Multiple Discrimination: From Perceptions and Experiences to Proposals for Anti-Discrimination Policies
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Author | Mª Ángeles Cea D’Ancona,Miguel S Valles Martínez |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663920983534 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Multiple Discrimination:
From Perceptions and
Experiences to Proposals
for Anti-Discrimination
Policies
MaA
´ngeles Cea D’Ancona
Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Miguel S Valles Mart´
ınez
Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Abstract
As the many forms of intolerance are all interrelated, this paper extends previous
research on multiple discrimination, its conceptualisation, perceptions, experiences and
proposals for anti-discrimination policies. It provides the key results of a project aimed at
developing a conceptual framework of multiple discrimination, plus some proposals for
anti-discrimination policies. Several different research strategies were applied, combining
the analysis of available data and materials produced by the research team itself. The first
approach included the analysis of eurobarometers on discrimination in the European
Union, along with nationwide surveys conducted in Spain. The primary data corre-
sponded to both qualitative materials (gathered through focus groups and interviews
with members of Spanish NGOs, policy makers and social experts), and quantitative data
from a CAWI survey on teaching staff at Spanish universities. The diagnosis concluded
with the proposal of several anti-discrimination policies to tackle multiple discrimination
in societies where different experiences of discrimination converge.
Corresponding author:
MaA
´ngeles Cea D’Ancona, Department of Sociology: Methodology and Theory, Faculty of Political Science and
Sociology, Complutense University of Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarc ´
on, Madrid,
Spain.
Email: maceada@ucm.es
Social & Legal Studies
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0964663920983534
journals.sagepub.com/home/sls
2021, Vol. 30(6) 937–958
Keywords
Anti-discrimination policies, conceptualisation, experiences, multiple discrimination,
perceptions
Introduction
Although democratic states promote equal opportunities in society as essential for
social welfare and cohesion, unfortunately discrimination continues to be a reality for
many people belonging to a particular social group or could be attributed to the
combination of several different grounds for discrimination. Discrimination does not
presuppose any unique underlying cause, and it is not always easy to determine objec-
tively. As stated by Crenshaw (1991: 1243), we observe ‘the intersection of racism and
sexism factors in black women’s lives in ways that cannot be captured wholly by
looking at the race or gender dimensions of those experiences separately’. It is the
combination of different grounds for discrimination that form the substance of what is
commonly understood as multiple discrimination. This includes both ‘additive’ dis-
crimination (Beal, 1970), and ‘multiple jeopardy’, as described by King (1988), who
argued that attempts to isolate the separate contributions of racism, classism, and
sexism towards African American women’s lives fundamentally misunderstood how
systems of inequality operate and are experienced.
There are several different ways of conceptualising discrimination when it occurs for
more than one reason. Terms such as multiple, cumulative, compound, combined and
intersectional discrimination are often used interchangeably, although they have subtly
different meanings. In academic circles the concept of intersectional discrimination is a
recurring term (Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, 1996; Berger and Guidroz, 2009; Best
et al., 2011; Choo and Ferree, 2010; Harnois, 2015; McCall, 2005), while in the field of
politics and human rights multiple discrimination is explicitly recognised within several
policy documents and legislation (Burri and Schiek, 2008; ENAR, 2007). Nevertheless,
there has also been a tendency in recent years to highlight the concept intersectionality,
either in combination with multiple discrimination (European Commission, 2018, 2019;
Fredman, 2016); or alone (Centre for Intersectional Justice
1
, 2020).
Furthermore, little consensus exists regarding empirical application of intersection-
ality in the social sciences, particularly in quantitative research (Cho et al., 2013; Choo
and Ferree, 2010; McCall, 2005). Acco rding to Bowleg (2008: 314), ‘it is virtuall y
impossible, particularly in quantitative research, to ask questions about intersectionality
that are not inherently additive’. Like Burri and Schiek (2008), Grollman (2014), Har-
nois (2015), Sargeant (2011), Valles et al. (2017) or Bericat et al. (2018), we prefer the
term ‘multiple’, albeit open also to the intersectional prism, opting for a more holistic
and structuralist conceptualisation of discrimination: an umbrella term for all situations
where discrimination is multi-faceted.
This article summarises the main findings of the MEDIM II project
2
; a multimethod
research aimed at proposing antidiscrimination policies based on the analysis of experi-
ences and perceptions of discrimination on more than one ground. The research includes
the analysis of both secondary data from different archives (qualitative, documentary,
938 Social & Legal Studies 30(6)
To continue reading
Request your trial