Intersectionality and Women’s Political Empowerment Worldwide

  • Melanie M. Hughes
  • Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Gender and Politics book series (GAP)

Abstract

Intersectionality allows us to confront the reality that women’s political experiences vary, such that empowerment for some may not mean empowerment for all. Intersectionality points out the ways that women are internally a diverse group, brings other forms of oppression into the center of study, explicitly references power, and acknowledges the complexities of social and political life. In this chapter, we discuss how intersectionality should influence the research questions that we ask, the explanations for why women remain politically disempowered, and the methodology we use. Challenging and revolutionary, intersectionality is an opportunity for researchers to more fully comprehend the rich and deep political life of women and girls from diverse experiences, and thus the idea, policy, and practice of political empowerment across the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End.Google Scholar
  2. Adib, A., & Guerrier, Y. (2003). The Interlocking of Gender with Nationality, Race, Ethnicity and Class: The Narratives of Women in Hotel Work. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(4), 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander-Floyd, N. (2012). Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social Sciences in a Post-Black Feminist Era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. (2010). Considering Local Versus International Norms on Women’s Rights in Contemporary Peace Processes. Presented at Conference on Gender, Peace and Security: Local Interpretations of International Norms. Davis Institute, Hebrew University, Israel.Google Scholar
  5. Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional What? Social Divisions, Intersectionality and Levels of Analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baca Zinn, M., & Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing Difference From Multiracial Feminism. Feminist Studies, 22, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, G. R. (2014). Incorporating Intersectionality Theory into Population Health Research Methodology: Challenges and the Potential to Advance Health Equity. Social Science and Medicine, 110, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beale, F. (1970). Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female. In T. C. Bambara (Ed.), The Black Woman: An Anthology (pp. 90–100). New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  9. Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Intersectionality Studies. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, J. H. (2000). Entering the Political Elite in Canada: The Case of Minority Women as Parliamentary Candidates and MPs. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 37(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The Methodological Challenges of Qualitative and Quantitative Intersectionality Research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowleg, L., & Bauer, G. R. (2016). Quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0361684316654282.
  13. Celis, K., Erzeel, S., Mügge, L., & Damstra, A. (2014). Quotas and Intersectionality: Ethnicity and Gender in Candidate Selection. International Political Science Review, 35(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequality. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Combahee River Collective. (1982). A Black Feminist Statement: The Combahee River Collective. In G. T. Hull, P. Bell-Scott, & B. Smith (Eds.), All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Studies (pp. 13–22). New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY.Google Scholar
  19. Constantinescu, S. (2016). Gender Quotas in Romania: A Critical Review of the Debate. Europolis, 10(2), 169–185.Google Scholar
  20. Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.Google Scholar
  21. Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity, Politics and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis, A. Y. (1981). Women, Race & Class. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on Mainstreaming Intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dubrow, J. K. (2008). How Can We Account for Intersectionality in Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data? Empirical Illustration of Central and Eastern Europe. Ask: Research and Methods, 17, 85–102.Google Scholar
  26. Dubrow, J. K. (2013). Why Should Social Scientists Account for Intersectionality in Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data? In V. Kallenberg, J. Meyer, & J. M. Müller (Eds.), Intersectionality und kritik (pp. 161–177). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in Quantitative Psychological Research: Methods and Techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 319–336. doi: 10.1177/0361684316647953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erel, U., Haritaworn, J., Rodríguez, E. G., & Klesse, C. (2011). On the Depoliticisation of Intersectionality-Talk. Conceptualising Multiple Oppressions in Critical Sexuality Studies. In Y. S. Taylor, S. Hines, & M. Casey (Eds.), Theorizing Intersectionality and Sexuality (pp. 56–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, E. (2015). The Politics of Third Wave Feminisms: Neoliberalism, Intersectionality and the State in Britain and the U.S. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Folke, O., Freidenvall, L., & Rickne, J. (2015). Gender Quotas and Ethnic Minority Representation: Swedish Evidence from a Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study. Politics & Gender, 11, 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glenn, E. N. (1999). The Social Construction of Institutionalization of Gender and Race: An Integrative Framework. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning Gender (pp. 3–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Hancock, A.-M. (2007). When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hancock, A.-M. (2013). Empirical Intersectionality: A Tale of Two Approaches. UC Irvine Law Review, 3, 259–296.Google Scholar
