Multiple identities, multiple-discrimination: A critical review

Abstract

The concept of multiple-discrimination, particularly as found in the labor market, is fast becoming common parlance among policy-making circles. Understanding discrimination is no longer about uncovering simple and dualistic links between two social groups: it is increasingly apparent that the nature and dynamics of discrimination are complex because the multiple positions occupied by people are shaped by numerous social attributes. Economic theory and economists, however, have hardly addressed issues of multiple-discrimination or intersectional discrimination. By surveying the economics literature, from orthodoxy to heterodoxy, this article shows how economists are lagging behind legal and human rights theorists in tackling the issue. A couple of contemporary cases from the UK, those of Aishah Azmi and Nadia Eweida, are used in this largely critical literature survey to show the value of utilizing a multiple-discrimination framework to acknowledge the complexities and nuances of labor market reality.

Keywords:

• Intersectional analysis
• labor market discrimination
• multiple identities
• religion
• heterodox and orthodox economics
• JEL Codes: B5, K, Z1

Acknowledgments

I thank IAFFE for selecting this paper as a recipient of the Rhonda Williams Prize (IAFFE 2005 conference) as well as the reviewers and editors for their careful and constructive comments. Ian Lacey of BBC2 News Night needs a mention of appreciation for his help in gathering information on the case studies that was not easily accessible. This is a revised version of a paper that initially began its gestation as a working paper done for the ILO. I thank David Kucera and Manuela Tomei for their initial encouragement and critical comments that made me work and re-work on the issues/themes.

Notes

The penultimate section of this paper explores more fully the details of these cases and the backgrounds of the women involved.

There are three issues that need clarification at the onset of this paper. First, the concept “multiple-discrimination” is defined to mean discrimination in which the various social attributes and positions of people interact with each other leading them to experience discrimination on several grounds (Timo Makkonen 2002: 10). Second, “multiple-discrimination” is used inter-changeably with “multi-discrimination,” which is slowly gaining common parlance in the discourse (ILO 2003). Third, recent work from the legal field has distinguished between “multiple,”“compound,” and “intersectional” discrimination, while acknowledging that in some instances “multiple” and “intersectional” discrimination are often substituted for one another (Makkonen 2002: 10). This paper uses multi-discrimination to mean the same as multiple and/or intersectional discrimination, in accordance with the distinctions that are spelled out in greater detail in the review of the legal discourse later in this paper.

An extensive literature search on multi-discrimination in economics leads to one paper by orthodox economists, George A. Akerlof and Rachel E. Kranton (2000), and two works by feminist economists, Teresa L. Amott and Julie A. Matthaei (1996) and Rose M. Brewer, Cecilia A. Conrad, and Mary C. King (2002). The critical contributions of these three papers on the theme are also discussed in the literature review in this paper, which I use to conceptualize multi-discrimination.

ILO conventions may not necessarily recognize that individuals may encounter discrimination because their social identities and attributes intersect in various ways; however, the ILO's 2003 Global Report argues both for the conceptualization of multiple-discrimination within economics as well as the need for more research and study.

See, for example, Gary S. Becker 1957; Theodore Schultz 1961; Anne O. Krueger 1963; Barbara R. Bergmann 1971; Peter B. Doeringer and Michael J. Piore 1971; Kenneth Arrow 1972; Michael Reich, David Gordon, and Richard Edwards 1973; Joseph Stiglitz 1973; William Darity 1975; Francine D. Blau and Carol Jusenius 1976; William A. Darity, Jr. and Rhonda Williams 1985; Williams 1987; Darity and Mason 1998; Karen Gibson, William Darity, and Samuel Myers 1998; and Mason 1999.

Darity and Mason (1998) point out, however, that recent neoclassical empiricists have tried to find a way of explaining the persistence of discrimination by identifying conditions in which not discriminating may reduce a firm's profits.

The recognition that social distance and socioeconomic status matter in perpetuating ignorance and discriminatory practices may be of central importance for advocating social policies that attempt to bridge the gap between social groups in order to eradicate discrimination. In this respect, a related research question that springs to mind is to what extent do anti-discrimination, social welfare, and anti-poverty strategies for reducing social distance and socioeconomic differences support and reinforce each other?

Orthodox economists do not deny that the focus on wage discrimination does not imply the existence of occupational discrimination, where people from a particular social group are systematically excluded from one type of job or another. Stiglitz (1973), for example, goes on to argue that occupational segregation does not necessarily imply wage discrimination. While this may hold true theoretically, later work has shown that in the “real” world occupational segregation and low-paid jobs tend to go together (Darity 1975).

Whenever racial identities are used as white and black, I do this because it either reflects a British treatment of race identity (where many identities of color are collapsed under the label “black”) or where authors cited use these binary categories. Usage of this binary is not done with the purpose of negating the richness and diversity of people's multiple ethnic and racial identities that people – which would be rather contrary to the overarching spirit of this paper.

I refer the interested reader to Stiglitz (1973) and Darity (1975) for a detailed discussion of the limitations and criticisms of the early neoclassical models that sought to explain the prevalence of labor market discrimination between whites and blacks in the US.

For sake of brevity, the details of the respective models are not described here. Stiglitz (1973) brilliantly narrates the necessary issues, and the interested reader is referred to his paper.

There is lack of clarity on which economist(s) conjured up the phrase “statistical discrimination.” Darity (1975) attributes it to Doeringer and Piore's work in the early 1970s, Wachtel (1992) ascribes it to Arrow's theorizing of discrimination in 1972 (Arrow 1972), and later work by Darity and Mason (1998) assign this term to the neoclassical economists. The early theorizing by Arrow (1972) does show that employers cannot know whether workers are qualified, and therefore, the subjective beliefs held by them influence the decisions they make vis-à-vis workers from different social groups. In the model, respective probabilities are denoted to workers in different social groups, but Arrow (1972) does not use the expression “statistical discrimination.” A possible explanation for the absence of clarity on ascribing the concept of “statistical discrimination” to different economist(s) may be because while Arrow formulated the theoretical model of assigning probabilities to workers from different social groups, it may be Doeringer and Piore that coined this particular modeling process with the term.

My use of social and cultural symbols, capital, and networks resonates more with Pierre Bourdieu's (1998, 1977/2000) influential work on the theme, than that of more recent adaptation by neo-institutionalists (North 2000; see also Fine 2002, 2003 for critiques).

I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing to the arguments made by Thomas Sowell.

Certainly, Williams (1987) uses many interesting examples from economic history of the US to support and verify that the persistence of racism is logical.

In footnote 31, Akerlof and Kranton say, “when an individual's identity is associated with multiple social categories, the ‘situation’ could determine, for example, which categories are most salient” (2000: 731).

Similarly, in the application of the identity model to poverty and exclusion, Akerlof and Kranton acknowledge that “legal equality may not be enough to eliminate racial disparities” (2000: 744).

In cases where paternity or parental leave does exist, the costs are not the same as that of maternity leave, simply because the length of time for the former is usually much shorter than that of the latter.

The unprovoked and brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young Black British man, was followed by accusations of institutional racism within the police forces because of its failure to bring to justice the white murderers. The MacPherson Report recommended a series of measures that would subject the police to greater public control, enshrine rights for victims of crime, and extend the number of offences classified as racist. Freedom of information and race relations legislation was applied to the police, henceforth.

This is a complex interpretation of the relationship between various factors of discrimination made by Becker (1957). The important point of the linkages between the various facets is that at one level the relationship between social exclusion and discrimination is recognized.

The work of legal theorists has brought the conceptualization of multi-discrimination into parlance. But it is important to note that a review of the economic theory on the topic of the work of radical economists, notably the work of Williams (1987) and Amott and Matthaei (1996), stresses the need to understand economic relationships in light of historical links and institutional factors. In this respect, their work comes closest to potentially uncovering multi-discrimination from a political economy perspective.

