A Larger Systems Approach: Integrating Intersectionality into Family Systems Theory

The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) Clinical Guidelines for LGBTQIA-Affirming Marriage and Family Therapy capture the intersection of these processes, emphasizing an intersectionality framework through interconnectedness of individual’s socially constructed identities and navigation within larger systems of family, community, society, and culture (AAMFT, 2021). By integrating intersectionality into family systems theory, we can view systems through a meta lens to navigate power, privilege, and oppression within interwoven systems.

Before moving forward, discussion of these constructs may not be common or welcomed experiences (Bethesda, 2016), but, once again, they are critical. To create safe spaces, let’s define these terms and move towards an understanding of the roles these structures play in larger, interlocked systems

Privilege: “When a person or group of persons are afforded special rights, immunities, and/or advantages that others are not afforded. Connected to intersection of your race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, level education, physical ability” (AAMFT, n.d.).

Power: “The capacity to exercise control over others, deciding what is best for them, deciding who will have access to or denial from resources (dominant/privileged/advantaged)” (Anderson, Stolen, & Venzor, 2020).

Oppression: “Social group with less power/less access/less privilege; social groups that have been disenfranchised, invisibilized, dehumanized, and exploited” (Anderson et al., 2020).

Now, who am I and what is my positionality to write about these constructs? I am cisgender female, femme expression, AfroLatinx*, brown skin, lesbian, able bodied, upper middle class, in an intercultural marriage, and currently junior faculty. Working with and within identity and social relationships, one must acknowledge their identities; those that are oppressed and those that hold power. I navigate my world through marginalization of my sexuality, color of my skin, and interculturality of my relationship. However, I hold power within my positionality in class and career, ability, gender identity, and expression. As you read, I ask you to recognize your positionality and the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in your life; it is critical to the work.

History of intersectionality theory

As a framework, intersectionality sees identities (intrapersonal system) as mutually constitutive (i.e., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, class, etc.), and interlocked with larger sociocultural systems rooted in privilege, oppression, and power (i.e., racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, etc.; Crenshaw, 1993; Gutierrez, 2019). This is not to confuse intersectionality as solely “intersecting identities,” but as identities influenced by systems that contribute to inequity and disparity. Historically, the term intersectionality was coined by renowned feminist, lawyer, and scholar Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw.

Crenshaw worked to empower Black women’s voices and experiences, moving away from: a) mutual exclusion of multiple identities, 2) erasure of Black and women of color (WOC) experiences within White women discourse, and 3) racism equating to men of color (MOC) narratives. She noted without the recognition of intersectionality experience, there is an inability to truly capture profundity of oppression. Although the framework was introduced by Crenshaw in the 80s, intersectionality experiences have been navigated for centuries. Bowleg (2012) highlights abolitionist and freed slave Sojourner Truth’s “Aint’ I a Woman” speech as the oldest on record. Truth emphasized her identity as a woman was just as prominent and valiant as her race. As intersectionality evolved through feminist and critical race literature, the Combahee River Collective, a group of Black lesbian social feminists; provided the first intersectionality framework on record. Their statement analyzed social structures of inequity and interlocking systems of oppression (i.e., racism, capitalism, sexism, and heterosexism; Curtis, Ellis, Ann, Dai, & Bermúdez, 2020).

Now, intersectionality experiences and challenges to inequities of power have not occurred at one point in time, but multiple points: the women’s suffrage movement, challenging the gender pay gap; slaves escaping lashes, Jim Crow and Chicano liberation era, protesting for Black Lives Matter, and to end Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) violence; rioting at Stonewall, disputing healthcare policies of the HIV epidemic, and providing policy for the right to marry and proving that love is love. There are milestones in history, yes, but these struggles are not exclusive and one dimensional—they are inclusive and multidimensional.

Intersectionality and the CFT family system

To understand intersectionality theory and family systems theory, we must take on a meta view of the larger interwoven systems. A modified systematic review of family sciences and family therapy journals found out of 4,356 peer-reviewed articles, only 82 substantially integrated intersectionality and family science and therapy (Curtis et al., 2020), thus revealing a large shortage of intersectionality theory integration in our field. These findings are interesting, as family feminist and queer theory scholars honed in on an intersectionality framework in the 70s and increased within CFT literature in the early 2000s (Davids & Mitchell, 2019). There seemed to be momentum in utilizing this larger systems and social justice framework, but it evidently slowed.

As a society, incorporating nuances of identity and social constructs have brought reciprocal feelings of cultural pride, resilience, connection, shame, discomfort, and anger.

Seeing the CFT field as a growing family system, the system internally works to maintain stability in the presence of stress (equilibrium) through organization around foundational theories, models, boundaries, and goals. However, social structures have changed, and the family system must be able to change, adapt, and process with time. Over time, and particularly in the Western societal system, discussions about power, privilege, oppression, culture, and identity, have come to the forefront of our lives (Bethesda, 2016). As a society, incorporating nuances of identity and social constructs have brought reciprocal feelings of cultural pride, resilience, connection, shame, discomfort, and anger (Bethesda, 2016). Structurally, we are experiencing a parallel process of learning how to discuss intersectionality discourse, while navigating emotional reactivity and response—contributing to vulnerability. What does vulnerability bring? Stress, which family systems react to or work to avoid. Think of how you felt earlier reading the terms, “power, privilege, oppression,” Your response and interaction with these constructs show the direct effect (external stimuli) of the larger social cultural system at work. As a family system, the CFT field cannot escape the influence of structures that have changed over time.

