User:Sorenhogberg/Intersectionality 2 SH

Reflections on the following articles

•	European Journal of Women’s Studies (2006) Volume 13 (3) s. 187-290, 103 s. Sage Journals, Online.

•	McCall, Leslie (2005): The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Volume 3 (3) s. 1771-1800, 29 s.

•	Staunaes, Dorthe (2003): Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification, s. 101-110, 9 s. NORA Volume 11 (2)

Reading the articles mentioned above has certainly broaden my understanding of intersectionality as theory. Taking it’s point of departure from a critical perspective upon the fact that inequalities seem to last in spite of convincing results along with previous as well as today’s research that develop critical results on the one and at the same time create conservative contributions on the other hand, as Bredström shows according to race within the context of people having HIV/AIDS, has opened for a reflexive attitude to research methods in general. The knowledge emerged out of black feminism has led to a richer and more complex ontology and a continuously ongoing process of questioning methods of intersectionality itself.

There is probably a number of ways that these articles could be read but my way of approaching them will be to seek for the ways the authors claim the necessity to expand ways of understanding intersectionality. Yuval-Davis and others question the additive way of understanding inequalities. When so is the case research seem to remain only on one level of analysis, the experiential. This becomes a problem since results then will be mainly understood as different kinds of identities. Instead by looking on the relations between discourse and peoples way of identify themselves it’s possible to understand how hegemonies works in society. That’s why Yuval-Davis argues for the need to scrutinize inequalities on several levels. What creates identity is a complex process that involves differences relating to different powering positions but also how these are interpreted according to cultural differences. I also find it interesting when existing political values are implemented into the understanding of how identity epistemology is formed.

Several authors (Prins, Verloo, Yuval-Davis and others) argue that mistakes are being made if different kinds of categories as race, gender etc are managed in similar ways. Verloo explains this in a convincing way by taking a closer look at the complexity of multiple inequalities. When doing this she also makes a distinction between structural intersectionality and political intersectionality showing that differences between categories are obvious when we take a close look. She then addresses a number of strategies to avoid this mistake. If the differences between categories are not taken into consideration there is a risk that political intentions, when dealing with these kinds of questions, will lead to unwished consequences.

Another debate within the field on intersection has to do with the dimension of power according to the process of positioning the subject in relation to the agency of the subject. The question touches the arguments held by Yuval-Davis but is more in detail elaborated by Buitelaar who shows how articulations of I-positions are made in order to make a stand. The agency conducted by the individual can be understood as an exploration of how identity can be co-constructed and reconstructed, in relation to different categories, for a certain purpose. Looking upon sub-cultures that take a resisting stand by redefining their status of position also give evidence to the fact that individuals are not absolutely determined to identify themselves with what at first seems to be a definite subject position. In fact Staunaes shows us how inequality and exclusion in one category can create an agency for strengthening positions in another category.

Futhermore Prins makes a distinction between systematic and constructionist interpretations of intersectionality. The point, hereby made, links to the question of categories which has a big place in the debate. Prins argues for a constructionist perspective since we otherwise will overlook possible ways of understanding inequality. In the study a new category, origins, was found that could explain how different subject positions were constructed. If Prins would have taken his point of departure from already accepted categories, the individuals’ way of identifying themselves would have been making no sense.

Well then, are categories good or bad? Leslie McCall put this question in new light when arguing for a possibility to use categories deliberately. By discussing a continuum from (inter)categorical complexity to anticategorical complexity where an intracategorical complexity is placed somewhere in-between, she clarifies that intersectionality is neither a positivist nor a postmodern science. I found this discussion very important since it places intersectionality in another position relating to theory of science than I first expected. I believe that McCall:s paper contributes to understand intersectionality as a theory of methodology. Perhaps postmodern anticategorical complexity studies have given me, and perhaps others, the idea that intersectionality belongs in that field. When McCall argues for at more positivist approach, she talks about critical realism, using categories and looking for quantitative data, she convinces me that intersectionality is a possible approach also when taking her point of departure from an angel of categorical complexity. But maybe my main belief has been that of placing intersectionality in a position constructed by a combination of discourse theory and Marxist theory. In any case, McCall clarifies intersectionality by taking an unusual position.

The intracategorical category could also be understood as a category in-between. An act of balance where focus alternate from the ways of how structural powers in society are creating demarcation, which leads to exclusion and inequality to how individuals handle the position offered (se the discussion above). An intracategorical complexity will then try to reveal and understand differences within a group. This is what Ludvig accomplishes in her work looking for differences between women.

Finally I want to give voice to Staunaes who broadens the object of intersectionality from “the otherness” to also include the “firstness”. Maybe this has been taken for granted but I think Staunaes has got a point when trying to find the “firstness” on same conditions as the “otherness” instead of just creating a notion of the “firstness” based upon the “otherness”.

- A question to be discussed according to the discussion above is: If intersectionality is a theory of methodology, or if focus is upon “firstness”, is it possible to understand intersectionality as not a member of critical research?