Master Thesis
Shaping Struggles in Muddy Waters
An Intersectional and Discursive analysis of Ethnic- and LGBTQ+ Social
Movement Organizations in the Netherlands
Written by
Yassin el Alaoui
11077158
Master of Science (MSc) in Political Science, International Relations
Supervised by dr. C.M. (Conny) Roggeband
Second reader dr. S.A. (Saskia) Bonjour
University of Amsterdam
Page | 1
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can
never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.”
– George R.R. Martin
Page | 2
Abstract
With the marginalization of Queer People of Color in mind, this thesis explores the
intersectionality of ethnic and LGBTQ+ social movement organizations in the Netherlands. Its
aim is to establish the discursive opportunities and obstacles that exist in addressing
intersectional issues and advocating for Queer People of Color in the Netherlands. The research
question is formulated as: How do Dutch SMOs strategically address issues intersecting
between the racial & LGBTQ+ spectra? The theoretical framework consists of a relevant
discursive conceptualization of intersectionality, establishing its place in social movement
theory, and examining the role of discursive opportunity structures in social movement
strategies. The research is conducted in two parts. First, secondary literature is analyzed to map
the Dutch discursive context. Second, interviews conducted with Dutch ethnic and LGBTQ+
social movement organizations establish the intersectionality of their strategies. In the end, the
findings show that addressing issues experienced by a variety of Queer People of Color is
challenged by Dutch dominant discourses. However, the intersectionality of Dutch social
movement organizations indicates that the Dutch context provides significant, yet complex,
discursive and intersectional opportunities in the advocacy for Queer People of Color.
Page | 3
Table of content
Abstract
2
Table of content
3
List of abbreviations
4
Preface
5
Introduction
6
1 | Theoretical Framework
8
Conceptualizing intersectionality
8
Social movement theory
10
Discursive opportunity structures
14
Research question
18
2 | Methodology
19
Research design & strategy
19
Case selection
21
Data collection methods
22
Data analysis methods
24
Limitations
25
3 | Analysis: Secondary literature
27
Dutch discursive context
27
4 | Analysis: Interviews
32
Dutch society
32
Ethnic communities
37
LGBTQ+ communities
42
Discursive opportunities
45
Intersectional opportunities
47
Implications
50
References
52
Appendix A: Transcript interview 1
58
Appendix B: Transcript interview 2
64
Appendix C: Transcript interview 3
70
Appendix D: Transcript interview 4
75
Appendix E: Transcript interview 5
96
Appendix F: Transcript interview 6
102
Appendix G: Info sheet interviews
107
Appendix H: Interview topic list
109
Page | 4
List of abbreviations
COA
Centraal Orgaan opvang asielzoekers (Reception of asylum seekers)
COC
Cultuur- en Onstpannings Centrum (Dutch LGBTI-organization)
GGD
Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst (Municipal Health services)
GSM
Gender and Sexual Minorities
HTIB
Hollanda Türkiyeli İşçiler Birliği (Turkish Workers’ association in
the Netherlands)
IND
Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst (Immigration and Naturalisation
Service)
LGBT
Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender
LGBTI
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex
LGBTQ+
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer and other GSM
LGBTTQQIP2SAA
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Transsexual Queer Questioning
Intersex Pansexual 2-Spirted Asexual and Allies
LNBi
Landelijk Netwerk Biseksualiteit (National Network Bisexuality)
OCAN
Stichting Overlegorgaan Caribische Nederlanders (Consultative
body Caribbean Dutch people)
POC
People of Color
QPOC
Queer People of Color
SMN
Samenwerkingsverband van Marokkaanse Nederlanders (Alliance
for Moroccan Dutch people)
SMO
Social Movement Organization
TNN
Transgender Netwerk Nederland (Transgender Network the
Netherlands)
Page | 5
Preface
It feels like this thesis has been a long time in the making; the result a 3 year-long journey, from
the start of my premaster to nearing the end of completing this academic adventure. A journey
that is marked by discovering an exciting field of study but also new parts within myself,
through learning, accomplishing, struggling, and even failing. I cannot deny that these past few
years have been hard on me, but I am grateful to have experienced all the hardships I have gone
through. Making my thesis was like traversing a dark valley. I had to reach the bottom within
myself, while feeling like I did not know where to go, only to have to climb up again to reach
the other side of the valley. Having failed at it once before, the pages of this thesis serve as a
testament to myself of my perseverance and willpower and have made a stronger person.
The aim of my thesis, depicting the oppressions and resistances of Dutch Queer People
of Color, is in honor of where I came from and who I am today. My identity is made up of many
different facets and is as blurry as muddy waters. Still, my identity defines who I am, and I
define my identity. The teaching of intersectionality helps us to explore the different realms and
layers of our identities. My experiences in life gave me the insights to critically think about how
intersectionality affects us all. However, during the process of my thesis, something unfortunate
happened that made it especially clear to me why this is important. On February 26, 2018,
seventeen-year-old Orlando Boldewijn from Rotterdam was found dead in the waters of a The
Hague neighborhood. Orlando, a queer teen of color, had been missing for more than a week at
that point, yet this case greatly lacks attention and concern from the broader public. As such, I
also wanted to write this thesis to express that Orlando and people like him matter. In solidarity
with all Queer People of Color, I chose to include multiple marginalized voices aside from my
own.
This thesis is also in honor of my parents who left their country to come here, and,
despite the marginalization they faced, created a better future for themselves and their children.
Accordingly, I want to thanks my parents first of foremost of all. Without their hard work and
strength, I would not be here. I would also like to thank my thesis supervisor, Conny
Roggeband, for guiding and encouraging me through my thesis, not just once, but twice.
Finally, I thank my family and friends for believing in me and for all their support. In particular
Zouhair Hammana, for all his advice and efforts in helping me complete my thesis.
