Timid Imposition: Intersectional Travel and Affirmative Action in Uruguay

  • Erica Townsend-BellEmail author
Part of the The Politics of Intersectionality book series (POLI)


This chapter is motivated by several overlapping concerns: contemplation of the role that international norms play in structuring politics and policy in domestic spheres; consideration of how one norm, in particular, intersectionality, is travelling, alongside its ongoing institutionalization; and more specific attention to the imposition of intersectionality in foreign contexts. It broaches these considerations via a comparative case study of Uruguayan affirmative action legislation and the belated gender-mainstreaming provision that was attached to it. By means of a qualitative content analysis, this chapter works through the question of how and why gender was added in the first place and what work it is meant to do. It concludes with a suggestion for taking up the privilege and disadvantage approach to intersectionality, which has the practical effect of focusing greater attention to variation within and across groups: a central intersectional goal.


  1. Alexander-Floyd, N. G. (2012). Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social Sciences in a Post-Black Feminist Era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  2. Bassel, L., & Emejulu, A. (2010). Struggles for Institutional Space in France and the United Kingdom: Intersectionality and the Politics of Policy. Politics and Gender, 6(4), 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishwakarma, R., Hunt, V., & Zajicek, A. (2007). Educating Dalit Women: Beyond a One-Dimensional Policy Formulation. Himalaya, 27(1), 5.Google Scholar
  4. Combahee River Collective. (1986). The Combahee River Collective Statement: Black Feminist Organizing in the Seventies and Eighties. New York: Kitchen Table Women of Color Press.Google Scholar
  5. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). (2011). Summary Record of the 2057th Meeting. CERD/C/SR.2057. 28 February 2011.Google Scholar
  6. Corus, C., et al. (2016). Transforming Poverty-Related Policy with Intersectionality. Journal of American Public Policy and Marketing, 35(2), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, K. (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 1, Article 8, 139–167.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as Buzzword. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhamoon, R. K. (2015). A Feminist Approach to Decolonizing Anti-Racism: Rethinking Transnationalism, Intersectionality, and Settler Colonialism. Feral Feminisms, 4, 1–37.Google Scholar
  10. Dhamoon, R. K., & Hankivsky, O. (2011). Why the Theory and Practice of Intersectionality Matter to Health Research and Policy. In O. Hankivsky (Ed.), Health Inequities in Canada: Intersectional Frameworks and Practices (pp. 16–50). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ferree, M. M. (2009). Inequality, Intersectionality and the Politics of Discourse: Framing Feminist Alliances. In E. Lombardo et al. (Eds.), The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policy-Making (pp. 86–104). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hankivsky, O., Cormier, R., & de Merich, D. (2009). Intersectionality: Moving Women’s Health Research and Policy Forward. Women’s Health Research Network.Google Scholar
  13. Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., Ferlatte, O., & Clark, N. (2014). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework: Critical Reflections on a Methodology for Advancing Equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inmujeres. (2010). La población afrodescendiente en Uruguay desde una perspectiva de género. Montevideo: Inmujeres.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan-Zachery, J. (2013). Now you See Me, Now you Don’t: My Political Fight against the Invisibility of Black women in Intersectionality Research. Politics, Gender and Identities, 1(1), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knapp, G.-A. (2011). Intersectional Invisibility: Inquiries into a Concept of Intersectionality Studies. In H. Lutz, M. T. H. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing Intersectionality Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies (pp. 187–206). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking Life Cycles on International Norms: The United Nations and the Global Promotion of Gender Equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis, G. (2013). Unsafe Travel: Experiencing Intersectionality and Feminist Displacements. Signs, 38(4), 869–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lombardo, E., & Verloo, M. (2009). Institutionalizing Intersectionality in the European Union? International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 478–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Menon, N. (2015). Is Feminism about Women. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 17.Google Scholar
  22. Moya, M. V. (2015). L’Intersectionnalité au Prisme du Féminisme Latino-Américain. Raisons Politiques, 58(2), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nash, J. C. (2016). Feminist Originalism: Intersectionality and the Politics of Reading. Feminist Theory, 17(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patil, V. (2013). From Patriarchy to Intersectionality: A Transnational Feminist Assessment of How Far We’ve Really Come. Signs, 38(4), 847–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. República Oriental del Uruguay. (2011). Census 2011.Google Scholar
  26. Roth, J. (2013). Entangled Inequalities as Intersectionalities: Towards an Epistemic Sensibilization ( Working Paper series). Berlin: Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America.
  27. Smooth, W. (2013). Intersectionality from Theoretical Framework to Policy Intervention. In A. R. Wilson (Ed.), Situating Intersectionality: Politics, Policy and Power (pp. 11–41). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tomlinson, B. (2013). To Tell the Truth and Not Get Trapped: Desire, Distance, and Intersectionality at the Scene of the Argument. Signs, 38(4), 993–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations