[Week 2] Response to Conceptual Frameworks

In his TED Talk about Identities, Pico Iyer says “Where do you come from?” is a simple question that requires complicated answers. As an immigrant, international traveller, and world citizen, I can say I strongly identify with that sentiment. I was born and raised in Brazil, but since turning 18 I have lived in France, Thailand, Chile, and now the US. I am only a citizen of Brazil, and yet, Austin is where I feel the most at home (with Chiang Mai, Thailand, being a close second). However, like Elif Shafak, I like the idea of multiple belongings – and I feel like I belong in all three of those places.

Identity really is an ongoing phenomenon, and while unlike Shafaf I am comfortable with the use of that word, it’s important that it comes from the person identifying with a group or concept, as opposed to an imposed label by a dominant group.

Since moving to the US, my understanding of my own identity has changed a lot. You see, in Brazil, I was privileged enough that I never had to think about my own race. There is racism and colorism, true. But, in general, most people are mixed-race, and no one questions the specificities of your genetic background. In the United States, people have asked me countless times “What are you?”. Naive me didn’t understand that that was a racially-charged question, and had to ask “what do you mean?” until someone actually explained what they wanted to know (my ethnicity).

Using my newly acquired knowledge of the three types of inequality (Therborn), I would say that is an example of existential inequality. As a person of color, my desire to simply be was not respected, and the fact that I’m a human like everyone else wasn’t enough.

Another concept that I learned from Therborn’s text that I see in my daily life is that of circles as a way to loosely delimit horizontal or implicit inequality. From living in Latin America and seeing first hand the centre-periphery problematic, to living in a country as a non-citizen and having widely different rights than those of US citizens, I see how it is different from the explicit verticality of the ladder model.

Finally, as a queer woman of color, words like homophobia, patriarchy, and racism don’t scare me. In fact, I’m familiar not only with the words but also also the concepts behind, since they are issues I run into from time to time. So while I did not personally need Johnson’s explanation of why it’s important that we use those words and that people shouldn’t be scared of them, I very much side with him in believing that yes, we should use words that describe real problems that affect the lives of millions of people, and that if you’re offended by them, it’s a call to acknowledge your privilege for not having to face those problems. After all, “the trouble we are in cannot be solved unless people who have privilege feel obligated to make the problem of privilege their problem, and to do something about it.” (p. 9)

Overall, these week’s readings were the first step for me in establishing a solid theoretical basis for issues I have been encountering and talking about for the last few years, now with better vocabulary to describe my experiences and an in-depth understanding of the root causes of each of them. I’ll leave you with a quote from Adams (p. 23) and a pledge for intersectionality:

“No one form of oppression if the base for all others, yet all are connected within a system that makes them possible. We align with theorists such as Young who describe distinctive ingredients of oppression without prioritizing one over another. We also share with Young the view that eradicating oppression ultimately requires struggle against all its forms, and that coalitions among diverse people offer the most promising strategies for challenging oppression systematically.”