Suchergebnisse

Groups who experience multiple marginalisation are more likely to experience domestic abuse, but appear to be the least represented in materials designed to support survivors. This paper uses corpus methods and feminist discourse analysis to examine a guidance text produced by a British organisation that supports women survivors of domestic abuse. The analysis examines the discursive practices used to construct solidarity between the implied reader, implied author and broader imagined community. While many of the practices employed in these texts to construct solidarity are exemplary – such as centring survivors' experiences and addressing survivors directly by using first- and second-person pronouns – the texts also construct multiply marginalised survivors as distal by using third-person pronouns in discourses which represent multiple marginalisation as 'exceptional'. The paper concludes by suggesting ways to improve guidance for survivors of domestic abuse.

AbstractAlthough intersectionality analysis originates in a critique of legal doctrine and its confining approach to subject formation, intersectionality has been adopted widely outside of legal scholarship—nationally and internationally—to explain how fields of power operate and interact to produce hierarchy for any limitless combination of identities. Yet, within law, some scholars have raised questions precisely about the capacity of intersectionality to grapple with subjects who occupy multiple social positions and those with "partially privileged" identities in particular. Thus, over roughly a decade, a critique took shape about the theoretical capacity and normative commitment of intersectionality theory to address particular subgroups.This essay tells part of the curious story about how a race-sexuality critique of intersectionality emerged, what may have motivated it, and how it has facilitated an emerging progressive masculinities literature that is "post-intersectional," i.e., positioned over and against intersectionality. Like other post-intersectionality approaches, multidimensionality theorists decidedly seek to 'get beyond' something, and that 'something' that underwrites the turn away from intersectionality appears not as substantive theoretical or analytical content, or as political strategy, but rather, as identity-driven and engendered.

In the wake of the passage of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the United Nations and global powers have been unable to prevent dozens of genocides. The failure to prevent these horrible acts of mass violence is now a major concern for the foreign policy team of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. American presidential recognition of genocides serves as a promising sign for a future of human rights-centered diplomacy. Scholarship concerning state violence has not adequately addressed the role of intersectionality in genocide and other identity-based massacres. The current definition of "genocide" in the Convention lacks significant protections for identity groups whose inclusion is essential to effectively prosecute crimes and eliminate political violence in the twenty-first century. Through an analysis of the underlying ideological and practical systems that support this cycle of violence, and by offering a theologically premised denunciation of genocide based upon Catholic Social Teaching and the work of David Hollenbach, S.J., this article argues for a three-part action plan to address the crisis of genocide gripping the world. This article also serves as a call to action for the Biden Administration which should continue to recognize genocides and offer support in multilateral interventions.

Intersectionality has become the primary analytic tool that feminist and anti-racist scholars deploy for theorizing identity and oppression. This paper exposes and critically interrogates the assumptions underpinning intersectionality by focusing on four tensions within intersectionality scholarship: the lack of a defined intersectional methodology; the use of black women as quintessential intersectional subjects; the vague definition of intersectionality; and the empirical validity of intersectionality. Ultimately, my project does not seek to undermine intersectionality; instead, I encourage both feminist and anti-racist scholars to grapple with intersectionality's theoretical, political, and methodological murkiness to construct a more complex way of theorizing identity and oppression.

The article presents the optical and spectral facets of the notion of intersectionality in their materiality, in their forms as bodies and ghosts, doors, and thresholds. Scholarship on intersectionality has focused on critiquing the legal assumption that considers categories of discrimination to correspond to discrete aspects of identity, due to its negative effect of rendering certain experiences unrepresentable. As a consequence, the optical approach seeks to expose intersections and to reveal what remains hidden under these discrete frames. I would like to take the opportunity to write about Goodrich's law, to delve into an additional register that is underdeveloped but, I argue, contained in the legal concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality has not addressed the spectral, the search for becoming, or the intent to conceptualize an encounter without anticipation, announcement, or previsions, even if that implies defying what a concept entails. Both are inextricably connected. Here I will distinguish the optical and the spectral aspects of the theory. The optical or operational side of intersectionality offers a door while the specter that phantasmatically sustains and holds intersectionality's impulse in legal practice allows the manifestation of the illegible within the legible.

Intersectionality as embodiment. This article explores intersectionality as embodiment, arguing that by taking embodiment into account broader possibilities of intersectional analysis can be unfolded. Inspired by phenomenological theories of embodied experience and the mimetic faculty, the article suggests that intersectionality can be understood as embodied experience. Following this thinking embodiment is radically conditioned as well as a site of agency. This has implications for the understanding of structures, agency as well as their interrelation.

In 'Intersectionality', philosopher Naomi Zack presents a novel philosophical account of intersectionality - the process by which people already oppressed, experience more oppression because of their intersecting identities. Based on her 2022 Phi Beta Kappa Romanell Lectures, Zack explores the meaning of intersectionality through analysis of current events and controversies including the #MeToo movement, class opportunities for minorities in higher education, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

AbstractThe goal of this study is to understand the extent to which a diverse group of sexual and gender minorities understood the landmark Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality as personally impacting them. Prominent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) figures have argued that marriage is an oppressive institution and that legalizing same‐sex marriage would not benefit the most marginalized members of the community, particularly Black people. Until now, there have been few resources for comparing these claims of scholars and activists with those of members of the communities they claim to represent. Guided by Critical Race Theory and intersectionality, this study centered LGBTQ people of color's lived experiences. A purposive sample of 99 LGBTQ people in Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco were asked whether and how the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) personally impacted them. Most participants described an emotional impact. Relatively few criticized marriages as "heteronormative" or unfit for LGBTQ people. Black participants were less likely than participants of other races to criticize marriage as an institution. Moreover, Black and Latinx participants articulated a more expansive, equality‐focused understanding of the right to marry than the Court itself articulated. They described the marriage decision as carrying the potential to empower and elevate their identities in various contexts. For these people, the marriage equality movement was centrally about equality rather than marriage.