Note: Dr. Anderson is on academic leave until February 2026
Delia
“The way I try to understand the interconnection of all forms of subordination is through a method I call “ask the other question.” When I see something that looks racist, I ask, “Where is the patriarchy in this?” When I see something that looks sexist, I ask, “Where is the heterosexism in this?” When I see something that looks homophobic, I ask, “Where are the class interests in this?” (Mari J. Matsuda, 1991, p. 1189)
Last month Kagowa Kuruneri, Director of the Office of Equity, Access, and Participation, and I began a conversation about the relationship between equity and anti-racism work. In this next instalment we discuss Mari Matsuda’s approach of ‘asking the other question.’
Why is it important to ask the other question?
Mari Matsuda’s insightful strategy of asking the other question is an example of intersectionality in action. Her intervention invites encourages a particular kind of attentiveness by disrupting either/or framing (e.g., race versus gender) and encouraging an interrogation of how different elements of our identity influence our location in different systems of power.
Consider what happens when we don’t ask the other question?
Who is typically left out?
Who continues to be harmed?
Who benefits?
The Federal Contractors Program identified the following four employment equity categories: “women,” “visible minorities,” “persons with disabilities,” and Indigenous peoples. In addition to the glaring omission of the of 2SLGBTQIA+ folx, this all-encompassing language is limited and limiting, ultimately maintains hierarchies of race, gender, and sexuality (for example). Race is not only relevant to folx typically regarded as raced – namely Indigenous, Black, and racially marginalized people, rendering whiteness invisible. Correspondingly, the focus on “women” regards gender as a homogenous category framework, thereby marginalizing and/or negating the factwe are simultaneously racialized, engendered, and so on. As a result, the centrality given to gender erases, or “e-races” the existence of folx who inhabit multiple categories, discounting the stereotypes and forms of dehumanization that are specific to the history of racialized gender identity and status.
Domination does not simply happen through explicit acts of violence, but through the trivialization, repudiation, and the failure to notice activities, beliefs, and language that fails to capture our complexity and diversity. This institutionalized approach to inequity and discrimination not only inhibits our capacity to recognize much less respond to the varied needs of folx who exist within each group, this institutionalized approach to inequity and discrimination places us in opposition to each other. It is an approach that teaches – and encourages us – to not see ourselves in each other to only think about/consider one form of oppression as the form of oppression. The scale and nature of our current problems requires clarity and analytical precision.
Asking the other question is an integral part of an ethics of struggle. It invites us to reflect on the categories/concepts that we use when we try to understand the society in which we are living and the society in which we are working towards creating more just futures.
…to be continued…
Kagowa
Progressive and liberatory movements rightly name injustice with uncompromising clarity. The question, however, is whether calling out harm on its own paves the way to systemic change or whether actual coalitions formed by people are necessary to bring down these systems. If so, how do we build those coalitions when internal dynamics, as much as external pushback, make that difficult? Although we tend to emphasize the external obstacles that prohibit access to equity spaces, there are also barriers within movements that need to be taken seriously.
This pressure is particularly acute when those already struggling for liberation find their voices lost or ignored in larger coalitions. The frustration of not being seen can just be as powerful a barrier to sustained engagement as any that’s externally imposed. This isn’t just a philosophical question but the real-life echo of radical movements such as #DisabilityJustice, when demands for systemic shifts are downplayed in favor of other, seemingly “more urgent” priorities. And yet it shows something we have in common: the price of admission to “progressive” spaces can be steep – by giving you the sense that your struggle isn’t new or urgent or grave enough.
This isn’t a case of “outrage fatigue” (although solidarity burnout is definitely real) so much as deeper systemic problems: implicit hierarchies within movements and an underdeveloped ability to handle complex intersectionality without falling into reproductions of exclusion. And it’s important to acknowledge this cost of admission from within while also engaging others who are not in the arena nearly as much, if at all, as part and parcel of building transformative power.
The Two Costs of Exclusion & Why They’re Linked
This is a double bind- Cost 1) people who don’t know critical things (like intersectionality, the importance of historical context) may feel rebuffed or unable to participate in meaningful ways; and Cost 2) those of us already working for liberation can be marginalized when our particular needs are ignored.
These two costs are intimately connected. The same structures that serve as barriers to entry for newcomers (e.g. unspoken norms around expertise and “right” language) and implied rankings based on demonstrated solidarity or lived experience, also contribute to internal exclusion within equity work itself. This can mean dismissal (e.g. you’re not truly an ally if you don’t get it), shutting down some voices (especially those that stray from the dominant narratives) and the constant demand to “prove” commitment through performance rather than solidarity.
This is not about lowering the bar or diluting standards. It’s about understanding that true freedom means tearing down arbitrary walls of exclusion in all areas, even if they come from good places. It requires building sites of emanation where people can feel safe enough to ponder concepts without immediate rejection, while still lifting up folks who have long been doing deep analysis whose voices need air.
Beyond Condemnation: Building Bridges Without Lowering Standards and Strengthening Solidarity Within Equity Movements
Resources
Mari J. Matsuda (1991). Beside my sister, facing the enemy: Legal theory out of coalition. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1183-1192.