No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Intersectional Identity and Representative Politics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 October 2024
Extract
Representation scholarship has drawn from intersectionality theory 0to examine how systemic structures of oppression and privilege have created social groups with distinct political needs. Derived from Black feminist theory that recognizes that identities are mutually constitutive and interconnected, intersectionality research is rooted in the lived experiences of marginalized groups who call attention to social (in)justice. Empirical scholarship building on the insights of Black feminist theorists such as Collins and Bilge (2016), Hill Collins (1990), Crenshaw (1989; 1991), and King (1988) has constituted nothing less than a paradigm shift in the study of gender and politics. Nevertheless, there remain an array of opportunities to expand upon the potential for intersectional frameworks and methods, as well as pressing new questions concerning the operationalization of intersectionality itself. This Critical Perspectives section offers a moment to take stock of these developments and debates, as well as to highlight new pathways for scholarship committed to centering the margins and considering the nexus of multiple power structures that frame our political lives.
- Type
- Critical Perspective Introduction
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association
References
Alexander-Floyd, Nikol G. 2017. “Radical Black Feminism and the Fight for Social and Epistemic Justice.” In Broadening the Contours in the Study of Black Politics, 63–73. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Nadia E. 2014. “Political Participation of Women of Color: An Intersectional Analysis.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4):315–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Nadia E., and Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2017. “Examining Intersectionality and Symbolic Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (3):500–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Nadia E., and Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2016. “Intersectional Presentations: An Exploratory Study of Minority Congresswomen’s Websites’ Biographies.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 13 (1):85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Nadia E., Clark, Christopher J., and Mahoney, Mitchell, eds. 2023. Women of Color Political Elites in the US: Intersectional Political Experiences. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, Ivy AM 2023. “Stereotyping Latinas: Candidate Gender and Ethnicity on the Political Stage.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2):20725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casellas, Jason. 2011. “Latinas in Legislatures: The Conditions and Strategies of Political Incorporation.” Aztlan: A Jounal of Chicano Studies 36 (1):171–89.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, et al. 2014. “Quotas and Intersectionality: Ethnicity and Gender in Candidate Selection.” International Political Science Review 35 (1):41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Judy. 1989. “Asian Pacific American Women in Mainstream Politics.” In Making Waves: an Anthology of Writings by and About Asian American Women, eds. Asian Women United of California, 405–21. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill, and Bilge, Sirma. 2016. Intersectionality. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 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: 139.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review: 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, Robert, and Hadley, Charles D. 1988. “Black Women in Politics: The Puzzle of Success.” Social Science Quarterly: 629–45.Google Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Hadley, Charles D., and Kirksey, Jason F.. 1993. “Election Systems and the Representation of Black Women in American State Legislatures.” Women & Politics 13 (2):73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Elizabeth. 2016. “Diversity Matters: Intersectionality and Women’s Representation in the USA and UK.” Parliamentary Affairs 69 (3):569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, Sonia R, and Márquez, Marisela. 2001. “Motivational and Attitudinal Factors Amongst Latinas in US Electoral Politics.” NWSA Journal:112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, Claudine, and Tate, Katherine. 1998. “Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women.” Political Psychology 19 (1):169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2013. “Media Coverage of Minority Congresswomen and Voter Evaluations: Evidence from an Online Experimental Study.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (3):702–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm.” Politics & Gender 3 (2):248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy-Fanta, Carol, et al. 2007. “A New Look at Paths to Political Office: Moving Women of Color from the Margins to the Center.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pinderhughes, Diane, Lien, Pei-te, and Christine, M. Sierra. 2006. “The Contours and Context of Descriptive Representation.”Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97 (04):529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah, and Welch, Susan. 1992. “The Impact of At-Large Elections on the Representation of Black and White Women.” National Political Science Review 3:62–77.Google Scholar
Hill Collins, Patricia. 1990. “Black Feminist Thought Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.” Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Hughes, Melanie M. 2011. “Intersectionality, Quotas, and Minority Women’s Political Representation Worldwide.” American Political Science Review 105 (3):604–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Melanie 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
Hughes, Melanie M., and Dubrow, Joshua Kjerulf. 2018. “Intersectionality and Women’s Political Empowerment Worldwide.” In Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment across the Globe: Strategies, Challenges and Future Research, 77–96.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sarah J. 2016. “(Re) Imagining Intersectional Democracy from Black Feminism to Hashtag Activism.” Women’s Studies in Communication 39 (4):375–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junn, Jane, and Brown, Nadia. 2008. “What Revolution? Incorporating Intersectionality in Women and Politics.” In Political Women and American Democracy, eds. Wolbrecht, Christina, Beckwith, Karen, and Balde, Lisa, 64–78. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Deborah K. 1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.” Signs 14 (1):42–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lien, Pei-te. 2015. “Reassessing Descriptive Representation by Women and Men of Color: New Evidence at the Subnational Level.” URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW 51 (2):239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquez, Marisela. 1997. “Redefining Politics: Survey on Chicano and Latina Political Actors.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Tucson.Google Scholar
Montoya, Celeste. 2023. “Studying Latina Mobilization Intersectionally, Studying Latinas Mobilizing Intersectionality.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44 (4):405–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya, Celeste M, Bejarano, Christina, Brown, Nadia E, and Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2022. “The Intersectional Dynamics of Descriptive Representation.” Politics & Gender 18 (2):483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya, Lisa J., Hardy-Fanta, Carol, and Garcia, Sonia. 2000. “Latina Politics: Gender, Participation, and Leadership.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3):555–61.Google Scholar
Mügge, Liza M. 2016. “Intersectionality, Recruitment and Selection: Ethnic Minority Candidates in Dutch Parties.” Parliamentary Affairs 69 (3):512–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mügge, Liza M, van der Pas, Daphne J, and van de Wardt, Marc. 2019. “Representing Their Own? Ethnic Minority Women in the Dutch Parliament.” West European Politics:1–23.Google Scholar
Murray, Rainbow. 2016. “The Political Representation of Ethnic Minority Women in France.” Parliamentary Affairs 69 (3):586–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prestage, Jewel L. 1977. “Black Women State Legislators: A Profile.” A Portrait of Marginality: The Political Behavior of the American Woman:401–18.Google Scholar
Siow, Orly. 2023a. “Needles in a Haystack: An Intersectional Analysis of the Descriptive, Constitutive and Substantive Representation of Minoritised Women.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 6 (3):328–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siow, Orly. 2023b. “What Constitutes Substantive Representation, and Where Should We Evaluate It?” Political Studies Review:14789299231154864.Google Scholar
Smooth, Wendy. 2006. “Intersectionality in Electoral Politics: A Mess Worth Making.” Politics & Gender 2 (3):400–414.Google Scholar
Smooth, Wendy. 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
Takash, Paule Cruz. 1993. “Breaking Barriers To Representation: Chicana/Latina Elected Officials In California.” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 22 (3/4):325–60.Google Scholar
Ward, Orlanda. 2016. “Seeing Double: Race, Gender, and Coverage of Minority Women’s Campaigns for the US House of Representatives.” Politics & Gender 12 (2):317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Representation scholarship has drawn from intersectionality theory 0to examine how systemic structures of oppression and privilege have created social groups with distinct political needs. Derived from Black feminist theory that recognizes that identities are mutually constitutive and interconnected, intersectionality research is rooted in the lived experiences of marginalized groups who call attention to social (in)justice. Empirical scholarship building on the insights of Black feminist theorists such as Collins and Bilge (Reference Collins and Bilge2016), Hill Collins (Reference Hill Collins1990), Crenshaw (Reference Crenshaw1989; Reference Crenshaw1991), and King (Reference King1988) has constituted nothing less than a paradigm shift in the study of gender and politics. Nevertheless, there remain an array of opportunities to expand upon the potential for intersectional frameworks and methods, as well as pressing new questions concerning the operationalization of intersectionality itself. This Critical Perspectives section offers a moment to take stock of these developments and debates, as well as to highlight new pathways for scholarship committed to centering the margins and considering the nexus of multiple power structures that frame our political lives.
Despite pioneering studies of Black women’s representation (Darcy and Hadley Reference Darcy and Hadley1988; Darcy et al. Reference Darcy, Hadley and Kirksey1993; Gay and Tate Reference Gay and Tate1998; Herrick and Welch Reference Herrick and Welch1992; Prestage Reference Prestage1977), Latina and Chicana representation (Marquez Reference Marquez1997; Takash Reference Takash1993), and Asian American women’s representation (Chu Reference Chu1989), gender and politics research has historically been limited in its attention to the intersections of gender, race, and other power structures. The authors in this Critical Perspectives are animated by ongoing calls for political science research on representation to take these intersections seriously and to center the experiences of representatives and constituents/electorates who are women of color (Smooth Reference Smooth2011; Reference Smooth2006; Alexander-Floyd Reference Alexander-Floyd2017; 2014; Brown, Clark, and Mahoney Reference Brown, Clark and Mahoney2023; Hancock Reference Hancock2007). This scholarly exploration offers a deeper understanding of how oppressive strucures animate the political lives of under-theorized groups. It is with that in mind that we center the voices, experiences, and political behavior of women of color.
