Critical Criminology

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 55–71 | Cite as

Intersectional Criminologies for the Contemporary Moment: Crucial Questions of Power, Praxis and Technologies of Control

  • Kathryn HenneEmail author
  • Emily I. Troshynski


This article reflects on the growing acceptance of intersectional criminology alongside emergent challenges of the contemporary moment. In light of social changes, the article asks: What is important about intersectionality and its relationship to criminology? How might we sustain and nurture these crucial dimensions and connections? Exploring answers to these questions, we consider how to retain intersectional commitments in areas of increasing importance, such as ubiquitous surveillance and technologies of policing. In discussing how we might examine and unpack the workings of interlocking systems of oppression and their effects, this article addresses how intersectional criminologists might reflect more critically on their methodologies to ensure robust analysis and incorporate frameworks that better capture the technosocial entanglements emblematic of ongoing shifts in social control. After reviewing approaches for doing so, the article concludes with a reflection on implications for intersectional criminological praxis.



  1. Ahmed, S. (2008). Imaginary prohibitions: Some preliminary remarks on the founding gestures of the new materialism. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 15(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, M. (2018). The newest Jim Crow. The New York Times, SR3. November 11.Google Scholar
  3. Arrigo, B. A., & Bersot, H. Y. (2016). Revolutionizing academic activism: Transpraxis, critical pedagogy, and justice for a people yet to be. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 24(4), 549–564.Google Scholar
  4. Åsberg, C., & Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist technoscience studies. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 17(4), 299–305.Google Scholar
  5. Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID). (2004). Gender mainstreaming: Can it work for women’s rights? Spotlight, 3. November. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.
  6. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar
  7. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barak, G., Leighton, P., & Flavin, J. (2010). Class, race, gender, and crime: The social realities of justice in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Belknap, J. (2015). Presidential address: Activist criminology—Criminologists’ responsibility to advocate for social and legal justice. Criminology, 53(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, K. E. (2017). Prison violence and the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, 18(1), 106–121.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, E. (2010). Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: The politics of sex, rights, and freedom in contemporary antitrafficking campaigns. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36(1), 45–72.Google Scholar
  12. Binder, A. (1987). Criminology: Discipline or and interdiscipline? Issues in Integrative Studies, 5, 41–67. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.Google Scholar
  13. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(5–6), 312–325.Google Scholar
  14. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 222–238.Google Scholar
  15. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008.Google Scholar
  16. Britton, D. M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571(1), 57–76.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, S. (2006). The criminology of hybrids: Rethinking crime and law in technosocial networks. Theoretical Criminology, 10(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
  18. Browne, S. (2010). Digital epidermalization: Race, identity, and biometrics. Critical Sociology, 36(1), 131–150.Google Scholar
  19. Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of Blackness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, R., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2018). Why police “couldn’t or wouldn’t” submit sexual assault kits for forensic DNA testing: A focal concerns theory analysis of untested rape kits. Law & Society Review, 52(1), 73–105.Google Scholar
  21. Carbado, D. W. (2013). Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 811–845.Google Scholar
  22. Carrington, K., Donnermeyer, J. F., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2014). Intersectionality, rural criminology, and re-imaging the boundaries of critical criminology. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 22(4), 463–477.Google Scholar
  23. Charlesworth, H. (2005). Not waving but drowning: Gender mainstreaming and human rights at the United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  24. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810.Google Scholar
  25. Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, Black feminism, and Black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41–53.Google Scholar
  26. Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20.Google Scholar
  27. Creek, S. J., & Dunn, J. L. (2014). Intersectionality and the study of sex, gender, and crime. In R. Gartner & B. McCarthy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime (pp. 40–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.Google Scholar
  29. Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, reform and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387.Google Scholar
