What is Intersectionality?
The premise of intersectionality theory, first articulated by feminists of color, is that social differentiation is achieved through complex interactions between markers of difference such as gender, race, and class. In order to comprehend how an individual’s access to social, political, and economic institutions is differentially experienced, it is necessary to analyze how markers of difference intersect and interact.
In the 1970s feminist theory could be divided into different perspectives based on the identification of the root of women’s oppression. Liberal feminists identified unequal access to existing economic and political systems, whereas radical feminists named patriarchy, the control of women by men, as the key oppressive system. Marxist and socialist feminists, following the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, believed that capitalism was the main determinant of women’s oppression. Socialist feminists engaged in active debates on the relationship between class and gender oppression, some arguing that women constituted a sexual class that functioned within the capitalist framework. Others, such as Betsy Hartmann, posited a dual-systems theory or a capitalist patriarchy in which patriarchy was viewed as a system of oppression anchored in material conditions (e.g., the institution of marriage, property ownership) acting alongside the relations of class. Issues of race and sexuality were largely absent from these debates.
Although second-wave feminists challenged traditional scholarship for positioning the experiences of men as universal, black feminists and lesbians critiqued these feminists for excluding issues of race and sexuality from feminist analysis, thus falsely universalizing the experiences of middle-class heterosexual white women. In the late 1970s only a few authors, mostly women of color, were writing about gender, race, and class as interconnected systems of oppression. The Combahee River Collective, a group of black feminist activists from Boston, is widely credited for first theorizing the interconnections between gender, race, class, and sexuality. In “A Black Feminist Statement” (1983) they outline how they view gender, race, class, and sexuality as connected: “We are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives” (p. 210). An intersectional approach complicates analyses of power relations that give priority to one element of identity.
Although intersectionality theory emerged in the 1970s, its roots can be traced back to a speech delivered by Sojourner Truth (c. 1797–1883), a black woman who had been a slave, at the 1851 Women’s Rights Conference in Akron, Ohio. In this passage, she articulates how her identity is shaped not only by her gender, but also by her race and class: “That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place. And ain’t I a woman?” (Painter 1996, p. 165). According to Avtar Brah and Ann Phoenix (2004), “Sojourner Truth’s identity claims are thus relational, constructed in relation to white women and all men and clearly demonstrate that what we call ‘identities’ are not objects but processes constituted in and through power relations” (p. 77).
Kimberle Crenshaw's TED Talk on intersectionality:
Kimberle Crenshaw at the 2017 NAIS People of Color Conference:
Sojourner Truth was born a slave in Ulster County, New York. Her masters at birth were the Hardenburgh family, descendents of Dutch “patroon” planters, and she was named Isabella Baumfree at birth. During her lifetime she was sold several times, married Thomas Dumont, another slave, and had at least four children with him. In 1827 New York freed all remaining slaves, but Isabella had already left her owners. After the abolition of slavery, she successfully sued her former owners to obtain the freedom of one of her children, whom they had transferred to Alabama.
The 1830s were a time of great religious ferment, called the Second Great Awakening. Isabella was caught up in the movement, and she traveled around the northeast and settled in several religious communes. It was about this time that she began calling herself Sojourner Truth and became an itinerant preacher.
In the 1840s she became active in the abolitionist movement, and she worked with many abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass (1817–1895) and William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879). She was in great demand as a speaker, and her memoir The Narrative of Sojourner Truth, a Northern Slave, was dictated to and edited by abolitionist author Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896).
Sojourner Truth also became involved in women’s rights issues. Like many abolitionists, she saw a connection between the issues of women’s liberation and freedom for blacks. Her most famous speech, “Ain’t I A Woman?,” was delivered at a women’s rights conference in 1851. The speech was transcribed by another woman abolitionist, Frances Gage, who published it almost thirty years later. Gage’s text is the only record of Sojourner Truth’s oratorical style, and it is written in nonstandard English. It is unclear if that is really the way Sojourner Truth spoke. Contemporaries, both black and white, always described her as a riveting speaker, and nobody ever suggested that her English was poor or difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the speech as transcribed shows some of the power of Sojourner Truth’s oratory: the biblical or theological arguments mixed with homely, rural simile, the chatty tone, the repetition of “and ain’t I a woman?” and other rhetorical elements that have made this speech a classic of early feminism.
