Chapter 3: "Inner-tersectional" Changemaking

Read Chapter 1 Read Chapter 2

We are sharing this chapter of Act, Rest, Reset, Repeat by Katie Hodgetts for members of our Hopeful Book Club. The right of Katie Hodgetts to be identified as the Author of this text  has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

Sustainable changemaking demands more than external action, it requires profound internal transformation too. “Inner development”, far from New Age spirituality, is becoming a globally recognized field. For example, The Inner Development Goals (IDGs) initiative suggests that we haven’t met the Sustainable Development Goals because we have under resourced the interpersonal skills required to make such change. The IDGs isolate the five key “inner” skills required: being, collaborating, action, thinking and relating. Each dimension contains sub-skills – for example, “collaborating” includes communication skills, co-creation skills, inclusive mindset, intercultural competence, trust and mobilization skills. Thinking includes critical thinking, complexity awareness, perspective skills, sense-making and long-term orientation and visioning. This takes “inner work” far beyond meditation and journalling and is concerned more with how we build solidarity across movements with sensitivity, as well as how we develop and foster trust within ourselves and others.

Inner work is a necessary condition for world shift, but it is not sufficient on its own. The addendum is significant. When I was 20 years old, I spent one month in a meditation community where people existed off-grid, so engrossed in their internal landscape that conversations of social injustice blew past them like leaves. The central idea of this kind of meditation, someone once explained to me, was that focusing on our own internal work will make a generation of conscious agents. But the idea that spiritual practice alone will transform eight billion people both ignores enormous systemic barriers and is working to a timescale that we simply don’t have. Secondly, a spirituality which foregrounds personal prosperity rather than collective, to me, doesn’t capture what is at the heart of spiritual endeavour: to decentre the ego enough to appreciate that we are all equal (in our humanity) and all deserving of justice and peace. Therefore, a spirituality without social justice misses the point. At age 20, meditating in that community in the mountains, while not looking at the world, I found stillness, happiness and joy. But resilience is forged not by how calmly we can sit in the shadows, but how tall we stand in the wicked winds. That happiness grew out of shielding my eyes from suffering and therefore it was eviscerated once I left the sanctuary. As I posited in the introduction, though I had found wellness, stepping out into the real world and then losing it felt like a personal failure.

The macro: Systems Change and intersectionality

I would argue that we need inner work but not just inner work. Because attitude doesn’t equal action. Attitude without practice is performative. Then a second concept I introduce is “intersectionality”, illuminating how we understand society and power. Intersectionality is a framework for understanding how various forms of social identities – such as race, gender, class, sexuality, disability, and more – intersect and overlap, creating complex layers of discrimination and privilege. The concept was first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, though its roots can be traced back to Black feminist thought and the work of activists such Attitude doesn’t as Sojourner Truth. Crenshaw equal action. Attitude introduced the term in her without practice paper “Demarginalizing the is performative. Intersection of Race and Sex”, where she analysed how Black women face unique challenges due to the combined effects of racism and sexism. Her work demonstrated that social justice frameworks often failed to address the compounded nature of oppression experienced by individuals who occupy multiple marginalized identities.

Historically, feminist and anti-racist movements have sometimes overlooked the specific needs of those who exist at the intersections of various identities. For example, the mainstream feminist movement often centred the experiences of white, middle-class women, while anti-racist movements, in some cases, focused primarily on the struggles of Black men. Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory sought to challenge this single-axis analysis by demonstrating how Black women experience both gender and racial discrimination in ways that are not simply additive but interlocking and complex.

Intersectionality as a lens has been applied in fields ranging from sociology to law to public policy. For example, in legal contexts, intersectionality is used to highlight how discrimination laws, which tend to treat race, gender or other categories as separate issues, may fail to address the full scope of discrimination that people with intersecting identities face.

Intersectional environmentalism is an extension of this concept. Coined by US youth environmental activist Leah Thomas during the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, intersectional environmentalism highlights the connections between environmental degradation and social injustice.¹⁶ Leah brought this concept to the forefront by emphasizing that environmental justice cannot be separated from racial and social justice – just as intersectionality examines overlapping forms of oppression, intersectional environmentalism calls for a more inclusive approach to environmentalism by connecting the dots between individual issues and the system. It gives rise to the common notion in the youth climate movement that there is no climate justice without racial justice, gender justice, class justice, disability justice and more, because climate breakdown and climate injustice are inherently linked to wider systems of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy and white supremacy.

