POST-INTERSECTIONALITY

Sumi Cho

Du Bois Review Social Science Research on Race · 2013 · 87 citations · 40 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Intersectionality, originating from legal critique, has been widely adopted to explain power dynamics but has faced criticism within law for its ability to address subjects with multiple or partially privileged identities and for its theoretical and normative limits. The essay investigates how a race‑sexuality critique of intersectionality emerged and motivated the development of a post‑intersectional progressive masculinities literature. It traces the historical emergence of the critique and its influence on post‑intersectional masculinities scholarship. The analysis finds that post‑intersectionality moves beyond intersectionality not through new theory or strategy but through identity‑driven motivations.

Abstract

Abstract Although 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.

References

40