Considerations on Mainstreaming Intersectionality

• Published date: 01 March 2011
• Author: Rita Kaur Dhamoon
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910379227
• Date: 01 March 2011
• Subject Matter: Mini-Symposium

Political Research Quarterly
64(1) 230 –243
Considerations on Mainstreaming
© 2011 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Intersectionality
DOI: 10.1177/1065912910379227
http://prq.sagepub.com
Rita Kaur Dhamoon1
Abstract
This article identifies five key considerations for adopting and mainstreaming intersectionality: the language and
concepts that are used; the complexities of difference and how to navigate this complexity; the choice of focusing on
identities, categories, processes, and/or systems; the model that is used to explain and describe mutually constituted
differences; and the principles that determine which interactions are analyzed. The author argues that in the process
of mainstreaming intersectionality, it is crucial to frame it as a form of social critique so as to foreground its radical
capacity to attend to and disrupt oppressive vehicles of power.
Keywords
intersectionality, feminism, matrix, critique
Over recent decades, the study of multiple, co-constituted
conceptual boundaries. Overall, the mainstreaming of inter-
differences has taken a strong hold in strands of femi-
sectionality benefits political science and other social sci-
nism under the rubric of intersectionality. Intersectional-
ences because it expands and deepens the tools available
ity, as Ange-Marie Hancock (2007, 63) recently noted, is
to conduct, catalogue, and interpret research.
not simply a normative-theoretical argument but also a
But what precisely about intersectionality should be
research paradigm.1 As such, rather than limiting intersec-
mainstreamed?2 This can be a complicated question to
tionality research to “a content specialization in popula-
answer because there is contestation about intersectionality
tions with intersecting marginalized identities” (Hancock
within feminist theory. Like other research paradigms, not
2007, 64), this analytic paradigm can be widely applied
only is intersectionality constantly evolving, but feminists
to the study of social groups, relations, and contexts, so as
also differ in their understanding of it and adopt a wide
to go beyond the conventional scope of nonwhite women.
range of empirical and normative tools. The contestability
On this basis, as a framework of analysis that is widely
among feminists is not itself my concern, for this reflects
applicable to various relations of marginality and privi-
the diversity and flexibility of intersectionality frame-
lege, intersectionality can be integrated into mainstream
works and indicates openness to further reflection, clarifi-
social science ways of conducting research and building
cation, and inquiry. But precisely because intersectionality
knowledge.
is a burgeoning and contested framework, my goals are to
The notion of mainstreaming intersectionality is appeal-
first to outline and clarify a set of theoretical consider-
ing for many reasons. As Ann Phoenix and Pamela
ations that are important for adopting this research para-
Pattynama (2006, 187) note, it foregrounds a richer ontol-
digm; this may be particularly useful for those unfamiliar
ogy than approaches that attempt to reduce people to one
with intersectionality and interested in exploring the value
category at a time, it treats social positions as relational,
of mainstreaming it. Second, I seek to engage in some of
and it makes visible the multiple positioning that con-
the existing debates among scholars of intersectionality so
stitutes everyday life and the power relations that are cen-
as to prescribe directions that foreground what I see as the
tral to it. As well, in addition to producing new theories
of discrimination and important epistemological insights,
1University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, Canada
intersectionality brings fresh perspectives on many legal
and policy arenas related to human rights, the family,
Corresponding Author:
Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of the Fraser Valley,
employment, criminal law, and immigration (Carbado
Department of Philosophy & Political Science, 33844 King Road,
and Gulati 2000-2001, 701). It does so by pushing against
Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M8, Canada
hegemonic disciplinary, epistemological, theoretical, and
Email: Rita.Dhamoon@ufv.ca

---

Dhamoon
231
central component of this research paradigm: critique of
what we now call intersectionality were developed prior
the work and effects of power. Broadly, by critique I
to the popularization of this concept and that our contem-
mean that form of analysis that denaturalizes what is
porary lenses shape interpretations of this analytic and
taken as given, thus showing that subjectivity is struc-
political tool (Hancock 2008). These histories of intersec-
tured by language; that the universal unified subject of
tionality and the contestation among feminists about the
reason is a falsity; and that grand narratives are inadequate
term and scope of intersectionality indicate the value of
explanations of political life. While I refer to critique spe-
critically reflecting on this framework, even as it is embraced
cifically as the radical contextualization or deconstruction
for its unique contributions to understanding social and
of the meanings of texts or symbols, the processes by
political life.
which texts and symbols are interpreted and given mean-
The term intersectionality was specifically coined and
ings, and the privileging and penalizing relations of power
developed by American critical race scholar Kimberle
associated with these meanings, the more general meaning
Crenshaw (1989, 1994) as a way to address legal doctri-
of critique allows for intersectionality to be deployed in a
nal issues and to work both within and against the law.
variety of ways while maintaining a focus on power.
Crenshaw used the metaphor of intersecting roads to describe
Specifically, I present five considerations when adopt-
and explain the ways in which racial and gender discrimi-
ing intersectionality. The five considerations relate to
nation compounded each other. In her work on discrimi-
(1) the terminology and scope of this research paradigm,
nation against black women, she argued that a single-axis
(2) the benefits and pitfalls of focusing on identities and
framework maintained a focus on either race or sex and
categories of difference, or on processes and systems of
subsequently failed to consider how marginalized women
differentiation, (3) the complexities of subject formation
are vulnerable to both grounds of discrimination; thus,
that are bought to light through this research paradigm
even a combination of studies about women and studies
and how these can be unpacked, (4) the models most use-
about race often erased the experiences of black women.
ful in describing and operationalizing this research para-
The road metaphor specifically served to describe the
digm, and (5) how the analyst chooses which interactions
way in which a minority group navigates a main crossing,
to study.
whereby the racism road crosses with the streets of colo-
nialism and patriarchy, and “crashes” occur at the inter-
I. The Concept and
sections. Where the roads intersect, there is a double,
triple, multiple, and many-layered blanket of oppression.
Language of Intersectionality
Crenshaw’s formulation of intersectionality has been
As its starting point, intersectionality opposes the idea that
enormously significant, as it further opened up a conceptual
subject formation and identities are unified and autono-
space through which to study how various oppressions
mous. Hancock (2007, 64) specifies that intersectionality
work together to produce something unique and distinct
is based on the idea that more than one category should be
from any one form of discrimination standing alone.3 And
analyzed, that categories matters equally and that the rela-
indeed many feminists have used and developed the idea
tionship between categories is an open empirical question,
of intersectionality, although not all center the law or the
that there exists a dynamic interaction between individual
language of intersectionality in their analysis. Patricia Hill
and institutional factors, that members within a category
Collins (2000, 18), for instance, uses intersectionality to
are diverse, that analysis of the individual or set of indi-
refer to “particular forms of oppressions, for example, the
viduals is integrated with institutional analysis, and that
intersections of race and gender, or of sexuality and nations.”
empirical and theoretical claims are both possible and nec-
She understands these to be micro-level processes regard-
essary. In general, as Brah and Phoenix (2004, 76) state,
ing how each individual and group occupies a social posi-
intersectionality refers to “the complex, irreducible, var-
tion, which are located within a system of “interlocking
ied, and variable effects which ensue when multiple axes
oppressions.” The notion of interlocking oppression, for
of differentiation—economic, political cultural, psychic,
Collins, refers to the macro-level connections that link
subjective and experiential—intersect in historically spe-
systems of oppression such as race, class, and gender.
cific contexts.”
Together, argues Collins, the micro (intersectional) and
While the language of intersectionality has been
macro (interlocking) processes shape oppression. Thus,
popularized since at least the 1980s,...