When the Civil War (1861–1865) broke out, Sojourner Truth worked for better conditions for blacks in the Union military and against segregation in northern cities. After the war she called for the establishment of a “Negro state” in the west. She also supported the Freedman’s Bureau and tried to help black war refugees and the newly freed people in the South find jobs and housing. She continued to work for women’s rights, civil rights for blacks, and temperance (laws restricting alcohol consumption) until her death in 1883.
Sojourner Truth is important because she helped set the terms of reference for the debate over slavery, civil rights for blacks after the Civil War, and women’s rights in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. She is probably as important a figure as any of the other well-known abolitionists—Douglass, Garrison, Beecher Stowe—especially because as a black woman she has inherent credibility on both black and women’s issues. She is also important as an example of a little-appreciated phenomenon, the link between Protestant evangelical Christianity, abolitionism, and women’s liberation. It is important to realize that in the middle of the 1800s, evangelical Christians were more likely to be radicals than conservatives. Finally, she deserves attention because of her lively speaking style. There is a reason that she stood out as a speaker and sold many books in that era, so well provided with great speakers and writers.
Painter, Nell Irvin. 1996. Sojourner Truth: A Life, a Symbol. New York: W. W. Norton.
Truth, Sojourner. 1998. Narrative of Sojourner Truth. New York: Penguin Classics.
Mary Lou Satovec, Women in Higher Education (Vol. 26, Issue 3)
The movie Hidden Figures tells the story of four black women who worked at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration during the manned space era. Although their work was critical to the space program, they were relegated to second-tier status not just because of their gender, but also because of their race.
Those women are prime examples for what Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw sees as the necessity for "intersectionality." Crenshaw, who initially coined the term some three decades ago and has spent her professional life working on it along with critical race theory, defines intersectionality as the connection between two constructs such as race and gender. It's at that connection where work to combat discrimination can be most effective.
Crenshaw, the executive director of the African American Policy Forum (AAPF), splits her time as professor of law at both Columbia University and at the University of California, Los Angeles. Now in its twentieth year, the AAPF is a think tank that connects "activists, academics and policy makers to promote efforts to dismantle structural inequality." She's also the director of the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies at Columbia Law School.
You may recognize Crenshaw from her national work. The AAPF has developed a series of initiatives, including Say Her Name, that gives voice to women of color killed by police. The Black Girls Matter initiative points to the excessive disciplinary actions black girls face compared with their white counterparts.
An activist in her college days, Crenshaw earned her bachelor's degree at Cornell University NY in Africana studies and government and a master's degree in law at the University of Wisconsin. She received her juris doctor from Harvard University MA.
While in Madison, Crenshaw clerked for Shirley Abrahamson, who was then chief justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. She credits her time with Abrahamson as the "fork in the road" to the life she has now. Joining the academy and working on racial issues rather than becoming a partner at a high-powered law firm was a choice that "for some people was economically insane," she said.
But for Crenshaw, it's all about doing something you're passionate about. "Is your mind hooked up to your soul?" she asked, rhetorically.
Long noted for her academic accomplishments, Crenshaw has also earned a seemingly endless list of awards. A Fulbright Distinguished Chair for Latin America, she was named the 2016 Fellows Outstanding Scholar by the American Bar Foundation. Crenshaw was twice named Professor of the Year at UCLA Law School and spent a fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.
A founding member of the Women's Media Initiative, you'll find her work in Ms. magazine, The Nation and other publications. She's appeared as a regular commentator on NPR, MSNBC and The Tavis Smiley Show.
Her most recent honor is the 2016-17 Joseph B. and Toby Gittler Prize from Brandeis University. The prize, given for "a body of published work that reflects scholarly excellence and makes a lasting contribution to racial, ethnic or religious relations," includes a medal, $25,000 and the opportunity to lecture at the Massachusetts campus.
Her lecture topic has been a "moving target." "Two months ago, I had a very different topic in mind," she said. "The issues in front of us will be ripened by the time that talk happens.
"Intersectionality will help us identify with more clarity the troubling dynamics playing out right now."
A Topic With Many Layers
Ask Crenshaw how she came to study the topic of intersectionality and her response is that it's "like peeling an onion." As an activist, she realized racial justice was seen as gendered and focused on men. It didn't take into account justice around gender and sexual orientation.
As a young law professor, Crenshaw wanted to know how the law handled intersectionality. After reading many court cases, she discovered that the law was no better than society and was often worse. Some courts felt that black men and white women didn't need "two swings at bat," so "why should we allow women of color to have two swings?"
It was difficult to persuade courts to change or to look at both, she said. That meant there was no place for women of color to get justice, especially in cases of violence against them.
"The law's refusal to intervene doubled or tripled the vulnerabilities of women of color," she said, and "placed an additional burden" on them. "You can't have a onesize-fits-all approach to gender injustice."
The circumstances of vulnerability are often quite different among black, white and immigrant women. For example, Crenshaw noted that because domestic shelter services are listed only in English, those who don't speak the language can't access them.
Switching From Coalitions to Intersectionality
Crenshaw has studied how black women, in particular, have higher levels of police and sexual violence. But that reality doesn't show up in the movements that fight against husband/boyfriend/stranger violence. "Very few anti-violence groups are getting behind the police violence against black women" like they have against black men, she said.
Given the status of politics today, we need a new focus on intersectionality rather than just on building coalitions. Coalitions are weak, she said. The "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of thinking can't compare to movement building based on intersectionality, which can form tighter and more organic connections as well as reflect the constituencies that already exist.
Those who fight against racial violence should welcome members of an immigrant rights group who fight against violence against women. "Their advocacy doesn't overlook specific ways they can help," explained Crenshaw.
Follow Your Passion
Crenshaw grew up in Canton, Ohio, the daughter of two schoolteachers. Her mother taught for 50 years, along with being a church organist and musician.
Her father, who was also a musician, started out in the classroom, but finished as executive director of public housing. "He pushed scattered-site public housing before he died," she said. (When Crenshaw is in New York City, she sings in the well-known Riverside Church choir.)
The peripatetic Crenshaw definitely leads a full life. She flips coasts each semester and admits she will often look for a particular suit or book only to realize it's across the country.
When asked about work-life balance, she demurred, saying, "No one should take my advice on work-life balance. My friends and family say I don't have it."
Crenshaw does take an annual vacation in Jamaica at a social justice writer's retreat. "It's a nice place to do collaborative work," she said.
In her spare time, she loves to cook, especially Thai food. "I cooked a meal for Derrick Bell, one of my mentors, and his wife," she recalled.
The late Bell (the first tenured black professor at Harvard Law) was hesitant to eat it. "He didn't think I had any domestic skills," Crenshaw said. But her messy kitchen proved otherwise.
Passion, whether in the kitchen or with others on the streets, is what drives Crenshaw to advocate for issues that fall through the cracks. Her advice to others? "Follow your passion, the thing that gives you joy and pleasure even if it isn't joyful or pleasurable."
--MLS
Satovec, Mary Lou. "The necessity of intersectionality: a profile of Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw." Women in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 3, Mar. 2017.
In the early twenty-first century, intersectionality theory received wide support from social science researchers. Many researchers adopted intersectionality theory in their development of research questions, methodologies, and analysis. Some researchers who used this approach framed the intersections of gender, race, and class as additive so that a black woman would be seen as facing a “double jeopardy” due to the combined impact of gender and racial inequality. Elizabeth Spelman (1988) argued that treating interlocking systems of oppression as additive implies that processes of gender, race, and class are separate entities, and it ignores how these factors interact to shape lived experience. Intersectionality approaches the concepts of gender, race, and class as social constructions that vary across geography and time; markers of difference are not viewed as static traits, but as processes that are (re)produced in the daily actions of people.
Both qualitative and quantitative researchers have taken up intersectionality theory in their investigations into the workings of social reality, although qualitative approaches have far outnumbered quantitative studies. Marlene Kim (2002) applied an intersectionality framework to her quantitative investigation of how gender and race processes affect the wages of women in the United States. Her research indicates that black women face a “race penalty” in that when all factors are considered, they earn 7 percent less than white women in the same industries. Feminist economists Rose M. Brewer, Cecelia A. Conrad, and Mary C. King (2002) point out that there are many challenges of applying an intersectionality framework to the empirical investigation of social differentiation: “Even as we increasingly understand the mutually constitutive nature of color, caste, race, gender, and class, analytically, as categories of analysis and identity, the project remains difficult” (p. 5). Quantitative research studies tend to address issues of gender independent of race or class.
An important quantitative research project was conducted by Leslie McCall (2001), who analyzes the impact of gender, race, and class on wage inequality in four U.S. cities with different local economic contexts: Detroit, Miami, St. Louis, and Dallas. By combining an analysis of case-study and large-scale survey data, McCall demonstrates that gender and racial inequality have different consequences in different contexts; in some instances, a decrease in gender inequality is accompanied by an increase in racial inequality between women. She identifies configurations of inequality as a term to describe the shifting interactions between gender, race, and class. These configurations “reveal that in no local economy are all types of wage inequality systematically and simultaneously lower or higher; complex interactions of various dimensions of inequality are the norm” (p. 6). Her analysis is an important development in understanding the relationship between relations of gender, race, and class.
Researchers who use intersectionality theory present a more sophisticated, nuanced understanding of the workings of power relations. Susan Stanford Friedman (1995) proposed a framework of “relational positionality” that acknowledges how “the flow of power in multiple systems of domination is not always unidirectional. Victims can also be victimizers; agents of change can also be complicit, depending on the particular axis of power one considers” (p. 18). Sherene Razack (1998) argues that “it is vitally important to explore in a historical and site-specific way the meaning of race, economic status, class, disability, sexuality, and gender as they come together to structure women in different and shifting positions of power and privilege” (p. 12). The research of intersectionality theorists makes an important contribution to the social sciences; it is now considered incomplete scholarship in women’s studies or cultural studies for a researcher to undertake an analysis of gender relations without consideration of how race and class relations are also implicated.
Brah, Avtar, and Ann Phoenix. 2004. Ain’t I a Woman? Revisiting Intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s studies 5 (3): 75–86.
Brewer, Rose M., Cecelia A. Conrad, and Mary C. King. 2002. The Complexities and Potential of Theorizing Gender, Caste, Race, and Class. Feminist Economics 8 (2): 3–18.
Combahee River Collective. 1983. A Black Feminist Statement. In This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, eds. Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, 210–219. New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press.
Friedman, Susan Stanford. 1995. Beyond White and Other: Relationality and Narratives of Race in Feminist Discourse. Signs 21 (1): 1–21.
Kim, Marlene. 2002. Has the Race Penalty for Black Women Disappeared in the United States? Feminist Economics 8 (2): 115–124.
McCall, Leslie. 2001. Complex Inequality: Gender, Class, and Race in the New Economy. New York: Routledge.
Painter, Nell Irvin. 1996. Sojourner Truth: A Life, a Symbol. New York: W. H. Norton.
Razack, Sherene H. 1998. Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race, and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Spelman, Elizabeth. 1988. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon Press.
Anthias, Floya. 1998. “Rethinking Social Divisions: Some Notes Towards a Theoretical Framework.” Sociological Review 46 (3): 557–580.
Becker, Howard S. 1967. “Whose Side Are We On?” Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.
Bonnett, Alastair. 2003. Radicalism, Anti-racism, and Representation. London: Routledge.
Brah, Avtar. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.
Bulmer, Martin, and John Solomos. 1999. “Introduction.” In Ethnic and Racial Studies Today, edited by Martin Bulmer and John Solomos. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1989. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge.
Choo, Hae Yeon, and Myra Marx Ferree. 2010. “Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequality.” Sociological Theory 28 (2): 129–149.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000a. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000b. “It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation.” In Decentering the Center: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World, edited by Uma Narayan and Sandra Harding, 156–176. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 14: 54139–54167.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.
Davis, Kathy. 2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory 9 (1): 67–85.
hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
hooks, bell. 1992. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, MA: South End Press.
hooks, bell. 1994. Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge.
Hull, Gloria T.; Patricia Bell Scott; and Barbara Smith, eds. 1982. All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
intersectionality.org . Accessed May 26, 2012. Available from http://www.intersectionality.org/
Jamal, Amaney, and Nadine Naber, eds. 2008. Race and Arab Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Subjects to Visible Subjects. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
King, Deborah K. 1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.” Signs 14 (1): 42–72.
Lykke, Nina. 2005. “Intersectionality Revisited: Problems and Potentials” (in Swedish). Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift 2 (3): 7–17.
Mani, Lata. 1989. “Multiple Mediations: Feminist Scholarship in the Age of Multinational Reception.” Inscriptions 5: 1–24.
Matsuda, Mari J. 1991. “Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy: Legal Theory Out of Coalition.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1183–1192.
McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs 30 (3): 1771–1800.
Naber, Nadine. 2009. “Osama's Daughters: Cultural Racism, Nation-based Racism, and the Intersectionality of Oppressions after 9/11.” Review of Women's Studies 5: 50–63.
