Day 69 – Intersectionality

Photo by John Lockwood on Unsplash

Day 69 – I keep trying to pull together the reading… The Zerbe Enns, Diaz and Bryant-Davis articles I was speaking about back on day 66, seems to be speaking to me about the Rud chapter I wrote about yesterday.

 

Again, Rud says,

In accordance with the more general definition of multitude, I propose an understanding of the psychotherapeutic encounter as a micro multitude where the increase of common power does not imply the effacement of each singular power. When we affirm that we are but interwoven, expressive knots in constant movement and transformation, we also affirm that when we face another in the therapy room, we are being mutually constituted; there is an essential, reciprocal, inevitable mutuality in the encounter which I define as radical reciprocity. We are there, being other in front of another, mutually constituting one another in that moment.

 

I like this idea of being “mutually constituted” in the moment with the other… but I think if we don’t accept that the other’s experience of us and themselves as particular kinds of “knots” we may miss something important.

 

The idea of multitude automatically makes me think about intersectionality – if we are going to hold many parts of ourselves, and if our multiply-identified-selves and interactions reflect complex interactions between various aspects of identity – then intersectionality must also be acknowledged.  Zerbe Enns, Diaz and Bryant-Davis (2021) define intersectionality:

 

Intersectionality is a cornerstone of multicultural feminist and social justice approaches and typically refers to the complex interactions among social identities experienced by individuals, such as race/ethnicity, nationality and language, sexual orientation, religion, gender, disability, colorism, and age. Within the legal field, intersectionality was introduced by Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) to underscore the complex multidimensional and interactive oppression experienced by women of color. For example, the fusing of racism and sexism often results in hybrid “isms” such as gendered racism (e.g., Chavez-Duenas & Adames, 2020).

 

Zerbe Enns, Diaz and Bryant-Davis (2021) go on to talk about not presuming “common identity”  even amongst “feminists” but to recognize that a transnational feminism:

… does not presume the existence of identical priorities or common identity but focuses on concrete interconnected and interrelated issues that can lend themselves to productive activism and alliance-building across borders. Shared interests, not priorities imposed by those with greater privilege than others, are crucial and can provide a foundation for solidarity and shared purpose.

 

How do we recognize “shared interests” in the room with clients? How does this translate into what it means to be “fully” oneself – not just from the “therapist’s” viewpoint, but also from the clients??

 

Zerbe Enns, C., Díaz, L. C., & Bryant-Davis, T. (2021). Transnational feminist theory and practice: An introduction. Women & Therapy, 44(1/2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1774997