Intersectionality is a concept gaining traction in feminist discussions, evidenced by multiple international conferences and forums. It addresses the simultaneous positioning of individuals within various social categories such as gender, race, class, and sexuality.
The concept of intersectionality was officially coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw.
The rise in popularity of intersectionality stems from its ability to encapsulate the complexities of identity and power relations in everyday life.
Intersectionality serves as a shorthand for ideas accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies, emphasizing relational social positions and the need for multiplex epistemologies.
Core Concepts
Multiple Positioning: Intersectionality highlights that people are simultaneously positioned across various social categories (e.g., woman, Black, working-class), moving beyond single-category approaches.
Relational Social Positions: Knowledge production should treat social positions as relational, acknowledging that identities are constructed in relation to one another.
Critique of Identity Politics: Intersectionality critiques identity politics for its additive, politically fragmentary, and essentializing tendencies.
Debates and Disagreements
Organizing Logics of Social Divisions: Skeggs (2006) argues that social divisions like ‘race’ and social class have different organizing logics and cannot be treated the same way.
Framing of Inequalities: Verloo emphasizes that inequalities are dissimilar because they are framed differently and policy strategies should address both the similarity and distinctiveness of inequalities.
Systemic vs. Constructionist Intersectionality: Prins divides intersectionality into systemic (US-based) and constructionist (UK-based) approaches. The systemic approach may limit representation of complexity by treating power as unilateral and assuming subjects are primarily constituted by systems of domination. The constructionist approach allows for more nuanced complexity and contradiction.
Critique of 'Etc.' Lists: Some articles reference Judith Butler’s (1990) critique of the ‘etc.’ in lists of social divisions, which she argues signals exhaustion and an illimitable process of signification.
Analytical Levels of Social Divisions: Yuval-Davis argues against Butler, stating that her critique is only valid within identity politics and emphasizes the importance of separating analytical levels in which social divisions are examined. She suggests that in specific historical situations, some social divisions are more important than others.
Methodological and Political Implications
Irreducibility of Social Groupings: Ludvig asserts that it is impossible to address the infinite complexities of differences and suggests focusing on the specificity of time and place in constructions of structural differences.
Dialogical Self: Buitelaar uses linguistics and the concept of the dialogical self to analyze gendered identifications, demonstrating how a single interview can provide insights into intersectionality through multiple voices in a narrative.
Political Action and Policy Development: Articles by Yuval-Davis, Verloo, and Bredström suggest ways to move forward politics and policy while recognizing the need for further thinking.
Political Embedding of Individual Stories: Articles by Ludvig, Buitelaar, and Prins highlight how individual stories are politically embedded and have political consequences, balancing specificity and politics.
Methodological Contributions: The articles address the criticism that intersectionality lacks associated methods by taking forward insights in existing literature (e.g., McCall, 2005), contributing to methodological development.
Relevance to Policy: Bredström's article demonstrates that inattention to some differences over others can produce less policy-relevant and analytically sound analyses.
Specific Applications and Case Studies
Feminist HIV/AIDS Research: Bredström focuses on the relevance of intersectionality to feminist HIV/AIDS research, challenging unproblematized ‘cultural differences’ and arguing for a contextualized approach where systems of oppression are seen as mutually constructing one another.
Narrative Analysis: Ludvig analyzes a single narrative self-presentation to look at differences both within and across individuals, showing how the specificity of time and place affect the particularities of gender.
Life-Narratives of Migrants: Buitelaar analyzes the life-narrative of an adult daughter of Moroccan labor migrants, showing how identity is shaped through the orchestrating of collective voices, particularly a ‘Muslim voice’ that allows for religious identification within a Dutch political discourse.
Identity Formations: Prins analyzes life-stories of Moluccan and Dutch classmates, arguing that questions of origins remain significant for identity formations and that the forging of new routes is hampered when collective roots cannot be established.
Key Arguments and Developments
Shift in Focus: Yuval-Davis discusses the shift from focusing on relationships between divisions to conflation or separation of analytical levels, advocating for political dialogue led by those with the most urgent needs.
Addressing Multiple Inequalities: Verloo argues that strategies addressing multiple inequalities should go beyond gender mainstreaming, requiring further development of intersectionality theory, complex methods, increased resources, and rethinking citizen representation.
Challenging Cultural Differences: Bredström challenges unproblematized ‘cultural differences’ in sexual health research and argues for perceiving gender and sexuality as unstable categories.
Complexity of Intersectionality: Ludvig discusses McCall’s suggestions for dealing with the complexity of intersectionality and opts for analyzing a single narrative self-presentation.
Conclusion
The included articles contribute to feminist understandings of intersectionality and highlight the need for ongoing political articulation, struggle, debate, and deliberation.