Intersectionality refers to the fact that there are often overlapping cross-sections of people with multiple disadvantages. This is especially true when considering social class.
Consider the following statistics:
- 14.8% of females live in poverty, compared to 12.2% of males.
- Gender differences are more pronounced for the elderly, with 10.3% of elderly women and 7% of elderly men living under the poverty threshold.
- 26.6% of Native Americans, 24.1% of African-Americans, 21.4% of Hispanic-Americans, and 11.4% of Asian-Americans live in poverty, compared to 9.1% of whites not of Hispanic origin.
- 28.5% of people with a disability live below the poverty line.
- Somewhere between 20-40% of homeless youth identify as LGBT, compared to approximately 10% of the population at large.
- Children raised by same-sex couples have poverty rates twice those of children in heterosexual married couple households.
- Transgender individuals are four times as likely to have a household income under $10,000 and twice as likely to be unemployed as a cisgendered person. Furthermore, almost one in five report being homeless at some point in their lives.
- 24% of lesbians and bisexual women are poor, compared to 19% of heterosexual women.
- African-American same-sex couples are roughly three times more likely to live in poverty than white same-sex couples
[Side Note on Religion: Religion is one category that does not necessarily fit this pattern in the U.S.; in fact, according to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, Jewish people ranked as the most financially successful religious group in the U.S., with 44% of Jewish people living in households with incomes of at least $100,000 - followed by Hindu (36%), Episcopalians (35%) and Presbyterians (32%). There is a similar correlation between education and income, which probably accounts for this anomaly - about 77% of American Hindus have at least an undergraduate degree, followed by Jews (59%), Anglican (59%), Episcopalians (56%) and Presbyterians (47%). (Source)
Rates on Muslim-Americans with regards to wealth are less clear - in part because U.S. Muslims as a group tend to have a high level of education (which might indicate increased wealth), and because Muslims in the U.S. are a very diverse group, many subcategories of which fall into other minority groups (which might indicate greater instances of poverty). It is estimated that more than 60% of U.S. Muslims are immigrants (largely from South Asia, but also from Arab nations), and of those, up to about 30% are not U.S. citizens. Of native-born U.S. Muslims, about 60% are African-Americans. Though there are clear differences between the style of worship used by immigrants and by African-Americans, the truth is that both groups may face discrimination for their ethnicity/race; it is therefore hard to determine how much of the rate of Muslims in poverty might be impacted by their religion, and not from other factors. The only concrete statistics I could find only compares Muslims in the U.S. to Muslims in Western Europe, where many have seen significant issues with poverty and integration. A 2007 Pew poll found that just 2% of U.S. Muslims are in the lowest income bracket, while Muslims in Britain, France, and Germany made up around 20% of those countries' low-income populations. (Source)]
Rates on Muslim-Americans with regards to wealth are less clear - in part because U.S. Muslims as a group tend to have a high level of education (which might indicate increased wealth), and because Muslims in the U.S. are a very diverse group, many subcategories of which fall into other minority groups (which might indicate greater instances of poverty). It is estimated that more than 60% of U.S. Muslims are immigrants (largely from South Asia, but also from Arab nations), and of those, up to about 30% are not U.S. citizens. Of native-born U.S. Muslims, about 60% are African-Americans. Though there are clear differences between the style of worship used by immigrants and by African-Americans, the truth is that both groups may face discrimination for their ethnicity/race; it is therefore hard to determine how much of the rate of Muslims in poverty might be impacted by their religion, and not from other factors. The only concrete statistics I could find only compares Muslims in the U.S. to Muslims in Western Europe, where many have seen significant issues with poverty and integration. A 2007 Pew poll found that just 2% of U.S. Muslims are in the lowest income bracket, while Muslims in Britain, France, and Germany made up around 20% of those countries' low-income populations. (Source)]
In general (religion not withstanding - see note above), the more disadvantages someone has in other areas (race, gender, sexuality, ability, etc.), the more likely they are to also struggle with their financial situation. If our goal is to lessen the economic inequality in this nation, looking at how class intersects other categories can therefore lead us to some profound conclusions, and lead us into some helpful solutions.
