What is The Kyriarchy?
The term ‘Intersectionality’ was coined by Crenshaw (1989) in her paper entitled ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race & Gender': A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’. In it she argues that the exploration of oppression along the lines of a single axis (ie race or gender), essentially erases the experience of the most oppressed members of the group. For example, when examining the issue of gender, white women have been the focus of exploration, erasing the experiences of black women. When examining issues of racism, men have been the focus of exploration, once again erasing the experiences of black women. As such, Crenshaw argues when we only work towards anti-oppression along a single axis, we actually perpetuate the oppression of those most marginalised in our society. You can check out Crenshaw’s original paper here
Following on from Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality, The Feminist Historian and Theologist Schussler Fiorenza developed the notion of Kyriarchy which details the various axis of differing systems of oppression and their intersections. The above diagram (adapted from Addison, 2017) helps to illustrate the point even further. Those falling above the line of kyriarchy on the continuum for each axis hold the most power and privilege in society, and those falling below the line are the most marginalised by society.
The way this control of power happens is through the construction of norms and narratives that privilege certain qualities (e.g. maleness, whiteness, hetero-ness), and vilifies, degrades and oppresses those with other qualities (e.g. femaleness, blackness, queerness). Power and privilege is also maintained through use of violence, abuse, ostracization and shaming of those who step outside of these socially constructed norms and narratives. For example narratives are created about trans people (they’re attention seeking; they want to erase my experience as a woman, they’re weird and abnormal, or they ‘didn’t use to exist in my day’), which are used by the society and the media in order to create division and vilification (use of violence), which shames and stigmatises that group, which has the effect of silencing and erasing trans people (reference from IG Live ‘The Queer Birth Club’). This in turn allows cis people to maintain their power and privilege. In this way, the creation and maintenance of narratives of how people ‘should’ be, allows those who reside above the line of kyriarchy to continue to hold power (in this particular example, cis people).
Crenshaw (1989) argues that often, anti-oppression work is done from a single axis framework. She calls this a ‘top-down-approach’ - i.e. tackling sexism only, tackling racism only, tackling LGBT rights only. The top-down approach if often adopted by those at the ‘top’ (i.e. those who are most privileged), and it is for their rights only that they fight. Instead Crenshaw argues that anti-discriminatory/anti-oppression work should adopt a ‘bottom-up-approach’, where we work for the liberation and equal/equitable rights of those who experience marginalisation on multiple axis (i.e. are most marginalised). Thus, by adopting a bottom up approach we not only create liberation for the most marginalised in our society, but in doing so we also create liberation for those who are marginalised on a single axis only i.e. a ‘bottom-up’ anti-oppression approach is a win-win.
Approaching from a ‘dismantling the Kyriarchy’ approach for me, also feels like an antidote to tactics used by society and, in particular, the media that often picks one axis at a time and vilifies that particular group of people, in a classic case of ‘divide and conquer’. When this happens, it is so easy to show up in resistance if we fall within the vilified group. But by Crenshaw’s theory, the way that we dismantle systems of oppression is NOT to just pick and chose the ones that we may happen to fall into, but instead to show up, and fight for the right of all marginalised groups, which as it turns out, benefits us all.
In her book chapter on Queer intersectional couples therapy Addison gives examples of how utilising an intersectional approach, as first proposed by Crenshaw (1989), more accurately captures the nuances of how marginalisation and privilege may play out. Referring to the diagram above, Addison states:
“Each identity spans a continuum from most to least valued, rather than binary options of ‘privileged’ or ‘marginalised’. So along the dimension of ‘healthism’, while a robustly healthy and fertile person might be most valued, a person with chronic bust easily managed condition might also be above the line, yet in danger of slipping below tit if their condition worsens and impacts their ability to work
However, the intersectional view would also consider the way other axes influence one’s experience of healthism. For example, a more literate and formally educated person is likely to be treated better by health professionals, even if they are more sick, than a healthier person who cannot read and is unfamiliar with how to self-advocate in a complex systems.”
From Addison (2017) ‘Queer Intersectional Couple Therapy’, p144. In ‘Constructivist, Critical & Integrative Approaches to Couples Counselling’, Eds. Reiter & Chenail.
It is therefore imperative that we begin to acknowledge the intersections of oppression and begin to adopt ‘bottom-up’ approaches to our anti-oppression work, particularly for Feminist’s that feel their only work is to liberate women from sexism. Because, if we only work towards the liberation of those oppressed under one system of oppression (sexism via patriarchy), then in effect, by doing so, we actively contribute to the oppression and erasure of those who are oppressed at the intersections of patriarchy and other systems of oppression (i.e. racism, cisgenderism, ableism etc).
