‘ Understanding Equal Opportunities and Diversity: The Social Differentiations and Intersections of Inequality’ Barbara Bagilhole Professor of Equal Opportunities and Social Policy

Equal Opportunities & Diversity Later, more sophisticated coupling of concepts EO&D Emphasises: Recognition of difference Possibility of ‘multiple disadvantage’ Different treatment legitimate in pursuit of social equality, fairness & justice

‘Multiple disadvantage’ moved from rather crude idea of ‘adding up’ disadvantages  sophisticated level of thinking that disadvantages are not cumulative but interactional – effect runs more than one way E.G. Black women – racism infected & changed by sexism - sexism they encounter infected & changed by racism

‘NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK’ ‘BIG THREE’ (gender, race & disability) ‘NEW SIX’ (sexual orientation, religion or belief & age)

European Union: Perceptions and Attitudes Perception of discrimination on the basis of Rare Widespread Ethnic origin 30% 64% Disability 42% 53% Sexual orientation 41% 50% Age 48% 46% Religion or belief 47% 44% Gender 53% 40%

European Union: Perceptions and Attitudes Would you say belonging to certain groups is a disadvantage? Disadvantage Being disabled 79% Aged >5077% Ethnic minority69% Homosexual62% Religious minority39% Women 33% Men 4%

Caution in Millieux of Diversity:  Avoid some inequalities being left out  Rivalry or competition between different interests  Recognise stronger interests may rise above others

Past UK Formula for EO  Ill equipped to fully embrace social dynamics of race, gender, disability, class, age, sexual orientation & religion or belief  Legislation – piecemeal, confusing, reactive, no collective solutions/class actions, complex, costly, & time consuming  Incremental approach bewildering for employers & public, & dysfunctional for EO&D project  Legislation for different target groups not compatible

Extent and Nature of Heterogeneity of Disadvantage  55m  58m (30 years)  1.6m more over 65 years  5.2m parent couples, 1.6m lone mothers, 180,000 lone fathers  10m disabled people  4.6m ethnic minorities  3.1m non-Christian religion  m gay, lesbian or bisexual

Fundamental Continuous Disadvantage  Glass Ceiling/Gender Pay Gap – Hourly 17% (38.4% PT) Caveat – Ethnic origin  Education – girls achieve but discipline segregation  Sex & Power  Caring Responsibilities

Heterogeneity and Relational Aspect of Disadvantage  Age - mediating factor in gender and employment  Disability & Employment – lower than non- disabled but also gendered  Ethnic Groups & Employment – EM women full time – EM men part time – Unemployment - Heterogeneity of different EM groups  Religious Belief – Muslims lowest employment – all religious groups employment activity gendered

Social Justice Agenda

Relatively Recent Major Challenges Theoretical & Political Challenges:  Post-structuarlist/modernist stances  Critique homogeneity of groups or even groups as such  Deconstruction of groups  Concept of diversity ‘New kids on the block’  Disadvantage dynamic & interactive E.G. No longer acceptable to act as if women existed separate from other sources of disadvantage

Multi-discrimination ‘Double’, ‘Triple’ … disadvantage? Potentially list is endless, but simply counting & adding on different types of disadvantage does nothing to facilitate our understanding of simultaneous, interlacing & interactional disadvantage

Fairytale Analogy Three minority ethnic women assume the role of Snow White, rather than the Black Queen Each in turn responds to question: ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is the greatest oppressor of us all?’  First woman: ‘being black, racism is the main cause of my oppression’  Second: ‘my life is dominated and controlled by men. Therefore, sexism is my greatest oppressor’  Third: ‘it is not possible to respond because my gender, race and class are all causes of my oppression’

EO&D at Theoretical Impasse? Post- structuralist/modernist critiques challenge validity of ‘truth discourses’ and ‘grand narrative’ Useful for EO&D Fundamentally difficult if they only deconstruct groups, but do not reconstruct them in some way

Intersectionality to the Rescue? Concept and methodology of ‘intersectionality’ Crenshaw (1989) Acknowledges & stresses importance of intersections of disadvantage between & within social groups. ‘Intersectionality refers to particular forms of intersecting oppressions … Intersectional paradigms remind us that oppression cannot be reduced to one fundamental type, and that oppressions work together in producing injustice’ Hill Collins (2000: 180)

Intersectionality to the Rescue? Focuses on the inter-relationships between different social divisions – as either reinforcing or counteracting each other Reconstruction of different socially disadvantaged groups

Need to fine tune policy Acknowledges that where disadvantages interplay & coincide or conflict between & within groups new policy approaches need to be considered

Need to fine tune policy Need for analysis that looks at whole people rather than breaking them up into component parts (e.g, race separate from gender) Individuals possess identities that encompass multiple, intersecting oppressions that are complex and shifting Intersectionally informed policies can address issues that may be only relevant for people at a certain period in their lives, e.g., policies for lesbian mothers with small children, or for young black men

Women’s different experiences of exclusion help us to understand - power relationships based not only on gender, but also on sexual orientation, age, disability, race, & religion or belief Sex only one of many inequalities that construct gender; gender is constructed through & by distinctions of race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability, religion or belief, age