Additionally, family systems theory has lacked concrete definitions in literature, as has intersectionality theory, particularly around clinical application and practice. However, the family is a system that not only reacts to stress, but adapts, reorganizes, and changes in response to stress. As lacking definition and evidence may seem a weakness, we can reframe (process) these interwoven systems as “alive,” consistently evolving and engaging, allowing for eternal process and change. Merging intersectionality and family systems theory helps us move beyond vulnerability and provides opportunity to deconstruct social constructions of identity to explore positionality, societal boundaries, and various approaches to change (Few-Demo, Humble, Curran, & Lloyd, 2016).

Multiple marginalization, intersectionality, and family systems

Family systems are dyadic, regularly being shaped through internal patterns of interaction influenced by external environments of family, community, culture, and society. An intersectionality framework parallels this process as identities regularly decenter, shape, and integrate with one another, which are impacted by social structures and systemic oppressions. However, for families who face multiple marginalization, family systems and identity development adapt and organize to the structures of power without choice. A theoretical review of family systems and racial and ethnic socialization of Black families by James, Coard, Fine, and Rudy (2018) rooted lack of choice of family systems reorganization back to slave families who navigated their world dependent on family members being sold and under constant threat of violence and death. Today, Black families and families of color continue to organize within larger systems of power including: colonist standard of career and education, mental and physical health access, socioeconomic status, needed preparation for racial and ethnic bias, buffers of cultural pride and resiliency, and unique skills of coping with societal racism and discrimination (James et al., 2018).

For communities with multiple oppressed identities, historical and current layers of power inequity contribute to daily identity navigation. For example, intercultural relationships, where both or multiple partners hold marginalized identities, must concurrently navigate intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergenerational, and societal systems. Intrapersonally, identity discourse is inclusive, prominent, and salient; rather than one centered identity, each integrates and influences the other. For example, a relationship where one partner identifies as Black, non-binary, pansexual, and middle socioeconomic status (SES) experiences identity navigation and expression differently than their partner who identifies as Asian, cisgender female, bisexual, and lower SES. Interpersonally, a dual process of interculturality acknowledgment within their relational identity and navigating an intercultural relationship within larger social discourse occurs. Further, this couple is navigating through familial intergenerational patterns and historical influence of intercultural relationship discrimination, while experiencing current systemic racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, and class oppressions. Thus, the relationship will navigate identity expression and stigma differently when in a heterosexual, cisgendered dominate space, than an LGBTQIA+ dominate space, as they would a White dominate space than a person of color (POC) dominated space. Note here, space does not equate solely to physical space, but to the relationship with people and social structures that make up the “space.”

Implications and action steps

Acknowledging the historical and current processes of intersectionality experiences provides a step further past therapist cultural journey of awareness, sensitivity, competency, and humility (Quek & Hsieh, 2021), to an intersectional cultural journey of these processes. And we, as therapists with roots in systems theory, have a unique capability to take this step. We can use self of therapist and supervision to centralize intersectionality framework and concurrently empower these processes with our clients.

Self of therapist. As clinicians, whether young or seasoned professionals, we must consistently explore and engage our positionalities. Reflection questions such as,
“When have I needed to discuss my positionality? How has my family system navigated around power and inequity? How have those experiences contributed and shaped my core cultural beliefs, personal biases, therapeutic lens?” help to deconstruct the processes we navigate within an intersectionality and family systems framework.

Supervision. Early in supervision, supervisors can utilize their positionality to introduce an intersectionality framework with supervisees to move away from avoidance and embrace vulnerability. In regard to positionality, the supervisor can: open dialogue to explore parallel processes of intersectionality through societal, CFT field, intrapersonal family, and client family systems; question and challenge unidimensional constructs of identity and social inequity; hold accountability of dominant culture power and empowerment of marginalized voice; and model openness and bear vulnerability of social location discussion (Watts-Jones, 2010; Gutierrez, 2018).

Clients. We can use the example of our intercultural couple mentioned earlier. As the couple works to maintain their intra and interpersonal systems, they also are working to adapt and respond to external oppressive stimuli from larger systems. Exposure to discriminatory LGBTQIA+ policy, Black lives being taken, sexism and violence to the AAPI community, create layers of tension and stress that intensify relational dissatisfaction, psychological distress, decrease in intimacy, and impact families of origin and extended communities—essentially overloading the overall family system (James et al., 2018). CFTs can work to empower these family systems by decentering exclusive identities, supporting choices of family reorganization and families of choice, expanding family and community boundaries, enhancing resilient and prideful interactions, utilizing intergenerational cultural strengths, and increasing awareness of historical oppressive systems at work. Specifically, a genogram highlighting systemic intergenerational processes of power, privilege, oppression, and strengths would be a powerful intervention.

Unlike other mental health fields, CFTs have a unique strength in multidimensionality perspective. It is my hope that one day, sharing my positionality and intersectionality processes may not feel as vulnerable, but as part of the dominant discourse embedded within ourselves, families, communities, and larger societal systems.