Payne, Geoff, ed. 2006. Social Divisions, 2nd ed. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Phoenix, Ann, and Pamela Pattynama. 2006. “Editorial: Intersectionality.” European Journal of Women's Studies 13 (3): 187–192.
Valentine, Gill. 2007. “Theorizing and Researching Intersectionality: A Challenge for Feminist Geography.” Professional Geographer 59 (1): 10–21.
Verloo, Mieke. 2006. “Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the European Union.” European Journal of Women's Studies 13 (3): 211–228.
Yuval-Davis, Nira; Kalpana Kannabiran; and Ulrike Vieten, eds. 2006. The Situated Politics of Belonging. London: Sage.
What was exactly “new” about intersectionality when it emerged in the late 1980s? Even though it had its roots in feminist epistemology, one of the major attractions of intersectionality was the fact that it was purposely collaborative in spirit: It could connect critical voices across a range of theoretical positions, as well as advocacy groups that were seeking to challenge the effects of class prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and racism. In addition, intersectionality offered a methodological home to those scholars who arrived at such questions via more post-modern routes. For perhaps the first time, irrespective of whether individuals and groups were searching for a political toolkit to challenge oppression or merely wanted to playfully deconstruct the foundations and imposed categories of a subordinating ideology, there was a common theoretical approach that could be shared and developed in tandem, which Nina Lykke (2005) has described as “a joint nodal point.”
For postmodernists such as Judith Butler (1989, 1993), the issue concerns “unsettling” the essentialist and reified conceptual thinking of those modernists who are engaged in critical thinking across a range of social divisions in society, not least on the whole matter of identity politics and the positioning of “self.” For modernist scholars, the postmodernist turn had led to a lack of appreciation for the real, lived, material inequalities, and experiences that poor women, black men, and transgender communities, for example, face on a daily basis.
Further, although categorization had to be problematized and held to account, a politics of identity was not altogether unhelpful in both conceptual and activist terms of reference. Social change and a “better world,” as hooks (1992, 1994) has noted, were not achieved via fanciful deconstruction but through challenging racism and sexism on the streets and in the corridors of power. Nonetheless, despite some distance between the positions, intersectionality potentially offers a theoretical and methodological bridge that connects the postmodernists and those advocating a more materialist position. One of the central focal points for intersectionality is understanding and challenging power—the way power is sought, employed, held onto, abused, and lost—and the multiple impacts it can have in terms of the continued subordination and oppression of a range of groups and communities within contemporary societies (Davis 2008). What intersectionality does well is offer several options: It can have a political purpose that aims to unsettle and challenge gender- and race-based material inequalities, but it can also assist postmodernists in their own project of anti-essentialist deconstruction and resistance to universalism, as well as allaying fears that post-modernism is too remote from the everyday lives of those facing oppression. In particular, intersectionality can help all scholars resist the so-called “additive approach” to examining identity politics.
Another reason for the appeal of intersectionality is the fact that, in a relatively short amount of time, it has been paid great attention across a range of disciplines and interests, whether sociology within gender studies or cultural geography within ethnic and racial studies. It has become, whether by design or by accident, a kind of grand theory and to a lesser extent a working methodology within the social sciences. As a term, intersectionality has become synonymous with how social scientists think about and explain “difference” and identity across a range of areas, such as class, gender, and race. Intersectionality offers a conceptual and methodological map, and a road of travel, for examining social and political practices and how they reproduce and sustain oppression. In addition, intersectionality helps activists understand how challenges and resistance to oppressive social structures, institutions, and practices might form.
As Davis has noted, the concept of intersectionality appeals to authors who are “tourists” (the generalists, she calls them) in the area of feminist theory, as well as those who are “residents” (the specialists) (2008, pp. 74–75). Indeed, intersectionality has been the subject of many articles and blog posts, as well as seminars and conferences attended by both tourists and residents who have engaged with the complexities of the term. It is not hard to find the points of debate. Where are the boundaries and limits of “difference”? What are the commonalities of our identities? When proposing an intersectional approach, what social categories—if such essentialist thinking is even countenanced—are to be included and excluded? How can intersectional research and writing be best used—if at all—in unseating power and discriminatory actions? One way of drawing the lines for those adopting an intersectional approach to research, for example, is to be clear regarding the definitions and scope of the project being undertaken, although such clarity can be hard to pin down (Valentine 2007).
Clark, Colin. "Intersectionality." Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, edited by Patrick L. Mason, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2013.