Introduction
According to Benzecry et al. (2017), sociological studies involve social interactions, events, and patterns. Sociologists aim to develop sociological theories in an attempt to explain why events and things occur or work as they do. According to studies, the purpose of a sociological theory is largely to explain social phenomena. In this regard, a sociological theory is used to create a hypothesis, a testable proposition about a society (Benzecry et al., 2017). Sociological theories vary in their purpose and scope depending on the magnitude and scale of the issues at hand and the phenomena they are meant to explain. There are three levels of sociological theories, including macro-level, micro-level, and grand theories. Here, a Macro-level theory relates to large-scale situations or phenomena and large groups of people or communities. Moreover, a micro-level theory looks at specific relationships between small groups of people or individuals. Regarding grand theories, the focus is to explain large-scale relationships and provide solutions to fundamental questions, such as the underlying questions as to why societies are formed or evolve.
Sociological theories are constantly evolving (Benzecry et al., 2017). As a result, sociological theories are never complete. In this regard, classical theories are considered essential and current. However, contemporary and new theories are built upon the foundation of their predecessors and primarily rely on the constructs of the old theories. Studies have shown that, in sociology, a handful of theories provide a broad perspective and explain various facets of social life. These aspects of social life are referred to as paradigms (Bourdieu & Richardson, 1986; Collins, 2008).
According to Bourdieu & Richardson (1986), paradigms are theoretical frameworks and philosophical frameworks used within a specific discipline to explain phenomena, formulate theories, and generalize phenomena and the experiments conducted to support them. In this regard, there exist three paradigms that have been established to dominate sociological thinking. The three paradigms, including structural, conflict theory, functionalism, and symbolic interactionism, are critical to providing helpful explanations for phenomena. In this regard, it is worth noting that a sociological theory is a supposition that aims at analyzing and explaining objects from a social perspective and in social reality (Bourdieu & Richardson, 1986; Kersten, 1996). It draws connections between societies, groups of people, and individual concepts to substantiate and organize sociological knowledge.
The intersectional theory, also referred to as intersectionality, is a sociological theory that describes how a group of people or individuals face multiple and overlapping discrimination depending on age, ethnicity, gender, class, and physical ability, among other attributes, placing them in a minority class. Intersectionality studies serve as a tool for analyzing and understanding the extent to which indigenous people, indigenous women, and girls of color have experienced racial discrimination (Butler, 2007). A classic example of intersectionality studies regarding challenges faced by indigenous people, women, and girls is that they belong to the two historically marginalized and oppressed groups: people of color and the female gender. Although there have been notable efforts to eradicate oppression from women or people of color individually, the indigenous women of color have not been appropriately supported by the anti-racist and feminist movements because each movement has been addressing a fraction of the challenges they face have faced (Butler, 2007).
This work aims to answer the sociological questions drawing from sociological perspectives. The work determines the extent to which intersectional theory provides a complete understanding of the experiences of racial, women, and indigenous people within dominant social structures and processes.
Racial Discrimination among Women and Indigenous Peoples of Color within dominant social structures and processes
According to Butler (2007), the intersectional theory is a sociological theory and practice used to challenge simplistic or reductive perspectives of understanding differences. The theory acknowledges that the experiences of people and communities are primarily shaped by their gender, class, race, and other dimensions and cannot be understood to a large extent by examining any of the dimensions by itself. In this regard, by considering how structural and social relations create diverse experiences between people, the intersectionality theory is critical to understanding how people can gain various experiences within “western” and “Indigenous” ways of thinking.
