Constitutive tension: A dialectical reading of intersectionality (original) (raw)

Revisiting intersectionality: reflections on theory and praxis

2015

It is impossible to be familiar with the contemporary field of feminism and gender studies and not be aware of the massive intellectual influence of intersectionality. Having emerged in the late 1980s, intersectionality has now come to be not only the way to do feminist research, but has also been exported to other fields and disciplines. Many believe intersectionality has brought about a paradigm shift within gender studies. However, this supposed shift has taken on a performative rather than concrete form. The use of intersectionality today does not necessarily produce critical research that is vastly distinguishable from previous liberal approaches to gender studies. Instead, the claim to intersectionality is often only a performance of both something new and something critical that has increasingly reproduced older approaches to gender research, most notably liberal approaches. In this article, we address this performativity as emerging forms of identity politics that are distin...

The Concept of Intersectionality in Feminist Theory

Philosophy Compass, 2014

In feminist theory, intersectionality has become the predominant way of conceptualizing the relation between systems of oppression which construct our multiple identities and our social locations in hierarchies of power and privilege. The aim of this essay is to clarify the origins of intersectionality as a metaphor, and its theorization as a provisional concept in Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s work, followed by its uptake and mainstreaming as a paradigm by feminist theorists in a period marked by its widespread and rather unquestioned--if, at times, superficial and inattentive--usage. I adduce four analytic benefits of intersectionality as a research paradigm: simultaneity, complexity, irreducibility and inclusivity. Then, I gesture at, and respond to some critiques of intersectionality advanced in the last few years, during which the concept has increasingly come under scrutiny.

Intersectionality: old and new endeavours?

Gender Place and Culture, 2018

This short comment on intersectionality raises three points for further thought and discussion: The first has to do with the rich tradition of feminist interventions in academe and in political struggles which adopted intersectional approaches before a field of 'intersectionality studies' was developed. The second is a note about the difficult and complex passage from individual subject formation to the constitution of collective identities, following the logic of intersectional analysis and theorizing, Finally, the third point puts forward some thoughts on positionality as 'perspective' from which to interpret the complexities of intersectional analyses and seek to forge solidarities and alliances beyond individual identification.

Recent Feminist Outlooks on Intersectionality

With its recognition of the combined effects of the social categories of race, class and gender intersectionality has risen to the rank of feminism’s most important contribution to date. Though the first intersectional research (American and British) gave visibility to the social locus of women who self-identified as “black” or “of colour”, current research goes beyond the confines of the English-speaking world and aims increasingly to develop an intersectional instrument to deal with discrimination. This project gives rise to two kinds of debate: one related to producing intersectional information and to ways of carrying out research in this area, the other to do with the use of this information in the political struggle for equality. The current paper, which is confined to the first debate, attempts to bring out the main tension points in present theorizations of intersectionality. Its objective is twofold: to demonstrate certain limits to the explanatory power of intersectionality, and to suggest ways forward in the light of discussions already in train. In order to do so four points are tackled: intersectionality as a research paradigm, the issue of levels of analysis, the theoretical difference of opinion on the ontological status of categories of difference and the issue of widening the theoretical scope of intersectionality

Book Review: Intersectionality As Critical Social Theory

European Journal of Social Theory, 2020

Intersectionality has become quite the buzzword in contemporary sociology, yet scholars still debate whether it is a concept, a theory, a methodology, or all three. In Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory, Patricia Hill Collins extends the genealogy of foundational literature on this framework, contextualizing the usefulness of intersectional standpoints in understanding social inequality. With eight substantive chapters, plus an introduction and an epilogue, Collins intriguingly poses more questions than she provides answers. Rather than definitively charting out the nuanced utility of intersectionality as a critical social theory, Collins provides readers with the theoretical and conceptual foundations necessary for us to do this work ourselves.

Intersectionality as Theory and Practice

Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews

Everybody is talking about intersectionality these days. Whether one is out of the loop and wondering what all the fuss is about or in the inner circle and trying to decide whether and how to use it most effectively as a tool, either of the two books reviewed here-Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons, by Anna Carastathis, and Intersectionality, by Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge-will prove an invaluable guide. Before considering the arguments the authors advance for why the approach they take is particularly useful, it may help to step back and consider what NON-intersectional sociology looked like. In the 1980s, Elaine Hall and I surveyed all the most widely used textbooks in introductory sociology; and, among other things, we found that race, class, and gender didn't, and in some ways couldn't, intersect to inform a basic sociological understanding of inequality. These books captured the prevailing wisdom of their time: class was a macro-structural arrangement organizing societies; race was a group membership defining cultural identities, institutionalized barriers, and political mobilization; and gender was a biosocial characteristic cultivated through childhood socialization and maintained by deep-seated ''traditional'' attitudes (Ferree and Hall 1996). Operating at different levels of social organization, gender, class, and race were understood then as social processes independent of each other and ranked by the priority given them in the ''classics'' of social theory: class was definitely structurally significant, but race and gender were ''identities'' and ''epiphenomenal.'' Since then, this consensus has largely been replaced, not without struggle, by a commitment to understanding these processes as all working at all three levels, as being far from Contemporary Sociology 47, 2