Page | 6
Introduction
In the words of Audre Lorde (1984, p. 138), “there is no such thing as a single-issue struggle
because we do not live single-issue lives.” Drawing from her many experiences from her
identity as African-American, black, lesbian, woman, and mother, she employs the study of
intersectionality. Lorde might have lived through these experiences growing up in the United
States during, among other historical developments, the Civil Right Era, but her words still ring
true anywhere today. In honor of those words and practicing intersectionality, I pose the
question of how social movements deal with the fight for equality without leaving behind
certain parts of their constituency. Social movement organizations can serve as the voice of
entire oppressed groups, bringing to light their ‘multiple-issue lives.’ However, rather than not
being able to overcome differences, Kimerblé Crenshaw (1991) identifies an obstacle of
intersectionality being that identity politics often neglects the differences within groups.
All of this brings me to the central subject of my thesis, the intersectionality of Dutch
ethnic and LGBTQ+ social movement strategies. Despite the perception of ourselves as an
open-minded and tolerant country—and granted, Dutch minorities enjoy many freedoms and
rights that many around the world are excluded from—it does not erase the structural
inequalities that still exist to this day. Worse still, it is that perception that makes efforts towards
intersectionality by social movements more complex. Gloria Wekker (2016) argues that race,
in particular, with its many intersections, is still of relevance regarding oppression and
marginalization, even though it is denied or obscured in Dutch society. Therefore, in this thesis,
I examine this phenomenon through the perspective of social movement organizations. Dutch
social movements face the challenge of addressing a multitude of issues that are deemed to be
ambiguous. In other words, they need to shape intersectional struggles in the muddy waters of
the Dutch context.
The prevalence of Dutch forms of oppressions affecting LGBTQ+ folk, People of Color,
and especially Queer People of Color, should in itself be reason enough to elicit this study. I
see the weight of the fight for equality in a number of anecdotal examples: the lack of attention
to the death of Orlando Boldewijn (as mentioned in the preface) and, likewise, the violence and
murder committed against Trans Women of Color; the degrading of Sylvana Simons in the
media and public; the obstacles faced by protesters against ‘Black Pete’ (Zwarte Piet); the
continued oppressions faced by People of Color, transgender people, and non-heterosexuals.
These examples not only indicate that inequality still prevails in Dutch society, but that
Page | 7
addressing these issues, intersectional or otherwise, seems like an almost impossible feat. Aside
from the apparent social relevance as an issue in Dutch society, this kind of research is also
relevant on a meta-scientific level. When Philomena Essed tried to expose the perpetuation of
racism in the Netherlands in 1984 with her book Alledaags racisme (Everyday racism), she was
not only discredited by Dutch media but also by fellow Dutch academics (Prins, 2000). As is
the case with race scholars in the United States (Emirbayer & Desmond, 2012), we need to be
aware that, as researchers, we both observe and are part of the oppressive structures we
scrutinize. It is essential that academia create more space for research that is intersectional and
inclusive, and provide a diversity of researchers to partake in.
Although literature on intersectional strategies of feminist and women’s rights
movements across Europe (and elsewhere) is plentiful (Lépinard, 2014; Rottmann & Ferree,
2008; Verloo, 2013), research on social movement strategies pertaining the intersectional
between race and sexuality or gender identity, especially regarding the Netherlands, remains
lacking. There is significant theoretical relevance here that should prompt more scientific
inquiry. Rather than taking the static approach of framing research in traditional social
movement literature, I take a more dynamic approach in an intersectional and discursive
analysis. Myra Marx Ferree (2003, 2009) proposes that both intersectional theory and social
movement theory should be open to the dynamic role of discursive opportunities in shaping
strategies; the Netherlands is an interesting case to research in this regard. Dominant Dutch
discourses constrain addressing these topics by adversely affecting their ‘speakability’
(bespreekbaarheid) (Mepschen, 2016; Wekker, 2016), and by pushing narratives that pit
LGBTQ+ folk against ethnic minorities (Dudink, 2017; Pierik & van Hoof, 2010; Shield, 2017).
Conversely, with cultures of resistance flowing from cultures of submission (Morris & Braine,
2001), the Netherlands also is less likely to fuel subversive intersectional activism.
Therefore, in this thesis, I explore the role the discursive structures have in the
intersectionality of Dutch social movement organizations (SMOs), answering the research
question: How do Dutch SMOs strategically address issues intersecting between the racial &
LGBTQ+ spectra? The next chapter sets up the theoretical framework of the research.
Thereafter, I laid out the considerations and assumptions in the methodology. The analysis is
divided into two chapter. The first maps out the Dutch discursive context by analyzing
secondary literature, while the second delves into the perspectives of Dutch ethnic and
LGBTQ+ social movement organizations by means of qualitative semi-structured interviews.
In the end, the thesis’ objective is to establish the opportunities in Dutch activism for Queer
People of Color.
Page | 8
1 | Theoretical framework
In this chapter, I lay out the theoretical foundations of this thesis in three parts. First, I explain
the logic and relevancy behind the concept of intersectionality by Crenshaw (1991). More than
that, I attempt to conceptualize intersectionality in a way that would make sense with a
discursive approach. Second, the chapter delves into social movement theory and how it
contributes to the study of the intersectionality of social movement organizations (SMOs).
Third, I go into the role of discursive opportunity structures in the strategic choices of SMOs.
As I explain, a discursive approach is essential when looking at the framing of intersectional
issues, which is why this last concept is included in the theoretical framework. Essentially, the
theoretical framework is built around three theoretical debates: how we should analyze issues
resulting from intersecting oppressions; what the driving forces are in the collective action of
social movement organizations; how discursive structures encourage and limit collective action.
The literature on these debates informs the research question, formulated to study the
intersectionality of Dutch social movement organizations.
Conceptualizing intersectionality
When we do not experience it ourselves, we might take for granted when an individual
experiences a single form of oppression, such as racism or transphobia. However, when
multiple oppressions come together, for example for a trans woman of color, it becomes an
experience that is more complex and multi-faceted that single-focused analyses on oppression
cannot fully do justice to. Instead, it would be more pertinent to examine such cases with an
intersectional lens. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework of intersectionality reveals oppressions
and hierarchies resulting from perceptions around a multitude of social and cultural categories
(Crenshaw, 1994). With this perspective, we can see discrimination taking on different forms:
the intuitive version of single-ground discrimination occurs when the oppression is directed at
one facet of an individual’s identity; the intersectional view pertains to additive multiple
discrimination, when a person experiences injustice from the inseparable joint effect of two or
more social categories that exceed the effect of single-ground discrimination (Hannett, 2003, p.
68). How and where this latter form of oppression manifests itself is exposed by three different
levels of intersectionality. When discussing every-day oppressions in society, we can turn to
structural intersectionality; it refers to the multitude of inequalities experienced directly by
individuals within society (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1245).
Page | 9
Before getting into the other typologies of intersectionality, it is important to
conceptualize intersectionality, as it will give proper context to the intersectional issues that
will be discussed. Deconstructing the concept of intersectionality is also crucial because it is a
contested term that is often redundantly used as a static concept (Ferree, 2009). The key is to
abstain from lumping identities into fixed categories and to provide a more dynamic analysis
of the multi-faceted issues at hand. Thus, we should not just look at how differences between
identities relate to one and other, but also how different analytical levels come into play in
intersectionality (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 195). With that in mind, a multi-level intersectional
approach considers both individual and institutional elements between multiple categories of
differences (Hancock, 2007, p. 74). When it comes to structural intersectionality, distinctions
and comparisons need to be made in where issues arise for different marginalized groups.
Walby (2007, p. 459) argues for the distinction between institutional and relational structures,
with the former referring to institutionalized domains and the latter to categories of identities.
Likewise, Ferree discusses institutionalized domains as organizational fields wherein
“multidimensional forms of inequality are experienced, contested and reproduced in historically
changing forms” (2009, 85). These organizational fields include examples, such as sexuality,
economic opportunity, housing, healthcare, and political participation, within which categories
of identities take up different power relations.
Having conceptualized the complexity and flexibility of structural intersectionality, we
can delve deeper into its relation to the other two types of intersectionality. As Crenshaw (1991)
explains, political intersectionality reveals how different intersections come to play in political
strategies, and strategies involving one intersection rarely act neutral regarding other
intersections. This means that we should not only account for how general political strategies
affect different intersectional categories but also how politics focused on specific identities
affect others. However, a unitary focus on these categories alone is unproductive, as it
misleadingly lumps different oppressions together without accounting for differences in
historical contexts and power relations within identity groups (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 204).
Following a multi-level intersectional approach should, therefore, consider the political
significance of multiple categories and how they relate to different political institutions and
actors (Hancock, 2007, p. 67). Furthermore, there is also merit in examining the role of
(potential) coalitions or alliances between identity groups. Yuval-Davis (2006, p. 205) argues
against placing individuals in fixed social groupings; rather, we should acknowledge differing
experiences while looking at common emancipatory goals, which creates space for examining
political alliances.
Page | 10
The final level of intersectionality explores how under- or misrepresentation of
intersectional groups leads to the stereotyping and disempowerment, namely, representational
intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1283). These representations can largely be found in
media but arise in and from mediated texts, and casual and public discourse. Again, it should
be reiterated that it is also crucial to take a multi-level approach in representational
intersectionality. The aim is then to inspect how different representations affect different
identity groupings in a multitude of domains and, if so, how they relate to each other. Crenshaw
(1991) demonstrates this by exposing how representations of Black women in the United States
reinforce patterns of social power entrenched in racism and sexism. Even social movements
might misrepresent their own constituents in the media to fit resonating narratives (Tarrow,
1994, p. 10). Such observations are made even more relevant when considering that the media
upholds society’s common sense (Tarrow, 2005, p. 62), which in turn maintains hegemonic
power relations and inherent inequalities. All of this reveals how the three levels of
intersectionality relate to one and other, and why they matter to social movements, as they each
contribute to each other to uphold inequalities.
With this broad conceptualization in mind, we should start to wonder how much depth
of the intersectionality of social movements is left unexplored. Much of the literature above
boils down to approaching intersectionality as dynamically as possible. To do so, I take into
consideration how social movement organizations differ in how they view different
intersectional identities and organizational fields, across different contexts. It is also relevant to
look at how these differences play out between multiple levels and what those differences
imply. Finally, the different levels of intersectionality provide tools to explore what types of
opportunities exist for social movement organizations that engage in intersectional activism.
Social movement theory
The common denominator between intersectionality and social movement theory, in this case,
is identity. Intersectionality exposes the multitude of inequalities resulting from multiple
identities, whereas social movement theory attempts to explain the relationship between
identity and collective action. Here, identity refers to the process that allows social actors to
distinguish themselves and for others to distinguish them as part of broader social groupings
(della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 91). Similar to intersectional theory, these identities can be
inclusive and multiple in social traits and facets, but can also be shared through common
experiences and values (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 92). Intersectional analysis is useful in
Page | 11
studying the tension that arises between old identities and newly arising identities within the
same social movements (Schnittker, Freese, & Powell, 2003). The dynamic conceptualization
of intersectionality makes sense as well, as identities are known to originate from or change
during conflict (Drury, Reicher, & Stott, 2003). This relationship works both ways in that
collective action cannot manifest without having social actors identify themselves and others,
and the stake of their mutual relationship (Touraine, 1981). In fact, it is here where the
connection between structural and political intersectionality presents itself. Collective actors
need to construct a ‘positive self,’ an ‘adversary other,’ and a ‘neutral audience’ from the
structural issues that exist between them in order to stimulate collective action (della Porta &
Diani, 2009, p. 94). Furthermore, social movement organizations use identity to produce
favorable representations and create political solidarity. They do this by engaging in public
action, including interactions with the media, in what is called ‘visible’ phases, while focusing
on more inward action and cultural production in ‘latent’ phases (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p.
95). All levels of intersectionality come into play here: identity is constructed from structural
tensions, and how that identity is represented leads to certain biased political strategies in
collective action.
