When Does Differential Treatment Become Perceived Discrimination? An Intersectional Analysis in a Southern Brazilian Population

Abstract

Despite ideals of equality and “racial democracy,” high levels of social inequality persist in contemporary Brazil. In addition, while the majority of the Brazilian population acknowledges the persistence of racism, high proportions of socially disadvantaged groups do not regard themselves as victims of discrimination. This study seeks to shed light on this issue by investigating the processes through which individuals come to interpret their experiences of mistreatment as discrimination. We ask: (1) How frequently do respondents perceive being treated differently due to a variety of social statuses alone and in combination? and (2) What factors are associated with respondents interpreting this differential treatment as “discrimination”? Data come from an ongoing cohort investigation, which included a representative sample of adults living in the urban area of Florianópolis. Results show that 45 percent of respondents experienced mistreatment and attributed it to two or more factors, such as social class, age, gender, and race. Perceptions of mistreatment based on social class were positively correlated with perceived mistreatment due to gender, place of residence, weight, race, and the way one dresses. Regression analyses revealed that interpreting differential treatment as stemming from multiple social statuses was the strongest predictor of respondents classifying their mistreatment as discrimination. Our findings highlight the importance of disentangling perceptions of mistreatment from perceptions of discrimination and show that the relationship between the two is structured in large part by the ways in which individuals interpret their experiences at the intersection of multiple inequalities.

The magnitude of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous oral health inequalities in Brazil, New Zealand and Australia

“…Indigenous status was self‐reported across all studies. Racial classification in Brazil relies primarily on skin colour or physical appearance . The question for “Skin Colour” in Brazil had response options of “White,” “Black,” “Yellow” (Asiatic), “Brown” (“pardo”) or “Indigenous.” In New Zealand, the question was “Which ethnic group or groups do you belong to?”, with response options of “New Zealand European,” “Maori,” “Samoan,” “Cook Island Maori,” “Tongan,” “Niuean,” “Chinese,” “Indian,” “Other.” Only “Maori” were considered to be Indigenous in the New Zealand sense.…”

A dança dos números: aferindo experiências de discriminação em grupos multiplamente marginalizados

“…No que tange às motivações autorrelatadas para as experiências discriminatórias, se constatou que os participantes estão propensos a relatar múltiplas motivações para o tratamento diferenciado, especialmente "classe", "cor/raça", "idade" e "forma de vestir" com percentuais elevados em todos os subgrupos (Tabela 3). De acordo com outros autores 25 , os participantes que identificam múltiplos status sociais como motivações para as situações de tratamento diferencial são significativamente Cad. Saúde Pública 2018; 34(11):e00167117 mais propensos a relatar elevados níveis de discriminação.…”

“Discrimination” versus “Unfair Treatment”: Measuring Differential Treatment and its Association with Health

“…), the former may be based upon characteristics or behaviors that are unique to the individual victim (e.g., personality), while the latter is based upon an individual's identities or social group memberships (Bastos et al. ; Chae et al. ).…”

“…Instead, discrimination is a socially structured and sanctioned phenomenon, justified by ideology and expressed in interactions among and between individuals and institutions, that maintains privileges for members of dominant groups at the cost of deprivation for others" (p. 69). Although unfair treatment and discrimination are both experienced as threats to fairness and equality , the former may be based upon characteristics or behaviors that are unique to the individual victim (e.g., personality), while the latter is based upon an individual's identities or social group memberships (Bastos et al 2017;Chae et al 2008).…”