The theory encourages individuals to carefully discuss the “western” and “indigenous” knowledge. Otherwise, by doing so, they are at risk of being too simplistic. Studies have shown that intersectional theory is primarily interested in individuals and social relations (Butler, 2007; Burgess-Proctor, 2006). On the other hand, the indigenous understanding of people and their social relations is to view all beings and natural elements as interdependent and interconnected. However, it is worth noting that indigenous and intersectionality ways of understanding help one think about how to carry out research and understand various experiences as constantly evolving and multidimensional (Butler, 2007; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Studies have indicated that the intersectional theory provides a complete understanding of the experiences of women, racial and indigenous people within dominant and social structures and processes. For example, based on the Indian Act, a bill that proposes the amendment to end sex-based discrimination, it is critical to understand how the lives of indigenous women worldwide are shaped due to the interlocking structure of oppression and discrimination. In this regard, studies have shown that the concept of intersectionality is vital as it provides insight into the experiences of indigenous women. This is because the intersectional theory looks at the perspectives in which the social categories of gender, race, age, ability, sexuality, class, and nationality symbolically reinforce one another to result to marginalized subjects. For instance, gender, race, and class have been shown to intersect to particularly oppress indigenous women living in the US and Canada (Derriennic, 1972; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
The intersectional theory is useful in describing the predominant assumptions and stereotypes regarding indigenous people, gender, and racial discrimination. It allows systemic discrimination and racism to permeate many facets of life and society. In addition, the intersectional theory sheds light on the fact that indigeneity can evolve and change, and the internalization of racist ideas makes it difficult to understand and navigate what it means to be indigenous in a society that is renowned for being accommodative, accepting, and multicultural. This means that in such as society, there is a dissonance created between one’s identity and heritage. Regrettably, the dissonance is furthered and magnified along the line of one’s race and sex (Derriennic, 1972; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
According to Durkheim (2019), various indigenous cultures were pegged on fluidity and equality before colonialism. They were characterized by men and women participating in distinct roles that were complementary, non-gendered, and equally respected and essential. However, as settlers invented the countries, the notion of patriarchal policies, male dominance, and gendered violence became evident. As a result, indigenous lives were dismantled through colonial efforts. Moreover, the ways through which indigenous women and their male counterparts were related to one another from a social perspective were dismantled (McCall, 2005).
The intersectional theory outlines the critical point characterized by abuse and violence, which became predominant in residential schools, homes, and child welfare systems, extending to families of indigenous people. The social vice influenced the cruel ways, including sexual abuse and racial discrimination, through which non-indigenous men treated indigenous women. Referring to the Indian Act as an example, and from intersectional lenses, the amendment was meant to be a tool used by the non-indigenous men to deprive women of their rights to property (Land) by imposing a structure of patrilineal descent (McCall, 2005). It is worth noting that these mechanisms have continued to impact on the way indigenous people, specifically women, experience life today.
The intersectional theory has proven to be very effective in understanding class distinction as it complicates the beliefs surrounding race and sex. For instance, it has been shown that many indigenous communities, off-reserve, and on-reserve, face poverty due to marginalization, lack of resources, and support from the government. The intersectional theory helps one understand this disparity and the mechanisms through which marginalization leads to stigmatization in various dimensions (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Burgess-Proctor, 2006). A recent Canadian study about healthcare in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver reported that many indigenous patients pointed out a “double whammy” effect as they experienced oppression and discrimination from their healthcare provider based on both being indigenous and living in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver (McCall, 2005; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Here, it is evident that the patients are discriminated against in their social structure. Their social processes, including their right to obtain primary healthcare, are quite daunting as they experience the discriminatory nature of non-indigenous healthcare providers. The study reports that the patients’ request for medication was repudiated as the practitioners focused more on fulfilling the health care needs of their relatives. This way, from an intersectional theory perspective, it is evident that the patients’ requests for fair treatment and medication were trivialized (Kersten, 1996). The situation was further complicated and furthered by cultural disintegration. For instance, hospital environments have remained unfavorable as they prevent women from receiving healthcare that is culturally appropriate (McCall, 2005; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Although McCall (2005) reported that Kimberle Crenshaw’s coining of the intersectional theory was, to a large extent, an obscure legal concept, sociologists argue that there is hardly a word in the United States conservatism hated more than “intersectionality.”This implies the extent to which the intersectional theory is used to understand the experiences of women, racial and indigenous people with the American’s dominant communities and processes. The whites view intersectionality as a caste system that places the African American people, women, and non-heterosexual people on top of it (Kersten, 1996). The dominant social structure in the US continues to further colonialism and gender segregation. From a conservatism point of view, the intersectional theory indicates that the minority, including the non-whites, and women, are not entitled to receiving special standards in the eyes of their white and male counterparts. For example, quality education, well-paying jobs, appropriate healthcare, ownership of property, and representation in both the federal and state government, are preserved for the dominant white people and patriarchs.
In this regard, the intersectional theory promotes division at the social level and solipsism at the personal level. Some sociologists perceive intersectionality as a form of feminism that puts a label on an individual. Thus, the theory becomes critical as it brings self-awakening to marginalized groups. The theory has been fundamental in helping cut the tentacles that have, for a long time, overshadowed one’s ability to oppress themselves in a free and fairground, receive their rights on fair and leveled ground, and participate in processes, including education, employment, and other societal activities in equalized manner. For instance, although there are various campaigns that have succeeded in freeing the marginalized African American communities and women, in the US, it is evident that intersectionality has helped redeem the marginalized and minority groups and individuals from the dictates of white Americans on what to say, how they are allowed to think and behave (Durkheim, 2019).
However, it is worth noting that some sociologists still believe that intersectionality is really dangerous and a conspiracy theory of segregation, discrimination, and victimization. The proponents of the theory, however, believe that the thinking of intersectionality as a conspiracy theory is a highly unusual level of contempt for such as great theory to be interpreted with such obscurity. The proponents of the intersectional theory strongly believe that, in coining the theory, Kimberlé Crenshaw aimed to describe how gender, race, class, and other personal attributes intersect and overlap. In fact, the theory has succeeded in outlining and reducing social inequalities and racial disparities. Its success is manifested in the sense at which the concept of intersectionality has gone viral over the past decades resulting in a backlash among the dominant structures and population (Waling, 2019).
It is worth noting that right-wing critics regarding the concept of intersectionality indicate that they aren’t haunted by the theory itself but rather agree that the theory has largely and accurately described the way indigenous people, women, and African Americans encounter the world. They have constantly lived, and experienced discrimination along the racial and gender divides. For example, the black woman is perceived as different from the white woman. In this regard, the theory has largely helped women and marginalized indigenous communities and individuals object to the way they are viewed and treated (Durkheim, 2019). From the intersectional theory perspective, the consequences of the ill-treatment have led the conservatives and women to append racial and patriarchal hierarchies to create a more inclusive, accepting, accommodating, and impartial society. In this regard, one is invited to understand that Crenshaw’s aim was not geared toward building a racial and discriminative hierarchy with African American women and the indigenous people at the top, but rather she sought to demolish the existing racial hierarchies and to install equality and social inclusion (Waling, 2019).
To further the success of the intersectional theory, currently, there is no conclusive and rational explanation for the racial wealth gap in the US. The racial gap has existed since 1982, and, dauntingly, it persists today. For example, there exist sickening underrepresentation of women and slots that were supposedly based on “colorblind” standards. Interestingly, the intersectional theory implies that discrimination persists because of the persistent endurance of structures of white dominance. That is, the theory implies that the evident discrimination is attributed to the American socioeconomic and legal order largely built on racism (Waling, 2019).
It is worth noting that before the concepts put forward by the proponents of critical race theory, there was no evidence of the existence of significant criticism regarding the societal structures, and the law could be intrinsically racist (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In this regard, no tools or frameworks existed for understanding how race worked in institutions. However, the emergence of intersectional theory, which was coined with the ideas debated in critical race theory, brought a bountiful framework for understanding the underlying factors and reasons behind the persistent marginalization and discrimination based on gender, race, and social-economic background. By critically scrutinizing the intersectional theory invites one to believe that it acts as a prism to understand dynamics within the persistent discriminative laws that have occasionally been unappreciated by courts of law (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). That is, seemingly, courts believe that race discrimination is perpetuated towards the African American people while sex and gender segregation were perpetrated toward all women. In this regard, the framework of belief hinders one from seeing what happens to African American women and other women of color (Waling, 2019; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Burgess-Proctor, 2006).