  30. Daly, K. (2010). Feminist perspectives in criminology: A review with Gen Y in mind. In E. McLaughlin & T. Newburn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of criminological theory (pp. 225–246). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Dottolo, A. L., & Stewart, A. J. (2008). “Don’t ever forget now, you’re a Black man in America”: Intersections of race, class and gender in encounters with the police. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 350–364.Google Scholar
  32. Dubrofsky, R. E., & Magnet, S. A. (2015). Feminist surveillance studies: Critical interventions. In R. E. Dubrofsky & S. A. Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 1–17). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Erez, E., Adelman, M., & Gregory, C. (2009). Intersections of immigrations and domestic violence. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 32–56.Google Scholar
  34. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fullagar, S. (2017). Post-qualitative inquiry and the new materialist turn: Implications for sport, health and physical culture research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(2), 247–257.Google Scholar
  36. Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2018). Race and crime (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Haggerty, K., & Gazso, A. (2005). Seeing beyond the ruins: Surveillance as a response to terrorist threats. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 30(2), 169–187.Google Scholar
  38. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.Google Scholar
  39. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2018). Algorithmic risk governance: Big data analytics, race, and information activism in criminal justice debates. Theoretical Criminology. Scholar
  40. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Henne, K. (2014). The “science” of fair play in sport: Gender and the politics of testing. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(3), 787–812.Google Scholar
  42. Henne, K. E. (2015). Testing for athlete citizenship: Regulating doping and sex in sport. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Henne, K., & Troshynski, E. (2013a). Mapping the margins of intersectionality: Criminological possibilities in a transnational world. Theoretical Criminology, 17(4), 455–473.Google Scholar
  44. Henne, K., & Troshynski, E. (2013b). Suspect subjects: Affects of bodily regulation. International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, 2(2), 100–112.Google Scholar
  45. Henne, K., & Troshynski, E. (2017). Intersectionality. In A. Brisman, E. Carrabine, & N. South (Eds.), The Routledge companion to criminological theory and concepts (pp. 316–320). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Hochman, A. (2018). Racialization: A defense of the concept. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Scholar
  47. Hong, G. K. (2008). “The future of our worlds”: Black feminism and the politics of knowledge in the university under globalization. Meridians: Feminism, race, transnationalism, 8(2), 95–115.Google Scholar
  48. Hudson, B. (2000). Critical reflection as research methodology? In V. Jupp, P. Davies, & P. Francis (Eds.), Doing criminological research (pp. 175–192). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Jones-Brown, D. (2000). Debunking the myth of officer friendly: How African American males experience community policing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16(2), 209–229.Google Scholar
  50. Josephson, J. (2002). The intersectionality of domestic violence and welfare in the lives of poor women. Journal of Poverty, 6(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  51. Kennedy, H. (2005). Subjective intersections in the face of the machine. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(4), 471–487.Google Scholar
  52. King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 42–72.Google Scholar
  53. Law, J. (2004). Matter-ing: Or how might STS contribute? Lancaster: Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  54. Lumsden, K., & Goode, J. (2018). Public criminology, reflexivity and the enterprise university: Experiences of research, knowledge transfer work, and co-option with police forces. Theoretical Criminology, 22(2), 243–257.Google Scholar
  55. Lupton, D. (2016). Digital companion species and eating data: Implications for theorizing digital data–human assemblages. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  56. Lykke, N. (2011). Intersectional analysis: Black box or useful critical feminist thinking technology. In H. Lutz, M. T. H. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multifaceted concept in gender studies (pp. 207–220). Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  57. Lynch, M. J., Barrett, K. L., Stretesky, P. B., & Long, M. A. (2017). The neglect of quantitative research in green criminology and its consequences. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 25(2), 183–198.Google Scholar
  58. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination (pp. 13–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Magnet, S. A. (2011). When biometrics fail: Gender, race, and the technology of identity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  60. May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800.Google Scholar