To ground this further, here are a few examples.

1. Climate justice equals racial justice.
   Low-income and predominantly Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) families and communities are more likely to live near polluting industries, motorways, landfills and toxic waste sites. They have been disadvantaged not by personal circumstance, but by colonialism, land-grabbing and systemic racism. These households and communities often face greater exposure to harmful environmental conditions, such as contaminated water, air pollution and the impacts of climate change while having fewer resources to protect themselves or recover from environmental disasters.
2. Climate justice equals gender justice.
   Globally, women bear the burden of the climate crisis. They generally have less access to land ownership, financial resources and political power, meaning that they are more vulnerable to climaterelated displacement and poverty. Their traditional role in care and household roles means that they have more responsibility for securing resources like water, food and fuel for their households. As droughts, floods and other environmental disasters worsen, these resources become scarcer, increasing the burden on women, who may have to travel longer distances or face unsafe conditions to find them.
3. Climate justice equals disability justice.
   During extreme weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves or wildfires, individuals with disabilities often face additional challenges, such as lack of accessible evacuation routes, shelters not being equipped to meet their needs or limited access to critical medical supplies. This became a reality during Hurricane Katrina in the USA in 2005, when many disabled people were left behind due to inaccessible transportation and insufficient emergency planning.
4. Climate justice equals migrant justice.
   It is estimated that 216 million individuals may be forced to migrate within their own countries across six world regions due to climaterelated factors such as water scarcity, crop failure and sealevel rise.¹⁷ Additionally, the Institute for Economics and Peace predicts that an enormous 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by 2050 due to extreme weather and natural disasters.¹⁸ These climate-induced displacements often intersect with existing inequalities shaped by colonial histories and uneven development. In this view, advocating for climate justice inherently includes fighting for the rights, dignity and protection of migrants, refugees and those seeking asylum uprooted by ecological collapse.

These short examples are by no means exhaustive, yet they uncover the complex and intersecting threads of identity and discrimination. Traditional environmental movements have often been critiqued for focusing on conservation, wildlife and nature preservation while ignoring or underemphasizing the social injustices tied to environmental issues. By embracing intersectionality, movements and campaigns strive for a more inclusive approach, which acknowledges the different ways people are impacted by systemic oppression. Intersectionality focuses not just on single issues like recycling but also on dismantling the systemic racism, classism and other forms of inequality that amplify environmental harm for certain groups. An intersectional approach to climate solutions could look like green jobs and clean energy in low-income areas, Indigenous land and water rights and addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on MAPA groups. In essence, if single-issue environmentalism is treating a symptom, intersectional approaches attempt to treat the disease – the disease being unfair and unequal systems that safeguard the status-quo. Leah Thomas’s Intersectional Environmentalist platform and book, as well as similar movements, work to educate people on the importance of understanding the environment through a wider lens. Inclusive policies should not only fight ecological degradation but also ensure that marginalized communities are at the forefront of decision-making processes.

Toward “inner-tersectionality”

This is big stuff, right? A lot more than doing our bit by having shorter showers. In moving from single-issue campaigning to intersectional, we are requiring individuals and groups to hold a much wider view. Take, for example, electric cars. Single-issue campaigning might call for a switch from petrol to electric cars, whereas intersectional campaigning considers that meeting the rising demand for electric cars in affluent households in the Global North requires the mining of the minerals and lithium for batteries, which incurs human rights violations and utilizes child labour in some parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo. An intersectional environmentalist might pull together the threads of capitalism and colonialism and opt for lower consumption as the solution rather than electric vehicles, or campaign for additional legislation to protect workers in kind. This is not to dampen the spirits of anyone advocating for electrifying. Intersectionality simply invites a wider gaze at the historic currents of power and how these continue to play out through our contemporary actions. The common cry for “system change, not climate change” involves looking very deeply at systems that perpetuate harm. Intersectional campaigning invites us to assess our own levels of power and then to redistribute it to those historically afforded less. How much “power” and “access” we respectively have is more nuanced than just race, gender, ability, class and sexuality. It also includes our lineage, upbringing, follower count, body shape and how conventionally attractive we are.