Intimate Partner Femicide and Violence against Indigenous Women and Girls of Color
The intersectional theory has also been an important tool in explaining experiences of women-based intimate partner femicide (IPF) (Tenkorang et al., 2013; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Studies have shown how toxic masculinity and male dominance has flourished not only in a social setting but also in family settings. Generally, males harbor a belief that they are superior to women and that they must exercise a sense of dominance. Studies have shown that IPF is common in developing countries like Ghana and the US. Male dominance over women in society fuel IPF and emerges strongly in demonstrating and maintaining gender inequality. It is worth noting that toxic masculinity has been highly culturally idealized and forms one of the highly debated topics over the years (Naffin, 1985; Waling, 2019).
In this regard, according to differently Collins (2016), intersectionality is a critical tool in understanding how minority groups, particularly women, suffer in the hands of their intimate male patriarchs and how they are marginalized based on gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. For example, an African American woman in an intimate relationship with a White male partner is likelier to bear the brunt of violence and male masculinity than a white woman in an intimate relationship with an African American male. Intersectionality, therefore, acts as a guide to analyzing and understanding the motivations of IPF and the socio-demographic characteristics of the perpetrators (Naffin, 1985; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Comprehensive, rigorous, and timely studies have been found to be the cornerstone of transformative and social change. Although research corresponding to IPF, femicide, and family is intensively conducted, there is a substantial challenge in obtaining findings that are completely representative of the actual experiences of the affected women (Tenkorang et al., 2013). Due to the challenge, it is important for one to endeavor to understand how some of these social identities are privileged and how intersectionality is enabled in conducting such research. In this regard, intersectionality studies based on people of different social-geographic including Canada, the United Kingdom, the US, and Australia, are critical to understating the motivation underlying the perpetrators of violence, discrimination, and other vices against women (Tenkorang et al., 2013). Clearly, women bear the greatest because they serve as the primary victims of discrimination, violence, and homicide in homes. Although men bear the largest burden of violence at the hands of other men in public, it is worth noting that women have a reason to fear. This is because of the gender construct that women are weak gender (Meel, 2018).
Intersectionality studies in Canada, the UK, the US, and Australia have indicated that women are highly sexually violated regardless of socio-demographic settings. For example, there are rampant cases of femicide where the killing of women occur in the context of a familial or intimate relationship. The underlying causes of femicide indicate that, to some extent, society has failed. Here the failure of society to defend violence against women, femicide, is directly attributed to the inactions or actions of agencies, professionals, or systems (Tenkorang et al., 2013). However, studies suggest that the cause may be indirect, and perhaps it reflects deeper and wider issues such as ongoing negative attitudes towards intimate relations, women, structural inequities, or lack of awareness.
From an intersectional perspective, it is evident that there is an urgent call to address the issues of violence against women, IPF, and intimate partner violence (IPV) because the consequences of the problematic societal attitude are alarming. There is a need to address the traumatic experiences by examining and developing prevention models that can respond to intersecting structures and systems of exclusion and oppression (Tenkorang et al., 2013).
Intersectionality means being cognizant of the fact that women of color bear the greatest burden of violence. They experience multiple and competing brunts of sexism and racism. Although studies have reported that physical assault is the immediate indication of the subordination experienced, women are burdened by poverty, joblessness, and childcare responsibilities (Tenkorang et al., 2013). Interestingly, stakeholders, including agencies, governments, and professionals, fail to recognize some of the burdens experienced by women. For example, for decades in Canada and Australia, indigenous girls and women have faced homicides at significantly higher rates compared to non-indigenous girls and women, and there is no remarkable documentation of the structural determinants of the killings.
However, some studies suggest discrimination is the main driver of the deaths. According to Meel (2018), the role of structural drivers such as system barriers has also been experienced by other marginalized and racialized women and girls worldwide who face vulnerability and discrimination. Women and girls are invisible victims of gender-based violence, sexuality, and racialization because most incidents go unnoticed or are noticed months after their occurrence. For example, the case of the missing Canadian, Myrna, and the Australian, Jenna. In this regard, Meel (2018) notes that it is not even possible to intersectionality document a significant number of incidents or obtain information about the victim’s social identities because the incidents are invisible.