  62. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Monahan, T. (2017). Regulating belonging: Surveillance, inequality, and the cultural production of abjection. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  64. Moser, I. (2006). Sociotechnical practices and difference: On the interferences between disability, gender, and class. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(5), 537–564.Google Scholar
  65. Musto, J. L. (2016). Control and protect: Collaboration, carceral protection, and domestic sex trafficking in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  66. Naples, N. A. (2009). Crossing borders: Community activism, globalization, and social justice. Social Problems, 56(1), 2–20.Google Scholar
  67. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.Google Scholar
  68. Nash, J. C. (2019). Black feminism reimagined: After intersectionality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  70. Parker, K. F., & Hefner, M. K. (2015). Intersections of race, gender, disadvantage, and violence: Applying intersectionality to the macro-level study of female homicide. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 223–254.Google Scholar
  71. Patton, P. (1994). Metamorpho-logic: Bodies and powers in A Thousand Plateaus. Journal of the British Society of Phenomenology, 25(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
  72. Potter, H. (2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminology research and theory. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 21(3), 305–318.Google Scholar
  73. Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Puar, J. K. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Puar, J. K. (2017). The right to main: Debility, capacity, disability. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 377–391.Google Scholar
  77. Quinlan, A. (2017). The technoscientific witness of rape: Contentious histories of law, feminism, and forensic science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  78. Richie, B. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Russell-Brown, K. (1998). The color of crime. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Shelby, R. (2018a). Whose rape kit? Stabilizing the Vitullo® Kit through positivist criminology and protocol feminism. Theoretical Criminology. Scholar
  81. Shelby, R. (2018b). Sexual violence, intersectionality, and the “forensic gaze.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology on 16 November, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  82. Simpson, S. S., & Gibbs, C. (2006). Making sense of intersections. In K. Heimer & C. Kruttschnitt (Eds.), Gender and crime: Patterns in victimization and offending (pp. 269–302). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Singh, R. D. (2010). In between the system and the margins: Community organizations, mandatory charging and immigrant victims of abuse. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 31–62.Google Scholar
  84. Sokoloff, N. J. (2004). Domestic violence at the crossroads: Violence against poor women and women of color. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(2–3), 139–147.Google Scholar
  85. Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016). Hatewatch update: 1094 bias-related incidents in the month following the election. Montgomery, AL. Accessed 16 December.
  86. Townsend-Bell, E. E. (2009). Intersectional praxis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  87. Trahan, A. (2011). Qualitative research and intersectionality. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 19(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  88. Troshynski, E. I. (2017). “Stalked by the state”: GPS surveillance technology and sex offender parolees. Kriminologisches Journal, 49(2), 103–119.Google Scholar
  89. Troshynski, E. I., & Weiner, J. D. (2016). Freak Show: Modern constructions of Ciceronian Monstra and Foucauldian monstrosity. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 12(3), 741–765.Google Scholar
  90. Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
  91. Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152.Google Scholar
  92. Walby, S. (1999). The new regulatory state: The social powers of the European Union. British Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 118–138.Google Scholar
  93. Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 321–343.Google Scholar
  94. Walters, R. (2003). Deviant knowledge: Criminology, politics, and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  95. Whalley, E., & Hackett, C. (2017). Carceral feminisms: The abolitionist project and undoing dominant feminisms. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(4), 456–473.Google Scholar
  96. Williams, T. (2008). Intersectionality analysis in the sentencing of Aboriginal women in Canada: What difference does it make? In E. Gabham, D. Cooper, J. Krishnada, & D. Herman (Eds.), Intersectionality and beyond (pp. 95–120). London: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  97. Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340.Google Scholar
  98. Young, V. D. (1986). Gender expectations and their impact on Black female offenders and victims. Justice Quarterly, 3(3), 305–327.Google Scholar
  99. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–209.Google Scholar
  100. Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). Beyond the recognition and re-distribution dichotomy: Intersectionality and stratification. In H. Lutz, M. T. H. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-faceted concept in gender studies (pp. 155–169). Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.University of NevadaLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations