Boundaries, Negotiation, Consciousness: Reconceptualizing Gender Relations

Gerson, Judith.M. and Kathy Peiss.1985. “Boundaries, Negotiation, Consciousness: Reconceptualizing Gender Relations.” Social Problems 32(4): 317-331

This paper seeks to examine “gender in terms of boundaries, processes of negotiation as well as domination, and gender consciousness as an interactive and multidimensional process” (Gerson and Peiss 1985: 318). These concepts are critical in the context of separation of public and private spheres where women are restricted to the domestic spheres, while higher value is attributed to the public spheres.

Theoretical concepts:

The authors refer to three main concepts in this paper: Boundaries, negotiation and consciousness. Boundaries refer to physical, social, ideological and psychological differences and similarities between men and women which influences their behavior. The public private boundaries have been addressed in social sciences. In this paper, the authors refer to boundaries as a broader, generic term that looks beyond the public-private divisions to include boundaries in leisure and work activities, divisions in labor and in personal interactions. Authors suggest that analyzing boundaries would help assess the “stability and change in the system of gender relations” (Gerson and Peiss 1985:320).  However, to analyze shifts in boundaries, one must be aware of social processes and consciousness by which people view their worlds.

Domination is a process by which women are oppressed. Negotiation, on the other hand, indicates human agency, where women demand resources and privileges. However, negotiation is not a one-way process. Men, invite women to participate in previously denied locations and women utilize those opportunities to negotiate for resources. Women also tend to develop power in relationships through kin work. As they engage in duties related to the family, women gain control over related resources. But structural inequality does not always make it easy. Moreover, even when men invite women to spaces where they had no access previously, the boundaries of gender division are not radically changed. The authors give the example of the office space, where women have been invited but are expected to behave as men in their jobs and maintain their femininity otherwise. The authors postulate that even minimal negotiations impact women’s lives and this can be best understood by exploring people’s consciousness.

Earlier literature proposed that feminist and female consciousness was a dichotomous discrete variable. Gerson and Peiss, in this article explore gender consciousness as the continuum of female and feminist consciousness. Gender consciousness is described as a continuum of gender awareness, female/male consciousness and feminist/anti feminist consciousness. According to Gerson and Peiss, gender awareness refers to how people understand gender as it plays out but do not critically analyze those differences. Female consciousness is based on gender awareness but is the position where people are also cognizant of their rights and obligations as men and women. Finally, feminist consciousness refers to an ideology shared by a group that challenges the structural gender based power relations and which may lead to a social movement. Similarly the authors explore male consciousness and describe it as such: “male consciousness is characterized by the value placed on individual autonomy, sense of entitlement and a relative superiority to women” (Gerson and Peiss 1985:326).

In conclusion the authors reinforce the need to explore the concepts of negotiation and consciousness to analyze shifting boundaries of gender divisions. They also emphasize the need to examine male behavior and consciousness as a result of complex interactions with women, which includes control, cooperation and resistance. The authors state that these dimensions allow for a comparison of gender relations in different contexts.

Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139-58

 Need for the study

 Many social scientists have made theoretical contributions regarding women and organizations, but their work has not been brought together as a “systematic feminist theory of organizations” (Acker 1990: 140).  In this article, Acker attempts to develop a theory of gender and organizations. Gender segregation of work, inequalities in status and income between men and women and individual gender identity are created and reinforced by organizational practices and therefore, the need for a systematic theory. Cultural images of gender are created and reproduced within organizations. Finally, it is an important feminist project to make large organizations democratic and humane.

 Main Questions

Acker addresses the following questions in the article. First, why have feminist scholars not debated organizational theory in their work? Secondly, she looks at how feminists who worked on organizations conceptualized them? Thirdly she examines organizations as gendered processes where gender, body and sexuality are used to exercise control in organizations even while engaging in gender neutral and asexual discourses.

             Feminists did not debate organizational theory because of the following reasons. One, not many feminist organizations could retain the radical-democratic form, that they had envisaged in contrast to the bureaucratic organizational form. However, they did not engage in a discussion on the feasibility of this vision, when faced with this challenge. Secondly, the available concepts and models in organizational theory were embedded in a masculine experience of a working, which did not interest feminist scholars. Even when scholars studied organizations as spaces of control, power and exploitation, women were largely ignored. Another reason was that most discourses conceptualized organizations as gender neutral and asexual spaces. When organizations are viewed such that, the ‘masculine’ represents the sole human nature, organizations are seen as gender neutral.

             While discussing feminists who worked on this issue, Acker points out some main contributions. Kanter (1977) discussed structural issues in organizations, and how authority is exercised in seemingly gender neutral structures. Ressner (1987) talked about how bureaucracy and patriarchy operate in organizations, leading to women’s “discrimination, exclusion, segregation, and low wages” (Acker 1990 144). Ferguson (1984) identified how rationality, rules and procedures constructed a structure of male power. However, Ferguson’s argument although radical, stereotyped femininity as passive, oppressed and weak. Acker suggests that existing feminist studies on organizations dealt only with the theoretical understanding that organizations as gender neutral and ignored sexuality as an important part of continuous gender structuring.

             According to Acker, gendering occurs in five ways. One, through gender based divisions in work, physical locations, power, labor market structures, family and state. Two, through symbols and images that reinforce gender divisions. Third, gendering occurs in interactions between men and women and among men and women, where patterns of submission and dominance, reinforce gender divisions. Fourth, these processes enhance individual gender identities in men and women. Finally, organizations, while seemingly gender neutral have a “gendered substructure” reproduced in organizational activities. Acker takes the example of job evaluation as a management tool, to understand how organizations are gendered.

             Job evaluations are relative ranking of jobs in terms of complexity, knowledge, skill, effort and working conditions. Job evaluations are meant to be independent of the person performing the job. Thus, the underlying assumption therefore, is that the person is a male, who does not have other responsibilities of procreation, caring and nurturing. The job, while appearing to be gender neutral, has an implicit assumption of gendered work, separating the public from the private. Since job evaluations are also about hierarchy, it assumes that a person, who needs to divide commitments, will be most suitable for lower level jobs. Job evaluations are based on the principle that two people will not be responsible for same outcomes. Therefore, a secretary who implements a task for which the manager is responsible is never given a higher position in the hierarchy. Job evaluations assume that the worker is created only for the job, thus excluding women who have other roles to perform.

 By assuming that the worker has no emotions, no sexuality and does not procreate, the effort is to create organizations which were seemingly asexual. This also meant that some spaces excluded women to maintain an asexual structure devoid of emotions and procreation.  Moreover, sexuality is often used to exercise control over women, through symbols and objectification of women’s bodies. In places where women were excluded, attempts were made to restrict homosexual relations in the work place. The larger goal was to create a work place divided from the personal space, and thus sexuality.

 Conclusion:

Acker concludes by saying that organizations are deeply embedded in gendered processes and only a radical transformation of organizations can create an equal space for women. Moreover, feminist research can contribute to the creation of a space where collective work would refrain from dominating, controlling or suppressing women in the name of gender.

References:

Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books

Ressner, Ulla. 1987. The Hidden Hierarchy. Aldershot: Gower.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139-58

Need for the study

Many social scientists have made theoretical contributions regarding women and organizations, but their work has not been brought together as a “systematic feminist theory of organizations” (Acker 1990: 140).  In this article, Acker attempts to develop a theory of gender and organizations. Gender segregation of work, inequalities in status and income between men and women and individual gender identity are created and reinforced by organizational practices and therefore, the need for a systematic theory. Cultural images of gender are created and reproduced within organizations. Finally, it is an important feminist project to make large organizations democratic and humane.