  34. Hancock, A.-M. (2016). Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Htun, M., & Ossa, J. P. (2013). Political Inclusion of Marginalized Groups: Indigenous Reservations and Gender Parity in Bolivia. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(1), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes, M. M. (2011). Intersectionality, Quotas, and Minority Women’s Political Representation Worldwide. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 604–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hughes, M. M. (2013). The Intersection of Gender and Minority Status in National Legislatures: The Minority Women Legislative Index. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes, M. M. (2015). Crossing Intersections: Overcoming the Challenges of Cross-National Research on the Legislative Representation of Women from Marginalized Groups. In J. K. Dubrow (Ed.), Political Inequality in an Age of Democracy: Cross-National Perspectives (pp. 51–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, M. M., & Tripp, A. M. (2015). Civil War and Trajectories of Change in Women’s Political Representation in Africa, 1985–2010. Social Forces, 93(4), 1513–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King, D. K. (1988). Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of Black Feminist Ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 42–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knapp, G.-A. (2005). Race, Class, Gender, Reclaiming Baggage in Fast Travelling Theories. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(3), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lépinard, E. (2014). Doing Intersectionality: Repertoires of Feminist Practices in France and Canada. Gender & Society, 28(6), 877–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Luke, C. (2001). Globalization and Women in Academia: North/West–South/East. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Matsuda, M. (1990). Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy: Legal Theory Out of Coalition. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1183–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mihalache, D., & Drăgulin, S. (2016). Gender Quotas in Politics: A Short Analysis. Cogito: Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 8(1), 50–60.Google Scholar
  47. Monture, P. A. (2007). Racing and Erasing: Law and Gender in White Settler Societies. In S. P. Hier & B. S. Bolaria (Eds.), Race & Racism in 21st Century Canada: Continuity, Complexity, and Change (pp. 197–212). Peterborough, ON: Broadview.Google Scholar
  48. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking Intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paxton, P., & Hughes, M. M. (2016). Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. (2001). Refugees, Race, and Gender: The Multiple Discrimination Against Refugee Women. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 19(6), 21–32.Google Scholar
  51. Reynolds, A. (2013). Representation and Rights: The Impact of LGBT Legislators in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sainsbury, D. (2003). U.S. Women’s Suffrage Through a Multicultural Lens: Intersecting Struggles of Recognition. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power (pp. 161–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Severs, E., Celis, K., & Erzeel, S. (2016). Power, Privilege, and Disadvantage: Intersectionality Theory and Political Representation. Politics, 36(4), 346–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, B. (Ed.). (1983). Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology. New York: Kitchen Table Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smooth, W. (2011). Standing for Women? Which Women? The Substantive Representation of Women’s Interests and the Research Imperative of Intersectionality. Politics & Gender, 7(3), 436–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stasiulis, D. (1999). Feminist Intersectional Theorizing. In P. Li (Ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada (pp. 347–397). Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Strolovitch, D. Z. (2006). Do Interest Groups Represent the Disadvantaged? Advocacy at the Intersections of Race, Class and Gender. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 894–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tripp, A. M. (2016). Women and Power in Post-conflict Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Turcu, A. (2009). Women, Political Participation and Electoral Quotas in Romania. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  60. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2013). Gender and Elections in Romania. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from https://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/africa/DZ/undp-gender-and-elections-in-romania-2013/
  61. Verloo, M. (2013). Intersectional and Cross-movement Politics and Policies: Reflections on Current Practices and Debates. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 893–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walby, S. (2007). Complexity Theory, Systems Theory, and Multiple Intersecting Social Inequalities. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(4), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh, S. D., & Xydias, C. (2014). Women’s Organizing and Intersectional Policy-making in Comparative Perspective: Evidence from Guatemala and Germany. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(4), 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Warner, L. (2008). A Best Practices Guide to Intersectional Approaches in Psychological Research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weber, L. (2001). Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality: A Conceptual Framework. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  66. Weldon, S. L. (2006). The Structure of Intersectionality: A Comparative Politics of Gender. Politics & Gender, 2(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weldon, S. L. (2011). When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged Groups. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1997). Doing Difference. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West (Eds.), Doing Gender, Doing Difference (pp. 55–81). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the Politics of Belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214. doi: 10.1080/00313220600769331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie M. Hughes
    • 1
  • Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of SciencesWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations