Multi-Level Intersectionality

Critical Response #3

            Just a couple days ago, I read an article from the magazine The Atlantic that my stepmom shared on Facebook titled The Confidence Gap, essentially about women being less self-assured than men and how in order to be successful confidence matters just as much as competence, if not more. So when Virgie Tovar started expressing the same exact sentiments it really struck me, especially when she expanded it to include people of color, different body types, sexualities, etc. Self-assuredness includes the ability to take risks, accept failures, and not internalizing those failures as reflections on your own worth, rather just as opportunities to try again or pursue a different path. The self-doubt faced by all those who are not in the upper levels of the power structures not only directly affects their success, but is also a learned behavior. From the day you’re born you’re taught that boys are supposed to act a certain way, often very outgoing and high-energy, while girls are supposed to be calmer and more demure. Girls are also told more often throughout their lives that they’re not capable of doing certain things, so that failures become a reflection on self-worth rather than an opportunity to try harder. The existing power structures are teaching us how to behave in order to perpetuate themselves. While both the Tovar interview and the article in The Atlantic focused on women, I think the concept is very true for all different identities that are marginalized, especially when intersectionality comes into play and multiplies the effect.

It also occurred to me, for the first time, to adapt the concept of intersectionality to a much broader purpose. When I first learned about intersectionality it was explained to me in an individual sense, so all of the identities that coexist in a person and how those relate to overarching power systems. But reading the essays in the GLQ, especially Daniel Heath Justice’s section of the introduction, I’ve begun to get a sense of the presence of intersectionality in all levels of society. Daniel Heath Justice specifically stated that the way the essay collection was structured was to acknowledge the variable backgrounds and viewpoints of the coauthors and contributors. Even the introduction was not coauthored, rather split into different sections for each of the authors to have their say. There’s really no way to combine everything into one cohesive message without it being detrimental to the uniqueness of the experiences of the individuals involved, stripping away the reality of the intersections that are present in their lives that are very different between each person writing. This is part of the difficulty faced by the ‘queer movement’ in general, this quest to acknowledge the intersections of all those involved, whether it be on an individual basis or a community basis. The goals of Chicana lesbians are most likely going to be very different from the goals of Two-Spirit people, which makes it very hard to unite under one banner, so to speak.  This wouldn’t be an issue at all, of course, if it wasn’t for current power systems being set up so that it’s tough to make any headway in widespread social change without a large, unified front. But in order to create a unified front you have to smooth away all the parts that don’t fit in with the majority, which is just perpetuating the current normative power structures and undermining the whole purpose of queer theory. Counterproductive, to say the least. So how do we maintain individuality and institute social change? That’s hopefully a question that Queer Theory can seek to answer.