Main Questions

Acker addresses the following questions in the article. First, why have feminist scholars not debated organizational theory in their work? Secondly, she looks at how feminists who worked on organizations conceptualized them? Thirdly she examines organizations as gendered processes where gender, body and sexuality are used to exercise control in organizations even while engaging in gender neutral and asexual discourses.

            Feminists did not debate organizational theory because of the following reasons. One, not many feminist organizations could retain the radical-democratic form, that they had envisaged in contrast to the bureaucratic organizational form. However, they did not engage in a discussion on the feasibility of this vision, when faced with this challenge. Secondly, the available concepts and models in organizational theory were embedded in a masculine experience of a working, which did not interest feminist scholars. Even when scholars studied organizations as spaces of control, power and exploitation, women were largely ignored. Another reason was that most discourses conceptualized organizations as gender neutral and asexual spaces. When organizations are viewed such that, the ‘masculine’ represents the sole human nature, organizations are seen as gender neutral.

            While discussing feminists who worked on this issue, Acker points out some main contributions. Kanter (1977) discussed structural issues in organizations, and how authority is exercised in seemingly gender neutral structures. Ressner (1987) talked about how bureaucracy and patriarchy operate in organizations, leading to women’s “discrimination, exclusion, segregation, and low wages” (Acker 1990 144). Ferguson (1984) identified how rationality, rules and procedures constructed a structure of male power. However, Ferguson’s argument although radical, stereotyped femininity as passive, oppressed and weak. Acker suggests that existing feminist studies on organizations dealt only with the theoretical understanding that organizations as gender neutral and ignored sexuality as an important part of continuous gender structuring.

            According to Acker, gendering occurs in five ways. One, through gender based divisions in work, physical locations, power, labor market structures, family and state. Two, through symbols and images that reinforce gender divisions. Third, gendering occurs in interactions between men and women and among men and women, where patterns of submission and dominance, reinforce gender divisions. Fourth, these processes enhance individual gender identities in men and women. Finally, organizations, while seemingly gender neutral have a “gendered substructure” reproduced in organizational activities. Acker takes the example of job evaluation as a management tool, to understand how organizations are gendered.

            Job evaluations are relative ranking of jobs in terms of complexity, knowledge, skill, effort and working conditions. Job evaluations are meant to be independent of the person performing the job. Thus, the underlying assumption therefore, is that the person is a male, who does not have other responsibilities of procreation, caring and nurturing. The job, while appearing to be gender neutral, has an implicit assumption of gendered work, separating the public from the private. Since job evaluations are also about hierarchy, it assumes that a person, who needs to divide commitments, will be most suitable for lower level jobs. Job evaluations are based on the principle that two people will not be responsible for same outcomes. Therefore, a secretary who implements a task for which the manager is responsible is never given a higher position in the hierarchy. Job evaluations assume that the worker is created only for the job, thus excluding women who have other roles to perform.

 By assuming that the worker has no emotions, no sexuality and does not procreate, the effort is to create organizations which were seemingly asexual. This also meant that some spaces excluded women to maintain an asexual structure devoid of emotions and procreation.  Moreover, sexuality is often used to exercise control over women, through symbols and objectification of women’s bodies. In places where women were excluded, attempts were made to restrict homosexual relations in the work place. The larger goal was to create a work place divided from the personal space, and thus sexuality.

Conclusion:

Acker concludes by saying that organizations are deeply embedded in gendered processes and only a radical transformation of organizations can create an equal space for women. Moreover, feminist research can contribute to the creation of a space where collective work would refrain from dominating, controlling or suppressing women in the name of gender.

Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books

Ressner, Ulla. 1987. The Hidden Hierarchy. Aldershot: Gower.

A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a keyword of the US Welfare State

Fraser, Nancy and Linda Gordon. 1994. “A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a keyword of the US Welfare State.” Signs 19(21):309-336

Fraser introduces the concept of dependency as it is being discussed in the US political scenario. She notes that welfare is now discussed in terms of dependency and is often seen in a negative connotation.