Once we realize how many women live in poverty, for instance, it's easier to see how so-called "women's issues" (like better sex and reproductive education, greater access to women's health care, more comprehensive maternity leave policies, and addressing the persistent gender wage gap) are actually economic issues that could help alleviate some of the wealth disparity in this nation and rise countless women out of dire financial hardship.
Better access to and higher quality health care would also help alleviate the financial burden of many disabled Americans. Anti-discrimination policies in the workplace, handicapped accessible public transit, work environments that allow for flexible scheduling, and the destigmatization of mental illness would also help the countless Americans who suffer with any myriad of chronic diseases.
Similarly, pushing for marriage and job equality for homosexual couples are important economic steps to ensure that their families have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples, and that no one will face job discrimination for their sexual preferences. Better laws regarding public restroom usage would create more safe spaces for transgender individuals, and reform regarding workplace discrimination would create more job opportunities.
Affirmative action policies at universities are implemented for comparable reasons - to allow more African-Americans or Native Americans access to higher education (and, in turn, higher economic status).
There is no specific amount of poor people the United States is required to have; it is not the case that lifting African-Americans or Native Americans or LGBT individuals or disabled Americans or women out of poverty will create a sinkhole that will suck other groups into lower social classes in their stead. Helping these subsections of poor people decreases the general rate of poverty in this country, and can only be a good thing for the economy of our nation.
Before I conclude this blog post, I would remise if I didn't make one final point - I am married to a statistician/actuary, after all - and that point is this:
The above statistics show a correlation between certain subgroups and lower income brackets. Do not confuse correlation with causation. It is not a simple cause-and-effect situation; in fact, they each tend to exacerbate the other.
The above statistics show a correlation between certain subgroups and lower income brackets. Do not confuse correlation with causation. It is not a simple cause-and-effect situation; in fact, they each tend to exacerbate the other.
When someone lacks institutionalized privilege in these other categories (all of which are completely outside of someone's control), it can be harder to earn a steady income, be accepted into higher education programs, secure housing in good neighborhoods, have access to community amenities, feel safe working irregular job hours or taking public transportation, make networking connections, have access to quality health care services, see their families and unions protected by legal and economic safeguards, or have self-confidence in their abilities. All of those things, in turn, can contribute to poverty.
Conversely, when certain groups of people are continually associated with lower class status, it can reinforce negative stereotypes and discrimination towards those groups. These include stereotypes that people of color are lazy (because many of them live in poverty, and must, therefore, have been unwilling to put in the effort necessary to pull themselves out of it) or violent (because many of them live in poor, crowded, urban areas, where there is also a higher instance of crime).
Such gross generalizations, while rooted in a very real truth that intersectionality is a serious problem, also do the disservice of discussing large groups of people as if they were homogenous. Thinking in such absolutes is not only incorrect but deeply concerning, because it encourages segregation and "othering" - viewing or treating certain groups of people as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself. Though many people living in poverty are people of color, not all people of color are poor or live in poor neighborhoods, and many people who are poor or live in poor neighborhoods are actually white. To believe or talk as if "people of color" and "people living in poverty" are synonymous is to perpetuate dangerous misrepresentation.
Indeed, many people in power who want to uphold the current systems of inequality to ensure they maintain their own privileged standing purposefully make these generalizations as a fear-mongering tactic. Such liars don't even require facts to lay a tenuous foundation for their claims, insisting for instance that "all Muslims are terrorists" or "all homosexuals/transgendered persons are pedophiles/rapists" even when the data proves that it is more likely for a non-Muslim to be a terrorist in this country, and for a pedophile or rapist to identify and present as heterosexual and cisgendered.
It is important, therefore, to balance careful consideration of harmful stereotyping against one's desire to recognize the intersectionality of class and take concrete steps towards addressing the unique problems faced by people who lack privilege in more than one area of their lives. We need to keep the above statistics in mind - but also not fall into the trap of misinterpreting them, misrepresenting them, or assuming that correlation implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment