Intersectionality
Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, weight[1] and physical appearance.[2] These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empowering and oppressing.[3][4] However, little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the practical uses of intersectionality.[5]
Intersectionality broadens the scope of the first and second waves of feminism, which largely focused on the experiences of women who were white, middle-class and cisgender,[6] to include the different experiences of women of color, poor women, immigrant women, and other groups. Intersectional feminism aims to separate itself from white feminism by acknowledging women's differing experiences and identities.[7]
The term intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.[8]: 385 She describes how interlocking systems of power affect those who are most marginalized in society.[8] Activists and academics use the framework to promote social and political egalitarianism.[7] Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each axis of oppression in isolation. In this framework, for instance, discrimination against black women cannot be explained as a simple combination of misogyny and racism, but as something more complicated.[9] Intersectionality engages in similar themes as triple oppression, which is the oppression associated with being a poor or immigrant woman of color.
Criticism includes the framework's tendency to reduce individuals to specific demographic factors,[10] and its use as an ideological tool against other feminist theories.[11] Critics have characterized the framework as ambiguous and lacking defined goals. As it is based in standpoint theory, critics say the focus on subjective experiences can lead to contradictions and the inability to identify common causes of oppression. An analysis of academic articles published through December 2019 found that there are no widely adopted quantitative methods to investigate research questions informed by intersectionality and provided recommendations on analytic best practices for future research.[12] An analysis of academic articles published through May 2020 found that intersectionality is frequently misunderstood when bridging theory into quantitative methodology.[5] In 2022, a quantitative approach to intersectionality was proposed based on information theory, specifically synergistic information: in this framing, intersectionality is identified with the information about some outcome (e.g. income, etc.) that can only be learned when multiple identities (e.g. race and sex) and known together, and not extractable from analysis of the individual identities considered separately.[13]
Forms: structural, political, representational[edit]
Kimberlé Crenshaw, in "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color",[18] uses and explains three different forms of intersectionality to describe the violence that women experience. According to Crenshaw, there are three forms of intersectionality: structural, political, and representational intersectionality.
Structural intersectionality is used to describe how different structures work together and create a complex which highlights the differences in the experiences of women of color with domestic violence and rape. Structural intersectionality entails the ways in which classism, sexism, and racism interlock and oppress women of color while molding their experiences in different arenas. Crenshaw's analysis of structural intersectionality was used during her field study of battered women. In this study, Crenshaw uses intersectionality to display the multilayered oppressions that women who are victims of domestic violence face.[61]
Political intersectionality highlights two conflicting systems in the political arena, which separates women and women of color into two subordinate groups.[61] The experiences of women of color differ from those of white women and men of color due to their race and gender often intersecting. White women suffer from gender bias, and men of color suffer from racial bias; however, both of their experiences differ from that of women of color, because women of color experience both racial and gender bias. According to Crenshaw, a political failure of the antiracist and feminist discourses was the exclusion of the intersection of race and gender that places priority on the interest of "people of color" and "women", thus disregarding one while highlighting the other. Political engagement should reflect support of women of color; a prime example of the exclusion of women of color that shows the difference in the experiences of white women and women of color is the women's suffrage march.[42]
Representational intersectionality advocates for the creation of imagery that is supportive of women of color. Representational intersectionality condemns sexist and racist marginalization of women of color in representation. Representational intersectionality also highlights the importance of women of color having representation in media and contemporary settings.
Key concepts[edit]
Interlocking matrix of oppression[edit]
Collins refers to the various intersections of social inequality as the matrix of domination. These are also known as "vectors of oppression and privilege".[62]: 204 These terms refer to how differences among people (sexual orientation, class, race, age, etc.) serve as oppressive measures towards women and change the experience of living as a woman in society. Collins, Audre Lorde (in Sister Outsider), and bell hooks point towards either/or thinking as an influence on this oppression and as further intensifying these differences.[63] Specifically, Collins refers to this as the construct of dichotomous oppositional difference. This construct is characterized by its focus on differences rather than similarities.[64]: S20 Lisa A. Flores suggests, when individuals live in the borders, they "find themselves with a foot in both worlds". The result is "the sense of being neither" exclusively one identity nor another.[65]
Standpoint epistemology and the outsider within[edit]
Both Collins and Dorothy Smith have been instrumental in providing a sociological definition of standpoint theory. A standpoint is an individual's world perspective. The theoretical basis of this approach views societal knowledge as being located within an individual's specific geographic location. In turn, knowledge becomes distinct and subjective; it varies depending on the social conditions under which it was produced.[66]: 392
The concept of the outsider within refers to a standpoint encompassing the self, family, and society.[64]: S14 This relates to the specific experiences to which people are subjected as they move from a common cultural world (i.e., family) to that of modern society.[62]: 207 Therefore, even though a woman—especially a Black woman—may become influential in a particular field, she may feel as though she does not belong. Her personality, behavior, and cultural being overshadow her value as an individual; thus, she becomes the outsider within.[64]: S14
Resisting oppression[edit]
Speaking from a critical standpoint, Collins points out that Brittan and Maynard say that "domination always involves the objectification of the dominated; all forms of oppression imply the devaluation of the subjectivity of the oppressed".[64]: S18 She later notes that self-valuation and self-definition are two ways of resisting oppression, and claims the practice of self-awareness helps to preserve the self-esteem of the group that is being oppressed while allowing them to avoid any dehumanizing outside influences.
Marginalized groups often gain a status of being an "other".[64]: S18 In essence, you are "an other" if you are different from what Audre Lorde calls the mythical norm. Gloria Anzaldúa, scholar of Chicana cultural theory, theorized that the sociological term for this is "othering", i.e. specifically attempting to establish a person as unacceptable based on a certain, unachieved criterion.[62]: 205
Intersectionality and gender[edit]
Intersectional theories in relation to gender recognize that each person has their own mix of identities which combine to create them, and where these identities "meet in the middle"[67] therein lies each person's intersectionality. These intersections lie between components such as class, race, religion, ethnicity, ability, income, indignity, and any other part of a person's identity which shapes their life, and the way others treat them. Stephanie A. Shields in her article on intersectionality and gender[68] explains how each part of someones identity "serve as organizing features of social relations, mutually constitute, reinforce, and naturalize one another."[68] Shields explains how one aspect can not exist individually, rather it "takes its meaning as a category in relation to another category."[68]
