The concept of intersectionalism can be described as the occurrence of discrimination based on various categories of identity such as race, class and gender .
Kimberle Crenshaw captures the fundamental nature of intersectionalism in her analysis of black women’s existential experience. This was in a time when intersectionalism was not practiced within the political sphere. Her work is particularly essential when highlighting how intersectionalism satisfies the need for inclusive dialogue . She pointed out the harms of a single axis political atmosphere where discriminatory practices and the multiple -isms, are discussed as being mutually exclusive to each other.
What often results in such settings is a favoring of the more privileged among those who are discriminated against. The narratives of those who are privileged in some aspects becomes prioritised. For example, white women not being harmed due to the privilege of being white, Crenshaw refers to the case of Moore v Hughes Helicopter Inc (144), where there was a lack of consideration for the unique experience of black females being separate from the type of discrimination they endured alongside white women.
Communication involves trying establish a common understanding with someone . Taking this under consideration it is essential to note that teaching intersectionalism in communication is vital as a means to capture the, “endemic and everyday nature of racism and sexism and how these other -isms manifest in and through communication.”
Democracy is a tool that should essentially allow for the election of individuals who represent the majority. Which often excludes a significant minority, one may take under consideration, the treatment of the LGBTQ community in Africa as well as that of women in political spheres prior to the 21st century.
In the USA, Kamala Harris represents a remedy of the communication disparity that can result from a lack of consideration for intersectionality. Among the communities she represents, there are black women, Indian women, racially mixed individuals and immigrants. In this regard she can be said to be sensitive to the unique experiences of each of these groups and would be able to convey the concerns of these groups.
This does however raise the question of whether or not she can adequately represent and communicate the needs of groups she is not a part of, such as the LGBTQ community, a question raised in the case of Payne v Travenol, wherein the court concluded that because the plaintiffs were Black women they could not adequately represent the needs of their black male colleagues. Simply put, being oppressed doesn’t mean one can understand the oppression of another.
It is true that the intrinsic nature of suffering that different groups go through cannot always be captured outside the scope of experience, however it is important to have someone who understands that discrimination can manifest in layers rather than as a single arch -ism.
Community movements in Africa do this well by building bridges where intersectional concerns arise. Identifying commonalities has been a useful way to start conversations, with one key one being the colonial era. Relating on the mutual grasp of inequalities that existed back then, makes dialogues in political spaces easier to have.
This isn’t a “save all” technique though, there is a risk of drowning intersectional issues in colonial narratives. On many occasions the colonial narrative has been weaponized by many founding parties as grounds for why they should forever be in power. In such spaces, intersectionality is overpowered by the colonial rhetorics and minimized to “less than” issues.
Striking a balance in intersectionality and communication is key to political change.
A paradox occurs when an element despite sounding or seeming true and logical also presents a logically acceptable feature or element which creates a contradiction and oligarchs are instances where only a small number of people have control over a country. Here I discuss the independence of post colonial systems. The true sovereignty of the nations is questionable, there is an expectation of freedom due to being rid of colonial rulers, yet an overwhelming sense of being trapped by the same systems they were allegedly liberated from. Here we assess the authenticity of that liberation.
Education
“The percentage of Africans living in absolute poverty fell from 58 to 41 percent between 2000 and 2016 and primary school enrolment had increased from 60 to 80 percent, most of the poorest economic performers in the UN’s human development index remained African countries.”
Education is supposed to be liberating, and oftentimes, used in the right way it can be. African countries have increased the rate at which their people are educated since the colonial era, yet still, continuing to feature on the index of the most poor countries and continue to face such heightened levels of corruption and debt. Quoting here from Adekeye Adebajo’s Pan-African Pantheon;
“It is unfortunate that we should be so educated, so liberated with regards to knowledge yet continue to be counted among the most suffering and even be placed bottom on a tier of world. Understandable considering that this system seeks to undo the impact of hundreds of years worth of damage. What is paradoxical is the use of educational systems and standards of those who caused that damage. Globalization has made the use of these a necessity particularly if one seeks to engage with the rest of the world, however globalization has effectively made the nature of educational sovereignty slightly more complex.”