Social movement organizations, or SMOs, can serve as vessels of action under
collective identities, and are, therefore, very suitable for studying intersectional strategies. To
boot, SMOs provide “powerful sources of identity for a movement’s own constituency, its
opponents, and bystander publics” (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 137). Movements that focus
on identity also focus on realizing goals in their action, thus making the distinction between
identity and strategy blurry within social movement theory. Later social movement theory
actually suggests that identity-based movements choose strategies that empower identities, and
thus encourage organizational forms and participation (Bernstein, 1997, p. 533). Such SMOs
pursue to reshape dominant cultural structures or advance new identities within society by
employing expressive strategies (Bernstein, 1997, p. 533). On the other hand, outside
stigmatization of the concerning identity can form an obstacle in collective action; challenging
negative stereotypes is a strategy that needs to be employed within cultural production (della
Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 107). As different identities present different challenges, SMOs have
shown great resourcefulness and flexibility in shaping them for strategic collective action.
Bernstein (1997) proposes three analytical levels for the concept of identity: identity for
empowerment is the utilization of an existing or new identity for the mobilization of a
constituency; identity as goal refers to legitimizing marginalized or new identities for the aim
Page | 12
of collective action; identity as strategy involves deploying an identity collectively as part of a
political strategy for cultural or instrumental purposes.
In order to understand why this is all relevant in addressing intersectional issues, we can
look at how the different ways identities are used within social movements relate to the debate
surrounding the power and emergence of norms. I am, of course, referring to the constructivist
thinking of social construction through norms. Developments in normative structure are, among
other things, contributed by the strategic intervention of social actors (Finnemore & Sikkink,
1998). Moreover, by applying a ‘logic of appropriateness,’ it has been suggested that actors can
develop identities and interests by affecting norms (Barnett, 2014, p. 159). Within these
strategic considerations, a number of mutually constitutive relationships between various
discursive concepts play a central role. Interpretivist theories regard norms, identities, and
interests as mutually constitutive (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 34), while a poststructuralist view
would assert that practices, such as policy implementations, have a mutually constitutive
relationship with identity (Hansen, 2014, p. 179). As norms justify practices, and practices
realize norms, strategic activists need to be acutely aware of how they use or even create norms
to bring about desired change (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 35). As such, when it comes to
promoting or creating norms, the SMOs need to act deliberately according to the perceptions
of their target groups.
According to Keck and Sikkink (1998, pp. 40–41), one of the main aims of social
movements is “to make possible the previously unimaginable, by framing problems in such a
way that their solution comes to appear inevitable.” Framing should, therefore, be a central
focus in studying how SMOs strategize by affecting certain identities, their interests, their
experiences (practices), and why people should care (norms). Frames can be viewed as tools
that “locate, perceive, identify, and label” phenomena in the real-world (Goffman, 1974, p. 21),
and therefore create meaning and direct action (Rein & Schön, 1996, p. 89). How these tools
manifest is a crucial and complex process, as they are not just a simple package of facts, norms,
and values. They maintain the relationship between “the struggle to attain a state of belief and
the persistent irritation of doubt,” and framing (separate from frames) is the process that ties
this relationship together (Hajer & Laws, 2006, p. 255). Frames are also driven by their purpose,
namely, to define and compress the “world out there” by ciphering and underlining various
phenomena that make up an individual’s present and past (Snow & Benford, 1992, p. 137).
Framing analysis is rooted in a number of social and political studies, wherein a frame
takes a central role as an interpretative schemata or ordering device (Hajer & Laws, 2006; Snow
& Benford, 1992). Particularly, traditional social movement research treats frames as an
Page | 13
essential concept (Ferree & Merrill, 2000, p. 455), however, what drives frames and makes
them potent in contentious politics is debatable. These particular kinds of frames are referred
to as collective action frames, which embody the collections of ideas, beliefs, and actions that
are meant to push and legitimize contention (Gamson, 1992, p. 60). Social movements design
and arrange collective action frames in order to create awareness and interest in the media and
potential supporters (Tarrow, 2005, p. 61). According to Snow and Benford (1992, p. 137),
collective action frames serve to enunciate the severity and injustice of (otherwise
underrepresented) social issues and to assign their root causes and potential solutions. In line
with those observations, collective action frames come in three phases, namely diagnostic
(assigning the issue), prognostic (suggesting solutions), and motivational (incentivizing
mobilization or action) (Snow & Benford, 1988). In summation, these frames function as
means of articulation and attribution that are used to mobilize supporters in contention of a
status quo.
For frames to become embedded in existing discourses or even challenge them,
movements need to find ways to align their frames with existing beliefs, values, norms, or ideas.
Snow and his colleagues (1986) propose four frame alignment processes that social movements
engage in, all of which can be applied to framing intersectional issues. First, frame bridging
involves bringing together two or more ideologically compatible but unconnected frames
concerning the same issue (Snow et al., 1986, p. 467). An issue with a racial and a sexuality
dimension might have frames for each that can be brought together into one frame. Second,
building on existing ideas by clarifying them is referred to as frame amplification (Snow et al.,
1986, p. 469). Intersectionality as an idea or belief itself can be reiterated in frames to emphasize
the issue. Third, movements expand their frames to draw in others with frame extension (Snow
et al., 1986, p. 472). Common experiences, such as discrimination and oppression, shared by
both racial minorities, and gender and sexual minorities (GSM), can be used to expand frames
to include each group. Fourth, sometimes frames require the wholesale ideological
reconstruction of an issue, or frame transformation (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473). Some ethnic
groups might hold norms and values opposing LGBTQ+ individuals, while LGBTQ+
movements might be embedded within hegemonic discourses that oppress ethnic minorities. In
such cases, frame transformation is needed to push for radical changes in the beliefs and ideas
of these movements’ constituents.
Social movements have to navigate through rough seas by, on one side, appealing to a
general audience, while, at the same time, promoting ideas that might seem unconventional to
them. In other words, collective action frames need to have some degree of congruence with
Page | 14
the individuals they target. Benford and Snow (2000) discuss the resonance of frames in terms
of its credibility and salience, each dependent on a set of factors. Credibility involves the
consistency of a frame with current beliefs, claims, and actions, its relation to empirical events,
and the perceived credibility of claim-makers (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 619–620). The
salience of a frame is reliant on three components: whether the beliefs, ideas, and values
connected to the frame are essential to targets of mobilization (centrality); whether the frames
are relatable to the personal experiences of the targets of mobilization (experiential
commensurability); whether the frame is culturally resonant (narrative fidelity) (Benford &
Snow, 2000, pp. 621–622). This last requirement is also emphasized in the idea that the
perception of credibility and salience of a frame should be in line with the broader cultural
structure it is embedded in (2009, p. 81). However, frames needing to be resonant with their
societal or cultural context negates the previously discussed strategic intent behind SMOs
repurposing identity and norm. It is, therefore, only appropriate that more recent social
movement literature has opposed this static view on frames; instead, there has been an increased
focus on discursive foundations (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 86). Accordingly, to better bridge
the gap between a dynamic intersectional approach and social movement theory, I delve deeper
into the discursive dynamics underlying social movement framing.