Research questions:

Why are debates about poverty and inequality in the United States now being framed in terms of welfare dependency?

How  did the receipt of public assistance become associated with  dependency,  and  why  are  the  connotations  of  that  word  in  this context  so negative?

What are the gender and racial subtexts of this discourse, and what tacit assumptions underlie it?

Analysis

In order to answer these questions, Fraser seeks to analyze the term “dependency” and its usages in US politics. The underlying assumption of this analysis is that those who define reality are in turn seeking to influence it. Bourdieu (1977) characterized keywords as those which carry “unspoken assumptions and connotations” (Fraser 1994: 310) and thus influence public discourse. Doxa or the taken for granted assumptions are never questioned either. The genealogy of the term “dependency” is explored in the article. Fraser builds on Foucault’s (1984) approach to examine broad shifts in linguistic usage. She places her analysis in the context of institutional and socio-structural shifts and engages in normative political reflection. She does a historical analysis of linguistic and socio structural changes, conducts conceptual analysis of discursive construction of social problems and brings in the feminist perspective into the discussion.

Theoretical Concepts

Dependency is argued as an ideological term. Fraser argues that welfare dependency evokes the picture of an individual, usually a black woman or teenager, who is in poverty with child care responsibilities. With this image, she argues, dependency is seen as an individual problem rather than a social issue. Fraser distinguishes four different registers to analyze dependency – economic dependency referring to dependence on person on institution for subsistence, socio-legal status dependency where one is dependent on another for a legal status, political dependency on external ruling power and finally, moral/psychological dependency denoting emotional need. Further Fraser does a historical analysis of dependency across pre-industrial, industrial and post industrial time periods.

Pre-industrial dependency: In this period, independence referred mostly to ownership of property while dependency referred to income from labor. Thus, dependency was considered a normal trait rather than a deviant individual behavior. However, the independent enjoyed higher status in society. Women, who were themselves laborers were as dependent as their male counterparts and dependency was much less gender specific.

Industrial dependency: In this period, gendered and racist dependencies began to emerge. In the light of the Radical Protestantism, political subjection and oppression came to be considered as unjust. Labor movements became strong and the white male worker started demanding civil and electoral rights. This movement drew its strength from the Protestant work ethic, of discipline and labor. Thus, along with property ownership and self employment, wage labor came to be considered as economic independence. However, this shift in meaning gave rise to some new kind of dependencies. First the pauper, whose poverty was considered to be enhanced due to his character defect. The pauper remained outside the economic system. Second the native and the slave, who was important to the economy but was considered dependent because of an inherent trait. The popular belief was that they were conquered because they were dependent individuals. By calling the natives and the slaves as the other, their oppression was not scrutinized within the rhetoric of universal human rights. The housewife represented the third kind of dependency. The labor movement fought for higher wages stating that a man can be independent only when his wages covered his family needs. Thus, the man’s wages came to be seen as increasingly important. Although, women still continued to work, they were increasingly losing control over their wages.

American welfare dependency (1890-1945): In the United States, dependency came to be increasingly seen as an individual trait. The American virtue of independence was a double edged sword which on the one hand, helped labor movements and women’s movements to emerge and on the other, considered women’s social and legal dependency as an inferior state. Dependency began to have a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ connotation. Wives and children were part of the good dependency while charity and relief came to be seen as bad. The New Deal built a two track system. The First-track programs were about pensions and retirement benefits which were not seen as welfare. These programs excluded people based on race and gender. The second-track programs were the highly stigmatized set of welfare programs, such as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  However, the intention was not to lead the white woman to employment and would rather have the male wages as the defining parameter of independence. Therefore, the poor single mother who depended on ADC came to be considered as the stigmatized welfare dependent, in the American vocabulary.

