Reflections on intersectionality

De los Reyes, Paulina & Mulinari, Diana (2005) Intersektionalitet: kritiska reflektioner over (o)jämlikhetens landskap. Malmö: Liber

In their book, Intersektionalitet, de los Reyes and Mulinari are interested in “finding new ways to think intersectionally” (8). By providing a wide theoretical background and some examples from different empirical studies, the authors aim to deepen the dialogue about power and power relations in order to understand how different kinds of disempowerments are linked and are mutually strengthened by the intersection. An interesting point that the authors are keen to make in their work is that the question on whether feminism as an issue of gender is constitutive of power relations: “Bland såväl neomarxister som poststrukturalister finns en ambition att utveckla teoretiska modeller som kan fånga nutida sociala relationer, identitetsformeringar och materiell ojämlikhet bortom endimensionella maktanalyser” (8). This means that if dynamics of oppression and disempowerment are to be found beyond the boundaries of gender, intersectionality can no longer affirm to belong to feminism theory only: “Makt och ojämlikhet konstrueras även genom den vetenskapliga internalisering av en atomiserad världsbild som essentialiserar vår uppfattning av sociala processer och mänskligt handlande” (9). In other words, what de los Reyes and Mulinari want to do is also to analyze how knowledge, politics and social life influence the intersection of different power relations in institutional settings and how, from an intersectional perspective, it is possible to define social differences and variations in terms of class, ethnicity, sexuality etc. (and the nature of this ‘etc’ is also in need of a further discussion according to some researchers such as Alice Ludvig (2006)) as labels that allows us to create an “us” in contraposition to “them”. Furthermore, another important aim of the book is to analyze how metaphors of time and space have been used: “med utgångspunkt i postkoloniala teorier och teorier om globarisering vill vi problematisera tidens och rummets roll som självklara analytiska redskap” (11). De los Reyes and Molina thus criticise the view of power relations as a well define system, and they aim to create tools that allows the analysis of these relations as the result of the uneven distribution of what they call ‘material and symbolic resources’ (11).

“Globaliseringens motsägefulla karaktär” – The contradictory nature of globalization

In the heart of Italy, in Toscana, there is a rather small town, Prato, the inhabitants of which always boast about their status of ‘true’ Italians, stigmatizing what ‘the outside world’, the ‘others’ consider to be true Italian characteristics. Prato is also very famous for its textile industry that supplies for the Italian high fashion industry, or the phenomenon of the ‘made in Italy’. Due to globalization and the equation ‘cheap workers – cheap products’, thousands of immigrants from China have been pouring to Prato to work in its industries. Most of them are illegal and work in barely human conditions and with low wages. Chinese have taken over the textile manufacture in Prato, being able to provide Italian industry and market with low price products, still ‘Made in Italy’. The result is that the Chinese community in Prato is one of the largest in the country and the interesting aspects here is that they are not integrated but very much considered as “others than Italian” by the local community. The Chinatown in Prato, with all its Chinese restaurants and shops, is the proof of the segregation in which the population is actually living in one of Italy’s ‘most Italian’ cities. I thought this was yet an example of what de los Reyes and Mulinari define as “globaliseringen motsägelselfulla karaktär” (20) i.e. globalization creates and recreates diversity between the different regions in the world in spite of the increasing speed with which people are moving, looking for jobs, an education and also the incredible possibility we are entitled to today, being able to interact with other people from anywhere in the world through the internet, comfortably sitting in our homes. De los Reyes and Mulinari do not mention the aspect of how social media have influenced power relationships and identity formation from an intersectional perspective. Being online and using the computer as an interface, we are able to show or hide identity markers others than ours and this can be especially interesting when the context are institutional settings that provide their services online. The authors underline the fact that globalization implies a move back and forth of individuals, disturbing what they call a ‘geopolitical inequality’: “De andra” finns nu mitt ibland “oss” och ställer krav på en plats i den rika världen” (22) and this is true if considered from the other way around as well. Wealthy people from Europe living in ‘poor countries’ are ‘the others’ craving a place in the poor world, being rich.

The analysis of ‘the doing of’, rather than ‘talking about’ identities

Drawing from the work of Althusser (how the subject is created through language and naming) and Foucault (how the subject is created in relation to the notion of what is the norm and what is not in society), power and power relations become such in social interaction by individuals as opposed to the Marxist tradition where a structural view of class differences is undertaken. The authors consider Tilly’s position in this debate as an attempt to formulate a model of analysis that allows the merge of structural relations and institutional processes: “Aktörernas handlingar och institutionella arrangemang formas inom ramen för en strukturell ordning, men det finns även utrymme för individuella val och strategier” (37). Nevertheless Tully does not wish for an analysis of social differences from an identity perspective but rather an analysis of the social interaction where identity formations are embedded in. According to de lo Reyes and Mulinari, to analyze power relations from an intersectional perspective, does not mean to focus on the different categories from which power can be generated, but rather to put into question the upcoming of those categories, trying to understand what they actually mean. The focus should thus lie on the analysis of ‘the doing of’ a category, not on the existence of the category itself, and how this doing of different categories, in their turn, influences other categories. This could prevent the analysis and later on the production of knowledge to be fragmented. The critic that de los Reyes and Mulinari address to Ambjörsson’s work arises from this starting point: “Invandrarna” är kulisserna i vithetens iscensättning. Vi får aldrig veta om och hur kön konstrueras utanför vitheten och inte heller vad det innebär att tillskrivas en ”avvikande” icke vit kvinnlighet […] Fanny Ambjörnsson erbjuder läsaren en bild som redan är filtrerad av andra blickar och förmedlad av andras röster” (93). This does not mean that structural power relations can be ignored (this, according to the authors, would lead to a stigmatization of those very structures) in the analysis. De los Reyes and Mulinari consider that an intersectional perspective can give individuals a voice and the possibility to become subjects of their own story. According to Bagga-Gupta: “the agency of human subjects-in-context and the playing out of diversity at the realm of praxis-institutions is a complex enterprise” (6: 2010). I think this is an interesting starting point for further discussion and it continues in the same direction as my previews reflection about the emic perspective and the role of scholars in institutional interactional spaces where diversity and identity formation are the main focus.

Literature (besides de los Reyes and Mulinari)

Bagga-Gupta, S. (2010) A common education-for-all & life-long learning? Reflections on inclusion, equity and integration. In Hansen, B. (Ed.) Theory and methodology in international comparative classroom studies. Volume 2, December 2010

Ludvig, A. (2006) Differences Between Women? Intersecting voices in a Female Narrative. European Journal of Women’s Studies. Volume 13 (3) s. 244-258

Giulia Messina Dahlberg 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC) [Original author of this resource]