Discursive opportunity structures
Despite the strong case being made for cultural resonance, asserting that the salience of a
collective action frame is dependent on it holds problematic assumptions. This is evident in the
seemingly paradoxical nature of social movements. While it is the case that social movements
are constrained by material and cultural forces, they also have shown to be capable of changing
the cultural structure they are confined in (della Porta & Diani, 2009, pp. 66–67). Ferree (2003,
pp. 305–307) argues that making culturally resonant frames prerequisites to a
movement’s success would neglect the role that power relationships embedded in discourses
have in the process. Tarrow (2005, p. 61) explains that social movements proposing culturally
resonating frames risk maintaining and legitimizing the very elites and ingrained inequalities
they oppose. Hegemonic discourses marginalize certain frames by making them not culturally
resonant; thus, movements that use resonating frames might effectively marginalize their most
oppressed constituents (Ferree, 2003, p. 339). Although there is merit in the argument that an
SMO’s success is profoundly reliant on their ability to adjust their claims to the broader public’s
Page | 15
views (Snow et al., 1986; Tarrow, 1994), it does not fully justify the unitary approach of cultural
resonance, considering the wider strategic and discursive implications.
On the contrary, the assumption would disregard the strategic opportunity
that radical frames offer as part of a long-term goal to overturn dominant discourses (Ferree,
2003, p. 310). It is because norms that have been embedded in practices are being taken for
granted, that normative change pushed for by SMOs is inherently disruptive (Keck & Sikkink,
1998, p. 35). In the same vein, motivational collective action frames challenge dominant social
structures and transform identities and definitions that favor collective solidarity (della Porta &
Diani, 2009, p. 79). SMOs that choose radicalism over moderation have shown to be able to
survive in the long-run as part of long-term strategies (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 151). Based
on these claims, those that support social movements should help change common perspectives
on radicalism. Likewise, Bernstein (1997, p. 535) proposes that social movement theory should
study how social movements affect dominant cultural structures, as prior literature rarely views
significant cultural change as part of activist strategies. Such studies could uncover unexpected
dynamics in collective action, as similar research shows that radical strategies tend to take place
in traditionally exclusionary countries (Koopmans & Olzak, 2004; Koopmans & Statham,
1999), while resistance tends to be prominent in cultures of submission (Morris & Braine,
2001). The choice between resonance and radicalism results from the interaction between
discursive opportunity and frames, hence the discursive context tell us who or what is seen as
radical (Ferree, 2003, p. 339).
Steinberg (1998) argues that, despite it being based in language, much of the literature
focused on framing neglects its quintessential discursive foundations. Some of the problems
with framing theory he mentions include: a lack in understanding the meso level process of
social construction between the individual and the macro level; not taking into account the
inherent instability of the production of meaning; the perspective that sees frames as cultural
resources, which omits the role of power relations. Steinberg (1998, p. 862) proposes that we
should shift our focus to the collective process of meaning production, entailing “the complex
multi-level processes by which meanings are both circulated and transformed between the
levels of small groups and mass media.” The media is an important player within framing
strategies, as the media can both uphold hegemonic discourses, while also legitimizing claims
from social movements that want to overhaul those discourses (Tarrow, 2005, p. 62). Steinberg
proposes a model be used that depicts the process of meaning production as dynamic and
attached to socio-historical context and patterns of interaction. Frames do not arise within a
Page | 16
social vacuum and should not be treated as fixed constructs, as such when looking at frames we
should also look at the discursive foundations.
Framing in itself is relational and intersectional, as the frames it produces relate to other
concepts that provide meaning (Ferree, 2009, p. 88). Therefore, when studying frames, Ferree
and Merrill (2000, p. 455) propose an inverted pyramid model with discourses at the top,
ideologies in the middle, and frames at the bottom. As explained before, framing is a different
concept from frames. It serves as the process of selecting ideas from discourse and connects all
three concepts in the model (Ferree & Merrill, 2000, p. 456). Discourses—defined as a body of
concepts and categorizations that provide meaning to phenomena—direct discussions and are
institutionalized in certain practices (Hajer & Laws, 2006, p. 259). Thus, while discourses
shape frames, they can also construct or strengthen the very oppressions frames try to expose.
As Yanow (2003) explains, certain discourses inherently bear social exclusion, which,
consequently, arises from policy categories and vocabularies. This essentially boils down to the
notion that discourse should be seen as a political process, by which categorizing and ordering
are not just used to understand the social world but also to control it (Ferree, 2009, p. 86).
Therefore, when treating discourse as a concept with both social and political implications, we
can see the deeper implications it has for strategies of SMOs.
Discourse consists of phrases and categories that flow from deep and influential
linguistic structures, meaning that discursive opportunities are also structured and present in
institutional practices (Sewell, 1992, pp. 22–23). In this case, discursive opportunity structure
is a suitable concept to interpret the strategic role of discourse within social movements.
Discursive opportunities, which also arise from public discourse, give ideas and messages
higher probabilities to be diffused (Koopmans & Olzak, 2004, p. 202). Ferree (2003, p. 309)
suggests that discursive opportunity structures define an issue politically as they are
“institutionally anchored ways of thinking that provide a gradient of political acceptability of
to specific packs of ideas.” Elsewhere, Ferree (2009) also explains that framing provides
meaning to concepts by placing them in frameworks that can favor or limit actors, thus referring
to them as discursive opportunity structures. Koopmans and Statham (1999, p. 228) also suggest
that discursive opportunity structures are responsible for how the reasonability of ideas, the
realism of stories, and the legitimacy of claims are perceived. Discursive opportunities can also
shape the resonance of social movements’ claims, and, as such, discursive opportunity
structures can constrain collective action frames (della Porta & Diani, 2009, p. 219). Ferree
(2009, p. 89) asserts that, unlike is explained by the concept frame alignment processes,
collective action frames that stretch the meaning of a phenomenon, also stretch the framework
Page | 17
of meanings it is connected to. That means that making claims on an intersectional issue has
implications for all the facets it is, directly and indirectly, connected to. Hence, SMOs that are
acutely aware of discursive opportunities and actively strategize in accordance with them might
intentionally make radically perceived claims to create long-term opportunities for profound
societal change.