Post industrial society: In this period, all overt forms of discrimination reduced and were made illegal. It became accepted that a single male wage earner was not enough and that women had to work. Thus, everyone was expected to work and support themselves. This led to increasing stigmatization of dependency. Moreover, with the belief that equal opportunity was now available, it was considered that all forms of structural dependency was extinct and that dependency was a case of individual trait.

Another feature of this period was the pathological connotations given to dependency. One, welfare dependency came to be linked with drug addiction. Second, psychological meanings of dependency came to be given feminine connotations. Dependency was seen to be some sort of immaturity among women. However, even here, they had to be just independent enough. The white woman was considered to be too dependent while the black woman was considered to be too independent. Dependency came to be labeled as psychological disorders and was severely feminized and racialized. Instead of the independent black woman who represented the powerful matriarch, the teenage, unwed mother became the icon of the welfare mother. This also implied that her child care work was no longer considered as work.

Politics of dependency: Even when families struggled hard for their financial survival, many continued to look down upon those who don’t work. Such is the strength of the dominant discourse of dependency as an individual trait. This is most evident in the case of unwed teenage mothers, who are also expected to work and support themselves. The challenges to the dominant discourse come from the Left which speaks of enforced dependency who interpret the state as structures of domination. Other radical theorists saw dependency as part of the neocolonial economic order among nations. The attempt was to redefine dependency as a structural issue rather than an individual concern.

In conclusion, Fraser emphasizes how the discourse of dependency as an individual trait came to devalue women’s domestic and parenting labor. Thus a sexual division of labor came to be organized in the society. “In this way, the opposition between the independent personality and the dependent personality maps onto a whole series of hierarchical positions and dichotomies that are central in modern culture: masculine/feminine, public/private, work/care, success/love, individual/community, economy/family, and competitive/self-sacrificing” (Fraser 1991: 332)

References:

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977.  Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, Michel.1984. “Nietzsche,   Genealogy, History.” In  The  Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow, 76-100. New York: Pantheon.

Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color

Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6):1241-1299

In this article Crenshaw explores “various ways in which gender and race intersect in shaping the structural, political and representational aspects of violence against women of color.” The article has three parts: structural intersectionality, political intersectionality and representational intersectionality.  She focuses on battering and rape to discuss how race and gender intersects in the lives of women of color.

Theoretical Concepts

 Structural intersectionality in battering: Crenshaw argues that interventions that seek to support and protect women from battering cannot restrict themselves to the aspect of violence alone since most of the battered women of color are unemployed and poor with child care responsibilities. She gives the example of the marriage fraud provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which was amended to protect women from fraudulent and violent marriages. The amendment provided that the wife would be given permanent resident status only if she was “properly” married for two years, before applying for resident status. As a result of this amendment women stopped raising issues about violence in their marriage for fear of being deported. A waiver, in case of domestic violence was later added in the Act. However, this also required women to provide affidavits and reports from police, psychologists and other agencies. Immigrant women, who were sometimes not even aware of their legal status, and did not have much resources of their own, found it very difficult to provide such reports. Language was yet another barrier. Thus, a state mechanism, created specifically to protect immigrant women went on to increase their subordination.

Structural intersectionality and rape:  Rape crisis services centers are funded such that, legal services are given maximum priority. In the case of minority women, the requirement is more often about housing and other immediate survival needs of the women. Also, many women of color may choose not to resort to the formal justice system. Thus, funding allocations which focus on legal services alone are blind to the particular situations of women of color.

Political intersectionality demonstrates how women of color are located within two groups, which may sometimes even be in conflict with one another. Intersectional politics of gender and race results in feminist strategies which reinforces the subordination of people of color and anti-racism interventions reproduces the subordination of women. This happens because feminism fails to address racism and anti-racism fails to debate patriarchy.

Domestic violence and anti-racist politics: Crenshaw takes the example of how the Los Angeles Police Department would not release the crime statistics regarding domestic violence because they feared the racial segregation of arrests would be interpreted wrongly. Similarly, antiracism activists themselves were concerned that domestic violence would be considered as a minority issue, which would further reinforce the stereotype of the black community. Thus, voices of women of color have been silenced by both antiracism and feminist strategies. Male dominance over women of color is sometimes shown as a consequence of the discrimination against men of color in the wider society.

