Handout2 Intersect Sweden11
Handout2 Intersect Sweden11
Handout2 Intersect Sweden11
com/
Linköping University, Sweden, 29-30 March 2011
transversal intersectionalities
Katie King, Women's Studies, University of Maryland, College Park/Email: katking@umd.edu
Home Page: http://katiekin.weebly.com/ Twitter: @katkingumd; in Second Life: Katie Fenstalker
“With identity thus re-conceptualized, it may be easier to understand the need for, and
to summon the courage to challenge, groups, that are after all, in one sense, 'home' to
us, in the name of the parts of us that are not made at home. This takes a great deal of
energy, and arouses intense anxiety. The most one could expect is that we will dare to
speak against internal exclusions and marginalizations, that we might call attention to
how the identity of 'the group' has been centered on the intersectional identities of a
few. Recognizing that identity politics takes place at the site where categories intersect
thus seems more fruitful than challenging the possibility of talking about categories at
all. Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground
the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find
expression in constructing group politics." (Crenshaw, 1991: 1299)
References:
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics.” Stanford Law Review 43/6, 1241-1299.
• Gordon, A. (1997). Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minnesota.
• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT.
• Collin, P.H. (2000). 2nd. Ed. Black Feminism Thought. Routledge.
• Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed. Minnesota.
• Somerville, S. (2005). “Queer Loving.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 11/3, 335-70.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13/3, 193-209. Rep.
in Berger, M. (2009). The intersectional approach: transforming the academy through race, class, and gender. UNC.
• Davis, K. (2008). “Intersectionality as buzzword.” Feminist Theory vol. 9/1, 67–85.
CRITIQUE OF RACE, GENDER ANALOGY IN INTERSECTIONAL LEGAL ANALYSIS (Somerville 2005: 358-9)
“Loving, Boutilier, and the INA tell a powerful story about how sexual and racial ideologies were enlisted in the state's
production of citizens during the Cold War era. In the decades during which exclusions based on adultery and
homosexuality were an explicit part of immigration and naturalization policy, they served a specific purpose for
lawmakers by providing an unspoken logic of blood purification in the absence of the explicit language of race. It is
important, however, to clarify the kinds of claims that can be based on these juridical texts.… these changes in federal
law did not necessarily reflect the formation of sexual or racial subjectivity, nor do they tell us how these laws were
negotiated, at times oppositionally, by those who enforced or were subjected to them…Although the explicit language
of race was losing legitimacy in the eye of the law as a means of excluding potential citizens, the language of sexual
pathology and pollution became increasingly available for circumscribing the characteristics of the ideal citizen…. What
happens if we allow ourselves to consider the troubling possibility that interracial marriage achieved normative
status…at the very moment that the homosexual was rendered unambiguously and often quite literally un-American?
…I have indicated some of the ways that the intertwined narratives of interracial desire and same-sex desire have
been produced… In the broadest terms, I hope that my reading shows the need for an approach that historicizes the
juridical production of racial and sexual formations simultaneously and that can account for the ways that ideologies of
race and sexual orientation have been mutually constituted in U.S. law and policy making.”