Currently, there are a number of studies that look that the implications of intersectional
strategies by SMOs. Verloo (2013) finds that European feminist and gender equality
movements have increasingly engaged in intersectional politics, and she argues that there
multiple approaches that address intersectional issues. However, not all approaches sufficiently
tackle the issues, and the dominance of non-intersectional laws and institutions skew power
relations unfavorable for intersectional policies (Verloo, 2013, pp. 909–910). Lépinard (2014)
looks at how women’s rights organizations strategize intersectionality in the form of discursive
repertoires. Lépinard (2014, pp. 898–899) argues that interests, identities, constituency, and
alliances differ depending on discursive repertories and she finds that these contrasts are even
more apparent between national contexts. In Germany, feminist movements have shown to
struggle with addressing intersectional issues when it comes to the headscarf debate, which is
attributed to the discursive understanding of Muslim women and the state (Rottmann & Ferree,
2008). What these empirical cases show is that the radical/resonant divide is a lot more complex
than conventional framing analysis would make seem. These observations on the variety of
intersectional strategies make sense when accepting that hegemonic discourses constrain
discussions on marginalized intersectional oppressions and make them seem more ambiguous
(Ferree, 2003).
In order to create a deeper understanding, we need to apply an approach that is both
intersectional and discursive to social movement theory. In other words, to uncover the
intersectional opportunities Dutch SMOs, I first look at what discursive opportunities and
constraints exist in the Dutch context. How SMOs frame intersectional issues should be
indicative of the extent to which discursive structures affect their strategic scope. Frames are,
therefore, not static concepts but a reflection of strategic considerations. It is also important to
establish where they perceive the discursive context to be a challenge, and how, if so, they
attempt to subvert these perceived challenges. Furthermore, examining these cases from a
strategic point-of-view creates a better understanding of how SMOs deal with radically
perceived topics. All of this allows me to delve deeper into what helps create intersectional
opportunities, why SMOs engage with them, and how they utilize them.
Page | 18
Research question
The literature discussed above converge to potentially explain why and how intersectional
issues are strategically framed the way they are by social movements. Opting for a dynamic and
flexible approach to intersectionality opens research up to the deeper complexity of
multi-dimensional oppressions. Likewise, considering the role of identity and normative change from
a social movement perspective would be consistent with intersectional thinking. It only follows
that the conventional static approach to framing within social movement theory does not lend
itself well to non-hegemonic strategies towards social change. Instead, we should study
intersectional frames and strategies with a discursive lens. Discourse potentially ties all these
elements together, as not only do norms and practices constitute each other (Keck & Sikkink,
1998, p. 35), but also considering that identities depend on discursive practices (Hansen, 2014,
p. 179). In pursuance of a dynamic approach that is both intersectional and discursive, I need
to examine patterns within and across a variety of identities, organizational fields, and levels of
analysis (Ferree, 2009; Walby, 2007; Yuval-Davis, 2006). The concept of discursive
opportunity structures—explaining how political claims stretch normative change across
dimensions and categories (Ferree, 2009)— also complements a dynamic intersectional
approach. Discursive opportunities explain the merit of radical claims, as the radical/resonant
dichotomy makes little sense in light of the discussed empirical findings above. Hence, in this
thesis, I follow the reasoning that seemingly radical and resonant elements can complement
each other within strategies. I also examine how hegemonic and opposing discourses in
domestic contexts influence intersectional frames and strategies. To that end, the research
question is formulated as: How do Dutch SMOs strategically address issues intersecting
between the racial & LGBTQ+ spectra?
Page | 19
2 | Methodology
The section below outlines the methodological assumptions and considerations in my approach
to exploring the potency of activism addressing issues concerning Queer People of Color in a
Dutch context. The research was mainly conducted as a qualitative empirical case study focused
on a set of Dutch social movement organizations. The Dutch discursive context relevant to the
organizations is laid out through an analysis of secondary literature, while the perspectives and
strategies of the organizations are illustrated by means of qualitative semi-structured interviews.
The findings were intersectionally and discursively analyzed to provide the foundation for
answering the research question. The following paragraphs detail the research design and
strategy, the case selection, the data collection methods and the data analysis applied, and the
limitations of the research.
Research design & strategy
Before anything else, it is essential to spell out my ontological and epistemological
assumptions. Intersectionality and discourse, as conceptualized before in the theoretical
framework, play a central role in this thesis; thus, I borrow ideas from social constructivist and
poststructural perspectives. The constructivist thinking that shared ideas constructs social
structures, and interests and ideas of actors (Wendt, 1999), complements the aim of this research
to explore the diverging movement strategies based on discursive foundations. At the same
time, poststructuralism tells us not to take structures and dichotomies for granted and
conceptualizes identity as relational and performative (Hansen, 2014). These underpinnings fit
in with the prior prepositions in the theoretical framework, such as deconstructing the false
dichotomy between resonance and radicalism (Ferree, 2003), and viewing identity as not fixed
within intersectionality (Walby, 2007). Ontologically, that means that I need to remain aware
of how language presents categories (Bryman, 2012, p. 34) and constitutes the world around us
(Potter, 1996, p. 98).