Race and domestic violence lobby: Feminist strategies sometimes undermine experiences of minority women. While discussing domestic violence as an issue, feminist strategies tend to begin by stating that domestic violence is “not just a minority issue”. While it is true, that domestic violence is an issue even in white households, such a universal appeal regarding domestic violence, underplays the need for understanding specific experiences of women of color. Crenshaw questions why domestic violence was considered as an insignificant issue when it was understood as a minority problem and whether such a notion, would ever mean adequate resource allocation for women of color. Crenshaw gives examples of a television program that discussed domestic violence, but showed obvious differences in how the story of the only black woman was depicted in comparison to that of the other white women in the program.

Race and domestic violence support systems: Crenshaw emphasizes through narrations, how some domestic violence support systems initiated by feminist groups are blind towards the particular needs of minority women, who may have issues of language and may have immediate need for survival. Even when services providers include minority women into committees, women of color did not feel that their needs were addressed and more often than not, chose to work in their own communities.

Racism and sexism in conceptualization of rape: Historically rape conviction has been closely aligned to the ‘moral character’ of the rape victim. Although, not as explicitly stated in law, Crenshaw points out that some female bodies are considered more important than others. She specifically points out to the attention given to the inter-racial rape of an upper class white woman at Central Park in New York in comparison to the rape of black woman during the same week.

Race and the anti-rape lobby: The reference to the rape victim’s moral character during an investigation has been widely used against the black woman. Sexualized images of black women tend to portray stereotypes about the sexual behavior of women of color that have the potential to show the stories of black women as less believable and credible.

Antiracism and rape: Antiracism activists criticize rape laws, that they focus mainly on rapes of white women by black men, only to reinforce the stereotype against black men. Therefore race-based accusations against black men are seen as racial injustice and discrimination against black men. Therefore, even when the victim is a black woman, her voice is seldom heard and she gets silenced even within the African American community.

Rape and intersectionality in Social Science: Crenshaw takes the example of Gary Lafree’s book Rape and Criminal Justice: The Social Construction of Sexual Assault where he shows that law “constructs rape in ways that continue to manifest both racial and gender domination” (Crenshaw 1991: 1294). Crenshaw argues that the study, with a dichotomized framework of race and gender fails to locate the issue as one of black women’s discrimination. Rather, the study identifies black women’s discrimination only in terms of conviction and jail time rendered to the rapist, whether black or white. Lafree concludes that rape laws are oppressive to women known to have led non-traditional lifestyles. Crenshaw argues that this generalized conclusion across races overlooks the possibility that some groups are stereotyped as those exhibiting non-traditional behavior. Therefore, black women are discriminated against not by what they do, but by who they are. Crenshaw critiques that these anti-rape and anti-racist frameworks have a single issue focus which does not represent the black woman’s experience.

Representational Intersectionality: In this section, Crenshaw elaborates how media and popular culture portrays women of color and how it creates further challenges in their struggle against violence. She takes the case of 2 Live Crew controversy where members of a band were arrested for using lyrics that the court considered as obscene. The lyrics had sexually explicit content about black women, depicting them as available for sexual violence. The arrest became controversial because among a wide variety of sexual obscene imagery, this particular band was singled out, only to reinstate the sexual image of the black man. However, that does not undermine the sexual oppression of black women that was obvious in the song, although in the name of humor.

In conclusion, Crenshaw reinforces her main message in the article, that “the narratives of gender are based on the experience of white, middle-class women, and the narratives of race are based on the experience of Black men” (Crenshaw 1991: 1298). She says, intersectionality provides the opportunity to reconceptualize race as a coalition of men and women of color. Intersectionality perspective would also help people raise their voices against internal exclusion and marginalization.