Indigenous women and girls in the UK have also been invisible victims of violence, IPF, and racialization. While fatality review regarding some of the incidents of violence exists, it is evident that there exist structural problems because not all incidents are captured. Moreover, the decisions to address fatalities are conducted at the local level with notable national oversight. However, the information is never published or made public for stakeholders to scrutinize the underlying cause and determinants. Agencies believe such incidents should not be reviewed due to stereotypes such as sexual orientation and age. According to Rowlands (2020), there is a challenge to understand violence and deaths that occur in a domestic abuse context (Meel, 2018; Rude,1999).
In this regard, the intersectional theory is successful in unearthing the fact that marginalization, racialization, IPF, and IPV cut across all socio-demographic and socioeconomic levels. Intersectionality studies consistently reveal a connection between toxic masculinity beliefs, socioeconomic status, and the persistence of patriarchal systems (Rude,1999; Naffin, 1985). Alarmingly, poverty, low income, and joblessness emerge as the strongest of male-to-female violence. That is, the societal masculinity attitudes and the persistent patriarchal systems that downplay the position of women and girls in society, to a large extent, are inclined toward avoiding empowering women (Naffin, 1985).
Perhaps, to a large extent, the idea behind such derailing attitudes and systems is that empowering indigenous women and girls of color implies alleviating societal inequities and that women would no longer act in subordinate roles. Empowering the indigenous women and girls would boost their bargaining power and, most probably, would begin to compete for scarce opportunities. Moreover, empowering indigenous women and girls of color would alleviate their overdependence and leave their matrimonial homes, a concept highly loathed by masculinity (Meel, 2018; Rude,1999; Naffin, 1985).
Conclusion
Intersectionality and intersectional theory remain an intricate topic that calls for much more discussion than what is found in the literature. Clearly, this work indicates the structures of oppression perpetuated by non-indigenous individuals and patriarchal systems that impact the lives of indigenous men and women. The intersectional theory has also been shown to shape the understanding of racism, gender, and discrimination of indigenous people and women in their structural settings and processes. The work has shown that one cannot discuss a single facet of life as a sole contributor to life’s evolving cultural and social-economic aspects. However, the intersectional theory demands that one seek an understanding of the continuously evolving cultural and socioeconomic aspects by combining all the facets of society, including race, gender, socio-geographic, socioeconomic, and age, among other facets. In this regard, the manner in which these facets impact indigenous lives must be understood if one purpose to address social disparities and inequities truly.
Intimate partner femicide and violence continue to be alarming, despite the existing studies that have tried to establish the cause and offer a solution to the vice. The intersectionality approach has shown that indigenous women and girls of color are invisible victims of discrimination, racialization, IPF, and IPV. Toxic masculinity and patriarchal systems and structures continue to hinder the eradication of the vice because empowering women would promote their bargaining power and would spark a reasonable competition for opportunities and resources. Empowering women would also eradicate overdependence on masculinity, and women would no longer desire to act in subordinate roles in society.
References
Benzecry, C. E., Krause, M., & Reed, I. A. (Eds.). (2017). Social theory now. University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Richardson, J. G. (1986). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. The forms of capital, 241, 258.
Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist criminology, 1(1), 27-47.
Butler, J. (2007). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological perspective.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.
Derriennic, J. P. (1972). Theory and ideologies of violence. Journal of peace research, 9(4), 361-374.
Durkheim, E. (2019). The division of labor in society. In Social stratification (pp. 178-183). Routledge.
Kersten, J. (1996). Culture, masculinities and violence against women. The British Journal of Criminology, 36(3), 381-395
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 30(3), 1771-1800.
Meel, B. (2018). Incidence of female homicide in the Transkei sub-region of South Africa (1993–2015). Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 56, 75-79.
Naffin, N. (1985). The masculinity-femininity hypothesis: A consideration of gender-based personality theories of female crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 25(4), 365-381.
Rude, D. (1999). Reasonable men and provocative women: An analysis of gendered domestic homicide in Zambia. Journal of Southern African Studies, 25(1), 7-27.
Tenkorang, E. Y., Owusu, A. Y., Yeboah, E. H., & Bannerman, R. (2013). Factors influencing domestic and marital violence against women in Ghana. Journal of Family Violence, 28(8), 771-781.
Waling, A. (2019). Problematising ‘toxic’and ‘healthy masculinity for addressing gender inequalities. Australian Feminist Studies, 34(101), 362-375.
write