With such a perspective, the research heavily leans on an interpretivist and postpositive
epistemology. Poststructuralists not only question how ontological assumptions constitute our
world—creating space for more reflexivity—but reject positivist leanings towards causality, as
they hold that structures emerge from human action (Hansen, 2014, pp. 170–171). Instead, it is
pertinent to expose, in this case, perceptions surrounding and resulting from intersectional
identities. By the same token, and in pursue of reflexivity, I need to acknowledge my own
Page | 20
personal viewpoint as the researcher. From this epistemological point-of-view, I aim to be
inter-subjective, rather than objective, by interpreting the perspectives of the participants as well as
my own. My own experiences and biases are very important in shaping this study, being a Queer
Person of Color myself. Just like how race scholars are also subjected to the racial structures
they study (Emirbayer & Desmond, 2012), the structures that uphold intersectional inequalities
also affect those that research them. As such, this research and others like it can benefit from
diverse and inclusive voices to drive them; thus, I see my identity as a strength in conducting
this research.
A poststructural epistemology is also very compatible with an intersectional
epistemology, as the latter requires power to be viewed as relational instead of binary (Hancock,
2016, p. 118). Furthermore, multi-level processes have to be considered, and the pitfall of
single-analytical focus should be avoided while adapting non-hegemonic analyses (Choo &
Ferree, 2010, p. 147). These aspects are reiterated in the methods and analyses by going into
the perceptions of and experiences through the various intersectional identities. I follow three
principles, as proposed by Hillsburg (2013), to avoid additional methodological pitfalls:
boundaries of intersections should be enforced; identities should not be considered as fixed; the
vulnerabilities of others should not be infringed.
In order to stay true to all of the above, I make use of abductive research strategy with
ground theory. Abduction gives the possibility to explore the actions and meanings of social
actors and provides a basic comprehension of social phenomena (Blaikie, 2000, p. 117).
Furthermore, abduction does justice to studying experiences of oppressed intersectional groups
without following a general or hegemonic theory and conclusion. A phenomenological
approach is partly employed to consider the meaning behind lived experiences of people, in this
case, the speakers of the organizations and the intersectional constituents they represent.
Applying mainly grounded theory gives me room to develop theory in a largely unexplored
context concerning underrepresented identities. Furthermore, because I assume that the topics
discussed are mostly marginalized, the interaction between data and analysis from ground
theory presents the opportunity to delve into more similar topics in consecutive data collections.
The main aim of the study is to establish how entrenched frames are that advocate for
intersectional identities located between racial and LGBTQ+ spectra within the Dutch
discursive context. Keeping the research strategy and foundations in mind, I explore this topic
in a comparative case study of Dutch social movement organizations that either advocate for
ethnic minorities or LGBTQ+ folk. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine the
perspectives and approach towards the concerning intersectional groups. Meanwhile, an
Page | 21
analysis of secondary literature was conducted on the Dutch discursive context relevant to the
concerning intersectional groups in order to expand the discourse analysis on the interviews.
This particular research design provides room for exploring the breadth of intersectional
identities while looking at discursive foundations, as opposed to material factors.
Case selection
Looking at this particular case of racial and LGBTQ+ minorities in the Netherlands is relevant
for a number of reasons. In my perspective, the most important reason is its social relevance to
shed light on and create awareness for marginalized, oppressed groups. Individuals that belong
both to a racial, and gender or sexual minority already experience underrepresentation as part
of one marginalized group, belonging to more increases that experience. My hope is that with
this thesis I provide meaningful insight that can lead to future progress both within academia
and beyond. Since this case deals with marginalized people, it is no surprise that there is a lack
of literature concerning them, making this case empirically relevant as well. The Netherlands
being perceived as a tolerant country with progressive laws on the one hand, and current debates
on racism and Islamophobia leaving the public divided on the other (El-Tayeb, 2012;
Mepschen, 2016; Wekker, 2016), provide an interesting theoretical case for scientific inquiry.
As stated before, the research follows a comparative case study into Dutch social
movement organizations that either advocate for ethnic minorities or LGBTQ+ folk. This focus
holds theoretical and methodological relevance, as it explores the intersectionality of
experiences and perceptions regarding marginalized groups. These organizations do not
specifically focus on these groups, but these groups are part of their constituencies, and some
of their issues pertain to the constituency as a whole as well. As established in the theoretical
framework, it is essential to look at the socio-political, socio-cultural and socio-historical
context, and multi-level meaning-circulation (Ferree, 2003; Steinberg, 1998). Therefore, I can
explore how the dynamics vary between the larger Dutch context and the smaller meso- and
micro level contexts. The relatively small population size of the Netherlands combined with its
diversity makes it compatible with an intersectional approach, while also giving it greater focus.
In selecting which organizations are best-suited to examine, I decided to do a
most-different case study design. The variety of research participants makes it possible to explore a
wider range of intersections and contexts, which is theoretically relevant in establishing
differences between them. Due to the scope and time constraints of the thesis, only a small
number of organizations could be selected. However, being limited in this respect allows me to
Page | 22
remain focused in direction while also taking in the wide variety of intersectional identities.
Organizations advocating for minorities with regards to race, ethnicity, sexuality, or gender
identity were selected. As such, the cases belonged to one of two categories: ethnic
organizations and LGBTQ+ organizations. A practical criterion in this case selection was a
presence of advocacy for one or multiple intersectional identities. In selecting each organization
within the two categories, it was important that it captured a variety of ethnicities, sexualities,
and gender identities to explore a wider range of discourses concerning the multitude of
identities and contexts. Within the ethnic organizations category, I made sure that each
organization represented a different and substantial ethnic minority group in the Netherlands.
In the LGBTQ+ organizations category, I selected organizations that represent the LGBTQ+ as
a whole, but also those that represented a specific facet in that group, as they also experience
marginalization from aspect alone. In the end, six organizations were selected as listed below
in the table.