Western education has remained consistently present since the colonial era with subtle changes to suit the African context. However it’s effect and ability to create a sense of superiority of the West remains.
Globalization may be praised for allowing people to reject the notion that the founding parties are doing their best when they can see that there is potential for improvement. The other side of this coin is that the difference in progress coupled with the consideration of the impacts of colonialism often create despair and results in a people despising their ‘underdevelopment’ rather than see opportunity in it, essentially one may learn that that true liberation exists by existing the in the way those in the first wold live.
One of the limitations counted that contribute to this may be the conditioning to revere the colonizers that comes with self-hate, and despite how it has been explored through movements such as Black Lives Matter and the #blackisbeautiful, in the face of skin lightening products and instances of colourism, it is still clear that the application and internalisation of these lessons is very gradual.
Another is the openly corrupt and overly bureaucratic systems that have been created in many African countries. Many of these systems have done very little to dispel the appeal of foreign-hood, especially if it can be an avenue to develop one’s home along with the home of that which accommodates them. One cannot be called home when the crocodiles that ravaged them before are still out, still menacing home. A lot of blame for this falls on leaders who have brutalized their countries so much that one cannot function within it or develop it without facing immense difficulties.
When one is taught of the great and wonderful things out there and shown how impossible it is to implement them at home, it creates a hunger for the life out there and an individual rather than societal pursuit of happiness.
Why not point out these failings in an educational rather than solely through social setting? Because it has been made difficult by the leaders who seek to maintain positions of power rather than improve their countries. All while making it impossible to hold them accountable without risking one’s life. Herein lies neo-colonialism and how the leaders who represent the people seek to benefit from it, much like African leaders of the colonial era who sold their people. The ZANU PF régime in Zimbabwe for example famously watered down the actual harm and issues in fear of being held accountable to their actions. In many African countries like this , where the founding parties impose themselves so much that change is inconcevable individuals often truly realize the harm of their leaders long after they have been conditioned to accept or function under the status quo.
Democracy
Democracy was meant to be a liberating tool following the colonial era, however it has become a means in which founding parties can maintain their paternalistic hold on their nations. It seems like they worry so much that any other party would shift the systems to suit their own desires the way they have been since the dawn of independence or an act fulfilling the aforementioned fear of being held accountable.
On the backdrop of colonially solidified elements such as tribalism, regionalism and colourism, democracy here functions in the manner it did for them during the apartheid era. Such that power is unequivocally in favour of the one who produced greater numbers.
Three elements which seemingly appear separate are consistently at play here. These are the social moral narrative, the traditional group with territorial dominance and the colonial history and liberation struggle. These often overlap in the sphere of politics and have often manifested as an emphasis on the colonial history and liberation struggle to justify the power hold of the founding party which often includes the ethnic majority wherein they ultimately drive their own social moral narrative. Essentially what is meant to be a democratic system, functions as an oligarchy that only benefits a few.
These factors when placed near the ever propagated value of community in deciding a leader, can make a lot of people make decisions based on community biases rather than on the political discourse. This cannot really help democracy to function fairly, especially because there are several cultural groups, each with varying population distributions, the vote of the majority usually ends up being a tool for the most dominant group to remain in power. Essentially the experience of sovereignty is something that can truly be experienced by those with oligarchal control over the states.
Gender Based Violence
The University of Namibia much like many other African Universities has an increased number female graduates yet the uproar regarding gender based discrimination to young women is still prevalent in the country and was notably marked by the #Shutitalldown protests that occurred in 2020. Additionally, despite globalization and significant judicial activism in cases such as Chairperson of the immigration Selection Board v Frank and Another the country still operates what the World Bank has dubbed “the silent epidemic,” wherein gender based violence has greatly been directed towards members of the LGBTQ community, unfortunately rather than emphasize the need for greater attention in this area, there is often an attitude pf passive acceptance because it hapens so often it is simply taken to be normal. Cultural biases of heterosexual male dominance feed into this immensely and often result in the prevalence of such crimes.