We are right to ask more from our campaigns and our movements. What I’m trying to get at is that asking young people to grapple with enormous, global challenges requires more than tactics and training; it demands resilience, selfawareness and a holistic vision of change. To hold bigger challenges, we need to be better resourced. That means our movements and changemakers need to be financially equipped and trained but also rooted in collective resilience, humility to listen and self-awareness.

It is the interweaving of three powerful frameworks: intersectionality, intersectional environmentalism and inner development that I call “inner-tersectional changemaking”. This holistic approach to changemaking integrates inner development with collective justice, recognizing that lasting change requires both inner transformation and systemic disruption. It includes holding both the complex systems of the world and the complex selves that we are; it’s a call to action and to introspection. It also emphasizes that true transformation arises from integrating the macro – societal systems of power and injustice – with the micro – the inner landscapes of our minds and behaviours. A more active approach to “be the change you want to see in the world”, innertersectional changemaking acknowledges the dual responsibility of inward growth and outward action.

Just engaging with inner work might leave us too passive as we see too little. Just engaging with intersectional work might leave us too activated as we see too much. One of the core principles of innertersectional changemaking is the idea that inner and outer change are in fact mutually re-enforcing. When we cultivate inner resilience, we become more effective at challenging oppressive systems. When we engage in intersectional changemaking, we deepen our understanding of ourselves and our position in the world. The two are inextricably linked, each strengthening and informing the other. Consider the activist who campaigns tirelessly for climate justice, but their imposter syndrome stops them from speaking up effectively. Or the social justice advocate who is deeply committed to equity but their overidentification with work is leading to burnout. Innertersectional changemaking calls us to honour these inner battles, not as separate from the fight for systemic change but as integral to it. Inner and outer transformation are inseparable.

The journey of inner development is deeply personal, but it also has profound implications for collective change. Looking at our inner saboteurs can transform our ability to persevere through setbacks. Learning to navigate our own fear and anxiety makes us better equipped to hold space for others. When we practise empathy and self-awareness, we become more effective allies and coalition-builders. Inner development strengthens our capacity to stand in solidarity with others, even when the road is long and challenging.

Innertersectional Solutions

In my own changemaking journey, I have lost interest in a “climate solution” that doesn’t consider both the systemic and inner-led components to change. Advances in climate technology might suck trillions of CO₂ particles out of the air, yes, but then what are we left with? We still have a failing system where suicide is one of the biggest killers for young men in the UK under the age of 35; where greed causes civilian causalities in gut-wrenching numbers; and where unequal gender relations cause women to live with preconceived limitations. We still sit in a polarized world where cancel culture feels easier than engaging in uncomfortable conversations. We still have political factions where fixation on our identity can keep us in echo chambers and deny many of us (with the safety to do so) of learning and understanding. We are still afflicted by the degradation of the soul.

Innertersectional changemaking means bringing human nature to the foreground. It requires not only mobilizing against those who vote for harm but also practising enough compassion so as not to recreate the “us”, “them” and “the other” dynamic. It asks us to momentarily pause our obsession with the out-there and take a long hard look at our justice movements too and systems of harm we may be perpetuating internally. For example, I see great changemakers and movements, but I still see ego, career-hunger, vanity, cliques, jealousy and tearing each other down when we don’t meet the unrealistic standards we ask of one another. I see people dismissing others if their chosen career path is not presently world-changing, rather than seeing the complexities that sit inside them, such as financial insecurity or a lack of mentorship to walk a different path. They only see their complicity in the “system”. This isn’t the same as giving people permission to be shit. It’s to engage actively with the judgements in our mind, the assumptions and the discomfort, rather than to turn away and question if this helps or hinders us (the micro) and the wider movement (the macro). The notion “if you think this, we are no longer friends” is common on my timeline, without an appreciation that the person you dismiss has an invisible history of personal circumstances, familial relationships and, perhaps, pain. It erodes their humanity and their innate ability to change their mind. The “inner” invites more compassion, empathy and understanding. It’s not easy work but it’s essential if we want to better ourselves, our planet and our collective psyche.