It is important to remind the reader the point made in endnote 2 of this paper: namely, that there are instances in which multiple and intersectional discrimination are commonly interchanged with each other. However, for the purposes of clarity, Makkonen (2002) appears keen to distinguish between these two types of discrimination, and these distinct forms of discrimination are reviewed in this paragraph.

There are many forms of veiling, which is considered as symbol of both religion and womanhood, among Muslim women. They come in myriad of styles and colors, and range from the hijab, niqab, burka, al-amira, shayla, khimar, and chador. The niqab, which is regarded to be one of the conservative choices (the other is the burka), is a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes clear (BBC 2006f).

Aishah's response to the tribunal decision was to carry on with the case before the appropriate higher courts and ultimately, if need be, the European Court of Justice (Wainwright 2006b; see also Stephen Bates and Tania Branigan 2006). In fact, in mid-January 2007 the media announced that she had lodged papers with the Employment Appeals Tribunal (BBC 2007c).

Prime Minister Tony Blair parted with the ministerial code of conduct that requires ministers to uphold the administration of justice through non-interference when he weighed in on the debate, saying that the full veil (meaning the niqab or burkha) “… is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable” (BBC 2006a; see also Matthew Tempest 2006 and Will Woodward 2006). His intervention is unsurprising against the wider political climate during his administration in which he constantly broke with parliamentary protocol by taking on a presidential role. Moreover, such involvements play into the rhetoric of justifying his “War on Terror” at home and foreign soil. But he was not the only parliamentarian to intercede on the debate. Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury (Aishah's home constituency), said “I would appeal to Mrs Azmi now just to let this thing go. There is no real support for it. … She does have responsibility for what's happening to the rest of the Muslims who are living in this country” (BBC 2006c). Somewhat ironically, the leader of the conservative party, David Cameron, said “I think there is a danger of politicians piling in to have their ten pence worth and really they have to ask themselves whether this is having an overall good effect or not” (BBC 2006c; see also The Guardian2006).

My thanks to Ian Lacey of BBC2 News Night for digging out this information for me, as most publicized media reports were thin on the specific details of Nadia Eweida's case. It is still unclear, however, whether Nadia is a British citizen or not – as historically maternal parentage did not automatically grant children British citizenship. It is well worth noting that the gaps by the media reporting her story are telling of the general Islamophobic preoccupations within Britain that lead to more comprehensive coverage of Aishah's background and less on Nadia's.

The final straw for BA to reconsider their uniform policy, however, appears to have been motivated by financial considerations that got coupled together with a religious-political stance adopted by the Church of England. Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury – the most senior Church of England cleric – announced that consultations had begun to inquire into the possibility of disinvesting BA shares worth £10.25 million (Hooper and Treanor 2006).

After a review of the company's uniform policy, BA predictably announced that it would be flexible and permit workers to “wear a symbol of faith on a chain” (BBC 2007a). High profile interventions by the leaders of the Church of England and Blair asking BA to “do the sensible thing” made this outcome obvious. In publicizing the revision of the uniform policy, the chief executive of BA, in fact, went on to note: “Unintentionally, we have found ourselves at the centre of one of the hottest social issues in current public debate” (BBC 2007a).

At the same time that Aishah and Nadia's discrimination cases were covering the length and breadth of British newspapers, there was one column devoted to incidents of injury faced by migrant workers at the company Katsouris, which supplies the leading supermarkets (Tesco, Waitrose, and Sainsbury's) in Britain (Felicity Lawrence 2006). During the past three years, Katsouris's health and safety record has been under question because of incidents involving workers, with sixteen accidents reported in 2006. The physical injuries faced by workers Niten Chokshi, who had the tips of two fingers sliced off and his hand crushed, and Dimple Muit, who lost the tip of her finger, got no more than one column of media interest during the same time period (Lawrence 2006).