Organization
Category
Represented contingency
HTIB
Ethnic organization
Turkish-Dutch people
Overlegorgaan
Caribische
Nederlanders (OCAN)
Ethnic organization
Caribbean-Dutch people
Samenwerkingsverband
Marokkaanse Nederlanders
(SMN)
Ethnic organization
Moroccan-Dutch people
COC
LGBTQ+ organization
Dutch LGBTI people
Landelijk
Netwerk
Biseksualiteit (LNBi)
LGBTQ+ organization
Dutch Bisexual people
Transgender
Netwerk
Nederland (TNN)
LGBTQ+ organization
Dutch Transgender people
Table 2.1: Case selection
Data collection methods
Six qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with most of the before-mentioned
organizations; the transcripts for each interview can be found in Appendix A to F. I had to
conduct two interviews with COC (Interview 3 & Interview 6) because the organization had
multiple charters that represented different regions and intersectional groups. Unfortunately,
Page | 23
after multiple attempts, I have failed to reach any representative of SMN for an interview. Most
of the interviews were done in person, with the exception of the LNBi interview done by Skype
(Interview 2). Furthermore, the TNN interview was conducted with two extra participants that
were invited from Trans-United, an organization focused on bicultural transgender persons in
the Netherlands (Interview 4). The information pertaining to the interviews, including the
speakers and organizations involved, can be found in the table below. Participants were
informed of the details of the thesis and interview in advance with an info sheet, enclosed in
Appendix G. The interviews were descriptive and interpretative in nature, with open-ended
questions. Most questions were based on themes from the theoretical framework or topic at
hand and incorporated in the interview guide, as presented in Appendix H. The interviews were
meant to serve as meaningful conversations, with the interviewee leading the topics discussed,
and further questions developed based in the answers given.
The interviews had two main aims: to sketch the perspective of the organization and
speaker on general and specific intersectional issues; to establish the organization’s approaches
and strategies for advocating for particular intersectional groups. The aims established the
discursive repertoires used to discuss intersectional issues and how these are strategically
framed, respectfully. The topics of questions related back to three themes, namely intersectional
issues in the broader Dutch society, intersectional issues within racial communities, and
intersectional issues within LGBTQ+ communities. The open-ended nature of questions
combined with the three themes not only made sure the different socio-political, socio-cultural
and socio-historical contexts, and multi-level analysis (Ferree, 2003; Steinberg, 1998) were
considered, but also accounted for the non-fixed positions of intersectional identities (Walby,
2007) and the differencing organization fields (Ferree, 2009). Finally, to establish the discursive
context these answers are based in, I conducted an analysis of secondary literature. The
literature used pertains the Dutch socio-political, socio-cultural and socio-historical context
concerning the variety of intersectional identities discussed in the interviews.
Page | 24
Participants
Organization
Interview 1
Mustafa Ayranci
HTIB
Interview 2
Joshua Zandberg
LNBi
Interview 3
Alex Kain
COC Amsterdam
Interview 4
Samira Hakim
Ana Paula Lima
Dinah Bons
TNN
Trans-United
Trans-United
Interview 5
Douwe Sikkema
OCAN
Interview 6
Johan Noordenbos
COC Amsterdam
Table 2.2: Interviews
Data analysis methods
The interviews were voice recorded by phone, which had a recording app specifically for
interviews, and were mostly transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were organized and coded
using the program Atlas.Ti. I applied a mix of conventional and directed coding analysis (Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005), within which I started using both open en theoretical coding based on a
dynamic intersectional framework, according to the works of Crenshaw (1991) and Ferree
(2009). As such, the codes pertained to the different identity labels, the types of oppression, the
level of analysis, the organizational fields, levels of intersectionality, and the context. After
repeating the process until I was theoretically saturated, I ended up with 138 codes across 9
code groups, as presented in Appendix I. These different dimensions are made up of the
theoretical framework on intersectionality. Most of the categories within those dimensions are
based on the answers provided by the participants. Between these codes and code groups, I
explored patterns and looked at where certain categories, or codes, matched more with others.
The patterns were mainly established and analyzed in line with a dynamic intersectional
and discursive approach, as described in the theoretical framework (Ferree, 2003, 2009).
Furthermore, I used some elements of Bacchi’s discourse analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016)
and Critical Frame Analysis (Verloo & Lombardo, 2007) to deconstruct at the discursive and
framing aspects of the findings. Bacchi’s discourse analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016) focuses
on the ‘problem’ presented, in this case, intersectional issues, and its underlying discursive
foundations through a number of questions. The analysis of the Dutch discursive context comes
into play regarding the effects of how and where ‘problem’ representations arise. The Critical
Frame Analysis (Verloo & Lombardo, 2007) connects ‘problem’ representations from the
Page | 25
discourse analysis to the identification of a diagnosis, while the evaluation of present prognoses
and calls for action help determine how these issues are framed. Lastly, the outcomes from
these analyses also establish which, if any, when, and where intersectional issues are framed
radically or resonantly, as defined by Ferree (2003).
Limitations
First and foremost, I find it crucial to mention that my own identity, and the perceptions that
come with it, likely shape how I approach and view different intersectional groups. Each of the
discussed groups experiences marginalization in different and unique ways. While my identity
also serves as an advantage in intersectional research, I also need to wary of the limitations of
my perspective. As such, there simply is a lack of knowledge, both within myself and existing
literature. That coupled with my own biases will mean that my thesis will be limited in
illustrating the full picture of the issues experienced by the people discussed. Of course, the
groups that are presented in the research do not represent the full racial or LGBTTQQIP2SAA
spectra, and might be better represented in hegemonic discourses than other more marginalized
groups. The experiences and biases of the speakers and their organizations should also be
accounted for. Nonetheless, creating awareness for inequalities that were discussed is progress
in itself, and might open the door for bringing more marginalized experiences to the light in the
future.
The small size of the case study also means that the outcomes are limited in
generalizability. Seeing as the research is focus-oriented with a narrowly scoped topic, it likely
lacks external validity. Furthermore, not being able to secure an interview with SMN created a
less representative sample, mainly in terms of ethnic organizations. However, since this a
qualitative study, the research is aimed at interpreting the perspectives of the participants, rather
than generalizing the results. A small sample size is also common in qualitative research
(Marlow, 2005). Conducting face-to-face semi-structured interviews is highly suitable for
collecting rich data on participants’ experiences (Marlow, 2005, p. 169). Still, it is important to
note that although the organizations largely function in a national context, they are all operating
from big cities. Therefore, their bias might be skewed towards the urban, and thus more diverse,
populations of the country. The research is also directed more towards discursive factors, and
less so towards material factors. Although these are also relevant, their underrepresentation in
literature provides the motivation for this choice. Future research into this subject might lend
itself well to combine both types of factors.
Page | 26