A 2020 UN report titled “THE TIME IS NOW: ADDRESSING THE GENDER DIMENSIONS OF CORRUPTION,” it was revealed that corruption is mostly practised by men because they are less scrutinized for it. The same research revealed that women are less likely to get poitions of power because there is an overwhelming bias that women are corruptable. This is not a plea to let women comfortably be corrupt but merely highlighting how this exclusion has also limited the inclusion of women’s issues beyond a manner of passive political discourse. When those who are affected are not always part of the conversation it makes it difficult to prioritize their issues.
Oligrachal powers are yet again seen at the forefront of this seen in many African countries primarily prioritizing their own perspectives and as reflected in the consistant insances oof harm against women. Amnesty International found in its briefing,“Treated like furniture: Gender-based violence and COVID-19 response in Southern Africa”, that “women and girls who dare to report violence and abuse risk social rejection for failing to conform to gender roles — and when they do speak out, their complaints are not taken seriously by authorities.”
Production and Consumerism
While the sovereign African countries have had a great increase in the number of people who can make purchases such as homes, cars, even little delights like corn flakes cereal, no longer restricted by racial lines of who can own these things. Yet still while there has been liberation under the guise of glorious consumerism, this comes at the cost of development as Adebajo points out;
“African economies were thus structured – as the economies in the Caribbean and the Americas had been for two centuries- to produce crops to meet the European consumer needs. This both increased the dependence of African economies on metropolitan economies and in many cases, negatively impacted on the ability of African populations to produce their own food. Africans imbibed Western consumption patterns without acquiring Western production methods.”
While we were empowered as consumers, we were not yet sufficiently empowered as producers, the channels to such have been left to the hands of the western powers, in addition is America which has successfully incorporated Africa in its consumerist culture and China which has played a huge role in heading Neo-colonialism. These tools have left Africa unfortunately in debt and still at the mercy of other powers economically while still functioning as providers of the necessary materials for production; cocoa beans, gold, diamonds, etc…. In this way the goal of colonization to reduce Africa into a source of economic gain and sustenance for foreign powers continues to play out even after the poat-conflict idea that Africa was now free and independent.
At the forefront of this is the role of the oligarchs in Africa. In a report by the African Investigative Publishing Collective, it was stated that, “African oligarchs do a lot more than accepting bribes…what we have unearthed indicated that these elites have, to some extent morphed into the very colonialist plunder systems that they replaced.”
Conclusion
Obtaining true sovereignty in Africa is undoubtably a slow process due to the deeply embedded manner in which colonization occured. An important battle to face in this process is being rid of leaders who synonimize democracy and oligarchy as well as systems that make advancement more difficult that it has to be.
*Note that ‘African’ here is used to refer to black people, including those historically displaced by slave trade and the colonial and neo-colonial processes.
It’s 2021 and the feminist movement has circled right back to the unnecessary out-grouping through the #Pickme and #Tweetlikeapickme trends. I say circled back because it has been pointed out through many historical events have shown to us that more than anything that divisiveness is counter-productive to the feminist movement. It became clear that any racial divisions that were underlying in the women’s suffrage movement resulted in wins that only really benefited the white women who had the significant racial advantages of the time, it did not result in a successes for all women, hence the ensuing waves of feminism and identification of the African Feminist Movement, often with limited trend based participation from those who benefitted from earlier movements.
The African Feminist Movement functions alongside other human rights movements as we saw during the 2020 BLM protests following the cruelty the world witnessed against George Floyd, it was clear that the injustices associated with being black resonated among black people all over the world. Feminist protests in solidarity with this captured Angela Davis’ notion that Black Lives Matter embodies feminism. Anyway, I digress, my point is this movement cannot be a success for as long as there is any amount of injustice existing alongside it, this is why it does not make sense to me that it be the source of any amount of injustice especially when it is directed towards women, the very group it seeks to protect. Out-grouping seems to only be recognized as an injustice when it captures men as the villains, e.g the exclusion of women from the workforce, but what about when it villainizes the people the movement seeks to protect? In this regard, the out grouping of the pick-me seems totally justified because she has aligned herself with men.
A comparative look at the unjust out-grouping of transgender women and the out-grouping of the pick-me. In both instances there seems to be a failure or refusal to accept that ‘they’ are women too, your need to understand and accept them is not the point , the point is that the movement seeks to defend us in all our differences. No woman needs to fulfill a certain standard to gain validation of her femininity, this includes the pick-me. The exclusionary ‘they’ labeling is what I am addressing here. It is counter-active to the goal of unification and change, an unnecessary divisive pause which strengthens the solidarity of those against the movement.
