful if issue of complexity of diversity, & even problem of conflicts of interest across & within disadvantaged groups approached from an intersectional perspective

Conclusion Intersectional approaches identified

as ‘intercategorical’ & ‘intracategorical’ - fruitful way forward for development of EO&D policy based on research evidence

Intersectionality alerts us to need to fine tune policy in more sophisticated manner than in past

‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ (Martin Luther King).

Reminds us that all oppressions are interrelated & mutually constitutive

Debates in UK around: Multiculturalism versus women’s rights - Genital

Mutilation Act, forced marriages & ‘honour killings’. Rights of women to abortion, legalised assisted death

& disabled people’s movement Certain religious beliefs & civil partnerships & gay

adoption

History of EO in UK 60 years – my lifetime

EO&D Legislation1940s & 1950s (Two Acts) DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) ACTS (DPEA) 1944 & 1958 BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1948

1960s &1970s (14 Acts) COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ACT 1962 RACE RELATIONS ACT 1965 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1966 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 RACE RELATIONS ACT 1968 COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ACT 1968 CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970 EQUAL PAY ACT 1970 CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970 IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 MATRIMONIAL CLAUSES ACT 1973 EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT 1975 SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976

Equal Opportunities Legislation

1980s & 1990s under Conservative governments (11 Acts)

BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981 EQUAL PAY ACT (amended) 1983 COMPANIES ACT 1985 SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT (amended) 1986 PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1988 FAIR EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, NORTHERN IRELAND 1989 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT (amended) 1994 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1996 EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996

Equal Opportunities Legislation

1990s & 2000s under New Labour governments (27 Acts)

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 BELFAST AGREEMENT 1998 SCOTLAND ACT 1998 GOVERNMENT OF WALES ACT 1998 CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 1999 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT (amended) 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 RACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT 2000 SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT (amended) 2001 NATIONALITY, IMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002 EMPLOYMENT ACT 2002 ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002 EMPLOYMENT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION) REGULATIONS 2003 EMPLOYMENT (RELIGION AND BELIEF) REGULATIONS 2003 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2004 DISABILITY EQUALITY DUTY 2005 EQUALITY ACT 2006 EMPLOYMENT (AGE) REGULATIONS 2006 RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006 WORK AND FAMILIES ACT 2006 GOVERNMENT OF WALES ACT 2006 GENDER EQUALITY DUTY 2007 EQUALITY ACT 2010

Fantasy

Women % Men %

Judges 94 6

Senior Police Officers 93 7

Skilled Trades 92 8

Newspaper Editors 91 8

MPs 82 18

Professors 81 19

Fantasy Continued

Women % Men %

Nurses 11 89

Primary & Nursery teachers 14 86

Personal Service Jobs 16 84

Secretaries 20 80

Modern Apprentices

Women % Men %

Early Years Care 2 98

Construction 99 1

Plumbing 99 1

Engineering 97 3