Gordian knots and intersectionality
Intersectionality as a concept has been at the heart of my work in the last few weeks. Not just the feminist notion that feminism should be be viewed through a lens where every facet of a person should be accounted for; for me it seems to be broadening out into the notion that every person’s identity should be view through an intersectional lens. For me it is becoming increasingly clear both through my research and through cogitations that separating out a person’s identity into one box after another does neither them or you any favours. All you end up doing is studying one fragment of identity in aspic, gaining a fragmented understanding of that person’s totality.
I believe it matters because it explains the shades of grey in debates, takes the sting out of black/white issues, and allows each of us to hold competing views that at may at first be at odds with one part of our identities. When you clump people under an umbrella, be it Arsenal fans, stockbrokers, LGBTQI+, you make a who range of assumptions about those people. Obvious stereotypes abound, and yet within every group their are myriad intersectional identities. Only be exploring and discussing those intersections can you get a clearer understanding of what it means to be that person.
In as much that we only have a fraction of time to make a judgement about someone, it is always worth looking past the obvious cues and looking beneath the surface. Ideas and long held beliefs are there because a person is exposed to many different factors, each jostling up against the other for mental bandwidth and personal digestion. Each of us has to make a decision as to how we act and engage, and our experiences from all our personal intersections frame that conversations.
So, how do we undo the Gordian knots of personality when we engage and critique other people? It is very easy to may an obvious leap, judge someone on the bald fact or statement they are making. Sometimes that is the best way, fight the fire and starve it of oxygen. Oft times though, it is better to dig to the root of the issue, see why the person claims and feels the way they do, and try to address the intersectional nature of their thoughts and opinions. No argument is ever won by lambasting the opposition; rather, hearts and minds are changed when an open palm is given, nuanced conversation is had, and people can take in all sides. Being entrenched does no party any good, and only leads to a cratered no-mans land in the middle with both sides lobbing verbal shells at each other.
I do not pretend to have all the answers, just that I prefer to reflect and weigh up an opinion before committing against it. It is better to understand a person in their totality, see their intersections, and then engage than to simply go off the cuff. Maybe I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, though I will talk through my point before hand. Open palm, not clenched fist.


