The pick me phenomenon was created to call out women who were allegedly directing their actions in favour of the male gaze. It came as a response to women who supposedly thought they were better because they fulfilled the terms of the patriarchy. A common example is the classic African church aunty who chastises young women because of how they fail to meet the patriarchal standard of the perfect woman, one who simply accepts the rules that are there to make the life of a man simpler; cook, cleaner, passive sister-wife, child bearer and rearer, modest dressing beautician with a wild side in the bedroom, one who strives for marriage through being a man pleaser… the whole lot. Or the ever portrayed chill, all vibes girl who has gained the trope of ‘not being like other girls.’ Although the term seeks to make the women reflect and change their behaviour, the interests and characteristics of those who allegedly fit this description often spills over to innocent bystanders. For example, the African church aunty may hold a deep respect for women’s rights while enforcing rules to do tasks and chores around the household as a means to add healthy structure and discipline in a young woman’s life, she may view this as a healthy way to prepare them for an unbalanced world especially if she felt these lessons were helpful to her and her generation mates. The chilled girl and her trope may have been a result of undue male sensationalism rather than a deep desire to seek the male gaze, the interests she is often described to have can be had by anyone, the application of the term ‘pick me’ in association with specific interests alienates any young woman who may have those interests and further distances them from the feminist movement, rejecting what has rejected a part of who they are. It is a term that often neglects context and situations with the sole goal of exclusion.
Granted there are characters who have fed into maintaining patriarchal views, she is no more a threat to the movement as a whole than a child who believes some things are just for boys and some are just for girls. The true villain is the one who taught them that and keeps enforcing it, the real villain is the one who has made those views seem to be facts. More often than not we see that this woman has been taught that there is virtue in resilience and endurance, in many cases she suffers some form of oppression as well. She may choose to accept it as a norm or may really be enjoying the benefits that are beside this suffering, she does not mind her reality. A narrow focus on creating a blanket “type” of woman like this, distracts from the greater reality, which is that of the oppressive force behind her, aiding that position by giving sense of justification to be antagonistic.
While this woman, the pick me, has contributed to the oppression and confinement of other women, oftentimes seen as the face of men’s rights movements that undermine feminism and believe feminism to be an anti-men movement, with little to no knowledge of the intersectional aspect of feminism, her goal may be to protect the men in her life who have been helpful to her, her fight, albeit naïvely informed, is against social exclusion and in favour of some sort of justice. In this regard her actions only manifest as further evidence of the injustices that feminism seeks to fight, she is not an enemy, just a tragic tool of the enemy, like if the movement against black slavery became solely focused on putting down house slaves or those who worked along the slave masters. They were a sore part of the problem, but they were not the problem.
The context in Africa is such that divisions were created through the formation of very static boundaries between countries, various language groups, customary groups, dialects not to mention factors such as colourism and the massive gaps between social classes. There are injustices surrounding each factor I have mentioned, which have caused and still cause separation between people who are suffering together, there is no need to create any more division among ourselves.
It is a term that ultimately defies the entire goal of the movement. If anything the ‘pick me’ should gain some empathy for being trapped or viewed simply as a woman who is living her own truth, even if that truth is not particularly palatable, she must be addressed, individually on her view points directly, rather than to create an exclusionary term, fulfilling the movement’s desire for non-gender specific classifications. To give this group of women a diminutive term only creates more division in a group that would probably be more successful if there were efforts to create solidarity, an unnecessary division at that which only amplifies the perspectives of those against it; the idea that feminists claim to be in favour of amplifying all women’s rights in all their phenomenal uniqueness, yet still excluding women who act in a certain way.
So what if she claims to be better and gains the attention of a man? Or iff she is a ‘puppet for the patriarchal agenda?’ It is inconsequential if the women who are part of the feminist movement are pushing that agenda rather than placing efforts on petty out-grouping, it is the equivalent of echoing their alleged message that ‘you are not a good enough woman!’
ZENZE 