INTERSECTIONALITY TO THE POLICY MAKERS RESCUE?  EU policies on diversity and feminist theories of intersectionality point in same direction  Democratic process that ‘can on the one hand look for commonalities without being arrogantly universalist, and on the other affirm difference without being transfixed by it’. (Yuval-Davis)

‘REALPOLITIK’  Concept of intersectionality illuminates multiple, intersecting, interlacing nature of complex social relations both between & within socially disadvantaged groups  Useful for development of EO&D policy but complexity must in some way be contained to allow its utility for reality & practicality of EO&D policy making

Containing Complexity? Function in the context of the ‘Realpolitik’

TAMING COMPLEXITY : 2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES  ‘Intercategorical’ – across categories, quantitative evidence  ‘Intracategorical’ – inside category, qualitative evidence (McCall, 2005)  Recognition of multiple & intersecting disadvantage  Strategic reconstruction of recognition of group social disadvantage that policies can be based on

‘Intercategorical’ approach  Strategically using existing social groups, as imperfect & ever changing as they are  E.G. effect of race on income, measure how differs for men/women, for women of higher/ lower class, and men of higher/lower class? (McCall, 2005)  Comparative approach lends itself to quantitative methodology

‘Intracategorical’ approach  Intensive, qualitative in-depth case study of Asian women revealed complex nature of daily lived experiences of previously invisible group (Brah 1992)  Intersectionality accepts traditional categories albeit critically & uses them to identify & study finer points of intersections

Domestic Violence

A Policy Example Quantitative analysis by race, ethnicity, class, disability, sexual orientation, religious belief, & age Further qualitative analysis of particular groups to analyse particular issues Produce specialised positive action measures

Northern Ireland Single Commission – A Model to follow?  History of Radical Intervention – Religious Belief Proactive Fair Employment Agency  Investigations of organisations (NI Civil Service)  Compulsory Monitoring  Affirmative Action (short of quotas)  Employment Targets & Timetables

Mainstreaming Equality  Statutory Policy Appraisal – Religion & political opinion, gender, race & ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status & those with dependants  All new policies & service changes assessed impact on 9 equality groups – adverse impact ameliorated where possible or justified  Monitoring  Consultation

Complexity of Diversity Mainstreaming  Definition & Scale of Adverse Impact?  Statistical Evidence v Qualitative data (Sexual Orientation)  Reconciliation of Conflicting Adverse Impacts

Conclusion  NI model - a way forward - exemplary e.g. of EO&D mainstreaming with potential for duplication in other countries?  Most useful if issue of complexity of diversity, & even problem of conflicts of interest across & within disadvantaged groups approached from an intersectional perspective

Conclusion  Intersectional approaches identified as ‘intercategorical’ & ‘intracategorical’ - fruitful way forward for development of EO&D policy based on research evidence  Intersectionality alerts us to need to fine tune policy in more sophisticated manner than in past

‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ (Martin Luther King).  Reminds us that all oppressions are interrelated & mutually constitutive  Debates in UK around:  Multiculturalism versus women’s rights - Genital Mutilation Act, forced marriages & ‘honour killings’.  Rights of women to abortion, legalised assisted death & disabled people’s movement  Certain religious beliefs & civil partnerships & gay adoption

History of EO in UK 60 years – my lifetime

EO&D Legislation 1940s & 1950s (Two Acts)  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) ACTS (DPEA) 1944 & 1958  BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT s &1970s (14 Acts)  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ACT 1962  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1965  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1966  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1968  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ACT 1968  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970  EQUAL PAY ACT 1970  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970  IMMIGRATION ACT 1971  MATRIMONIAL CLAUSES ACT 1973  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT 1975  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976

Equal Opportunities Legislation 1980s & 1990s under Conservative governments (11 Acts)  BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981  EQUAL PAY ACT (amended) 1983  COMPANIES ACT 1985  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT (amended) 1986  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1988  FAIR EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, NORTHERN IRELAND 1989  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT (amended) 1994  DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1996  EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996

Equal Opportunities Legislation 1990s & 2000s under New Labour governments (27 Acts)  HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998  BELFAST AGREEMENT 1998  SCOTLAND ACT 1998  GOVERNMENT OF WALES ACT 1998  CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998  IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 1999  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT (amended) 2000  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000  RACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT 2000  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT (amended) 2001  NATIONALITY, IMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002  EMPLOYMENT ACT 2002  ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002  EMPLOYMENT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION) REGULATIONS 2003  EMPLOYMENT (RELIGION AND BELIEF) REGULATIONS 2003  SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2004  CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2004  DISABILITY EQUALITY DUTY 2005  EQUALITY ACT 2006  EMPLOYMENT (AGE) REGULATIONS 2006  RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006  WORK AND FAMILIES ACT 2006  GOVERNMENT OF WALES ACT 2006  GENDER EQUALITY DUTY 2007  EQUALITY ACT 2010

Fantasy Women % Men % Judges 94 6 Senior Police Officers 93 7 Skilled Trades 92 8 Newspaper Editors 91 8 MPs Professors 81 19

Fantasy Continued Women % Men % Nurses Primary & Nursery teachers Personal Service Jobs Secretaries 20 80

Modern Apprentices Women % Men % Early Years Care 2 98 Construction 99 1 Plumbing 99 1 Engineering 97 3