Intersections of Identity

At Carleton, there’s a lot of activism going on, right? We’ve got the Gender and Sexuality Center, for people who want to do women’s issues or queer related activities, the Office of International and Intercultural Life for international students and students of color, AHA! (HIV/AIDS awareness), Body Positivity Discussion Group, Student Organization for the Protection of the Environment (SOPE), Animal Rights Coalition (ARC) and even the Wellstone House of Organization and Activism! We’ve got TRIO/Student Support Services, which helps students and deals with class issues, the Wellness Center, which provides physical and mental health resources, and even a Coordinator of Disability Services for Students. That’s a whole lot, isn’t it? It isn't even a complete list. This staggering truth might make some people think that activism at Carleton has been successfully specialized as to function most efficiently. Accordingly, activism has pretty run its course – there simply isn’t anything else left to do or care about.

While I applaud the work all of these organizations do, I question this conclusion. Even a simple thought game can point out some of the holes here – what about queer students of color? What about students of color with a disability/disabilities? What about queer students from a lower socioeconomic status regardless of race? It gets even more complex when the issues divide even further: let’s say a student is queer, of color, and from a lower socioeconomic status with mental health concerns, what then? Where do they go? The Gender and Sexuality Center (GSC)? The Office of Intercultural and International Life (OIIL)? Would they prefer to hang out with TRIO (Are they also part of TRIO?) Can they get an appointment at the Wellness Center? Even in this simple name-where-to-go game gets hard. Do they go to all? Does it depend on the day? Do they choose one and stick with it? If they go to all, doesn’t that take up a lot of time? I don’t know the answers. Maybe it’s a very simple decision. But I know for me it might be pretty difficult to choose.

From what I’ve seen, it’s also more than simply the name of an office or organization that gets people there. It’s a reputation. And certain offices have certain reputations – a reputation of being unfriendly to people of color, let’s say. Additionally, some offices have very concrete restrictions, the Wellness Center, for example, is not accessible to people with some types of disabilities. The TRIO/SSS office is three blocks from campus and at least four from the GSC and OIIL offices. Similarly, the house of activism is too far off campus and too inaccessible for students with some types of disabilities. Even within the basement of Scoville, where both the GSC and OIIL reside, there are two separate lounges and mingling occurs less than it could. Why should people be deprived of services and activities that could benefit them because of this?

My response is: they shouldn’t be. My argument is that while these organizations do great things for the Carleton community, they can do more. The offices themselves aren’t the problem; the ways in which they are separate is the problem. The ways in which they are isolated and pegged as a certain “specialized type” of issue that is the problem.

This fundamental division of these groups serves to ideologically separate these spaces. How? Where does this ideological separation stem from? I’ll introduce a word: kyriarchy. Then go on to say: some people reading this may go “huh?” This is not how we think about power structures. We like to separate them, specialize so we can go in-depth, but really so we can maintain a hierarchy of power constructed by (mostly straight) white men (a long time ago! This system does not implicate white men currently living in the creation of this structure. It’s been around for a long time). Even within these offices and organizations, this specialization maintains itself. In the one office I can speak of, there are the sexual violence prevention people, the queer issues people, and maybe some other things if we’ve got staff for it. Though not always the case, this specialization generally comes with specialized knowledge. So asking any ol’ person about disability issues in the queer community might leave the questioner feeling like their question wasn’t answered. And that’s within just one office! How about outside of it? What do climate change and people with disabilities have in common? Think the SOPE people know? I bet the ARC people know. (PS Five points to the commenter who can tell me the answer!)

There are examples of bridges being built. The Collective for Women’s Issues (CWI), so far as I have heard and seen, is one example of bringing women with varying backgrounds and identities together. Another example is the alliance between the JSC and LASO. Other great examples are Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) workshops. Because AVP focuses partially on oppression in general, I left these workshops with added knowledge of the way all oppressions are linked (by violence, etc). Additionally, in a recent Chili night, links between LGBT people and Jewish people (these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive) were made to show that these groups were not monolithic but comprised of many different people with many different views. These are great organizations and attempts.

I think these efforts are worth continuing. The way I propose starting is by beginning with a concept. So, here’s a great post that I found to be really accessible about intersections of identity and the excuse that specialization people don’t need to know about “other issues.” I’m not going to quote it, because the whole thing is worth reading. Even the comments are great, I think.

I think that if more people were aware of and on board with this line of thinking, there would be more alliances, there would be more inter-office and inter-organizational work, which could lead to some truly progressive and inspirational stuff. There is the concern that, in working between groups, some voices will be lost, but I feel that so long as people are mindful of both their privileges and oppressions, as well as respectful and well versed in “step up, step back,” people with all different identities can come to deeper understandings of the needs and concerns of their peers.