In the 1970s, the Combahee River Collective, an active lesbian black feminist group from Boston confirmed “the personal is political” by demonstrating the connections between politics, theory, methodology and orientation which laid the grounds for the intersectional paradigm (Viveros Vigoya, 2016a, p. 4). Intersectionality also has roots in indigenous theories from areas such as Brazil (Roberts and Connell, 2016; Viveros Vigoya, 2016a). However, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) of the United States is credited for coining the term intersectionality as a sociological theory. In a shift in feminist research, she explained the variances in the lived experiences between white Americans and black Americans that had been overlooked by the feminist movement, recognizing that African American women were experiencing violence and salary discrimination differently than white
women (Vuola, 2012). Collins (2000), the first writer to explain intersectionality as a feminist paradigm, comprehensively explains the interplay among socially constructed identifiers and the need for intersectionality as a sociological research tool:
Her gender may become more prominent when she is a mother, her race when she searches for housing, her social class when she applies for credit, her sexual orientation when she is walking with her lover, and her citizenship status when she is applying for a job. (p. 274)
Collins’ description clarifies the need for intersectional thinking; one social oppression is not more important than the other as they all shape and constrain each other and can change depending on the time, place and circumstance. In macro-social terms, Choo and Marx Feree (2010) argue intersectionality “pushes analysis away from associating specific inequalities with unique institutions, instead looking for processes that are fully interactive, historically co-determining, and complex” (p. 129). Not all academics agree that institutions can be eradicated from the equation of social oppressions.
Latin American feminists have noted intersectionality is not a hegemonic concept outside the West and many argue it cannot be applied in Latin America as it has in North America – that is, with a focus on gender and race. Viveros Vigoya (2016a) identifies class and compulsory heterosexuality may be more prominent oppressions, whereas Curiel (2011) maintains her attention on race and epistemology. Other writers highlight issues such as indigenous spirituality and embodiment (Marcos, 2009). Lugones (2010) argues having intersections fragments social relations into homogenous categories, rather
than fostering crossover. Further research baggage includes academics’ faults for using intersectionality to try to make “everything fit,” an issue Viveros Vigoya (2016a) argues can be circumvented by paying respect to context.
From a macro political perspective, Grosfoguel (2016) argues intersectionality falls short because those who developed the concept experience oppression differently than people living in places lacking law and regulated order (e.g., Bacano and Chévere). Looking beyond a Global North and Global South dichotomy, he argues the world is divided between two zones established by the “imperial/capitalist/colonial world- system”: the “zone of being” and the “zone of non-being” (p. 11). In the zone of being, residents have access to infrastructure and laws that can counteract oppressions, conflict is managed through “regulation and emancipation,” and violence is only used in “exceptional moments” (p.13). In this zone, racism is “mitigated by privilege” (p. 11). Whereas in the zone of non-being, racism is “an institutional/structural hierarchy related to the material of domination” (p. 11). In other words, people living in the zone of non-being, such as citizens of Bacano and Chévere, are racialized as inferior despite their skin color. In the zone of non-being, there is no governed code of law; there is perpetual violence with exceptional moments of “emancipation and regulation” and the entanglements of human oppression are “aggravated by racial oppression” (p. 12). Grosfoguel argues, there is a qualitative difference in the lived experience of people living within these two heterogeneous zones: the zone of being includes the “capitalist/patriarchal Western-centric/Christian-centric modern/colonial world-system” that focuses on the “I” – the “Western, heterosexual, masculine, metropolitan elites and the Westernized, heterosexual, masculine elites” who internalize colonialism (p.12); and
the zone of non-being includes the “other” whose humanity is unrecognized (p. 14). Unrecognized non-being/ sub-humans do not have the same “norms of rights or civility” as beings, and acts of violence in these zones are permitted (p.14). Ultimately, these two zones work in tandem to form part of the “project of colonial modernity” (p.15). Modernity includes the processes, attitudes socio-cultural norms and social stratifications that arose from the Renaissance (17th century) and Enlightenment (18th
century) periods. Aspects of modernity include prioritization of individualism, representative democracy, faith in science/technological innovation and rationalization, capitalism and the market economy, industrialization, urbanization and globalization, the interconnection of historically tied nation-states, mass media and consumer culture (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977).
Throughout this research I endeavor to demonstrate that institutionalized racism, the historical residue of colonialism and the push for modernity continue to plague the citizens of Chévere and Bacano and shape the operations of VIDA. To do this, I will draw from Grosfoguel (2016) and use the term entanglement when addressing diverse oppressions (e.g., gender, class, sexuality and race) that influence individual agency and gender relations.
Entanglements of diverse oppressions are at play in Colombia in a myriad of ways. As Curiel (2011) explains, “Displacement mainly affects Afro and indigenous women. Sexual violence against women is a weapon of war. Indigenous and black communities are sites of everyday conflict and where we see the installation of neoliberal megaprojects” (p. 26, personal translation). I found this approach helpful throughout my fieldwork. For example, in my field notes, I regularly highlighted and reflected upon the
entanglements of multiple social oppressions, which allowed me to recognize the hegemonic social structures that shape and limit agency. For instance, my first day in Chévere I met Lourdes, a previous participant who often spent time at the SDP organization. After I explained my research to her she made a statement that reflects the entanglements of diverse oppressions in her life as a female footballer:
No one’s asked me this question before, about gender. I hadn’t thought of it in this
way. I love playing football, but everyone calls me a lesbian or a boy. I have many friends who will want to talk to you. But hey, do you realize we have a lot of violence in our homes? Like, every home. (Field notes, Chévere)
Lourdes’ example demonstrates the need to consider the entanglements of diverse social oppressions in sociological research. What is obvious in her brief statement above is that micro and meso social relations are shaped and constrained by communal gender relations, historical power structures (i.e., Catholic Church, patriarchy, colonialism) and current trends (i.e., neoliberalism, spectacular femininity). When considering power relations, an intersectional/entangled approach in conjunction with a decolonial feminist framework opens a pathway to analyze subjects omitted from (and stereotyped within) the Western discourse. Decolonial theory is the next topic for exploration.