Existing scholarship employing intersectional approaches has advanced knowledge of the experiences and contributions of women of color in legislatures (Brown Reference Brown2014; Casellas Reference Casellas2011; García and Márquez Reference García and Márquez2001; Cargile Reference Cargile2023; Montoya et al Reference Montoya, Hardy-Fanta and Garcia2000; Montoya Reference Montoya2023); the intersection of gender and race in campaigns (Ward Reference Ward2016; Gershon Reference Gershon2013); intersectional understandings of descriptive (Montoya et al. Reference Montoya, Bejarano, Brown and Gershon2022; Lien Reference Lien2015), substantive (Siow Reference Siow2023a; Siow Reference Siow2023b; Mügge et al. Reference Mügge, van der Pas and van de Wardt2019), and symbolic representation (Brown and Gershon Reference Brown and Gershon2017); as well as raced and gendered institutions (Hawkesworth Reference Hawkesworth2003) and a reimagining of democratic representation inspired by Black feminism (Jackson Reference Jackson2016). These contributions highlight why it essential to understand how positionalities shape political institutions and representative politics.
However, in employing intersectional frameworks, the authors in this Critical Perspectives argue that scholars must remain reflexive regarding how representatives and those represented are grouped, as well as attentive to the inherent assumptions and power relations that underpin these groupings (Junn and Brown Reference Junn, Brown, Wolbrecht, Beckwith and Balde2008). This approach includes interrogating how researchers operationalize gender (Murib, this collection), considering the effects of race beyond the US (Lu, this collection), theorizing the actions of minority representatives in hegemonically white and patriarchal contexts (Begum et al, this collection), and applying intersectional approaches in global South contexts (Johnson, this collection). Scholars must also confront new challenges presented by categorizations of democratic representation itself (Celis and Childs, this collection).
In doing so, the contributions in this Critical Perspectives are keen to advance a methodologically pluralist approach to employing an intersectional lens within political science, building on a growing body of work on this topic (Brown Reference Brown2014; Brown Reference Brown2014; Mügge, van der Pas, and van de Wardt Reference Mügge, van der Pas and van de Wardt2019; Evans Reference Evans2016; Murray Reference Murray2016; Mügge Reference Mügge2016; Celis et al. Reference Celis2014; Hardy-Fanta et al. Reference Hardy-Fanta2007; Hardy-Fanta et al. Reference Hardy-Fanta, Pinderhughes, Lien and Christine2006; Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, and Garcia Reference Montoya, Hardy-Fanta and Garcia2000; Hawkesworth Reference Hawkesworth2003; Hughes and Dubrow Reference Hughes and Dubrow2018; Hughes Reference Hughes2013; Hughes Reference Hughes2011; Brown and Gershon Reference Brown and Gershon2016; Montoya et al. Reference Montoya, Bejarano, Brown and Gershon2022). The authors acknowledge the potential for innovation in methodology while cautioning that the theoretical underpinning of inquiry should determine the approach, resisting simplifications that may miss the richness of experiences of women of color and what researchers might learn from it. Additionally, the authors encourage continuous investigation within marginalized groups about how race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, and other political salient identities intersect to shape not only political participation and its potential but identity (re)formulation itself.
This collection of essays on intersectionality and representation specifically addresses the diversity within marginalized groups in cross-national contexts with the intention of breaking down homogenized perceptions of any one group. In doing so, the authors invite readers to consider the challenges and opportunities this diversity presents for practical politics. What new coalitions might be possible? What divisions may be underlying our lack of progress toward equality? Together, these short pieces raise innovative questions and invite new research agendas regarding the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation, the politics of race in cross-national context, the operationalization of intersectionality within political science, and methods for addressing the complexity of intersectional identity and representative politics.
Scholar Activism and Reimagining Democracy
Karen Celis and Sarah Childs begin by offering an anthology of what they call “intersectional representational problematics”, laying bare the challenges that intersectional power dynamics pose to good representation within and beyond parliaments. They call for Feminist Democratic Design (FDD) to reimagine and redesign and rebuild democratic practices and architectures through an intersectional feminist lens. This includes collaboration across academics, practitioners, and civil society, as counterstrategies to respond to frequent violence and backlash against democratic gains for marginalized groups. In short, they argue, scholars need some “big thinking” about democracy, feminism, and intersectionality.
Challenging Dominant Methodological Approaches
Zein Murib offers a challenge to the discipline, namely, to recognize the limitations of employing solely a biological understanding of gender. One shortcoming of failing to decouple biology and gender is that the discipline has trouble making sense of political movements hostile to trans rights. From a measurement perspective, using a binary measure of gender can lead to measurement error. Murib exposes the very material political consequences of misidentifying subjects of political science inquiry and argues that a qualitative approach represents a path forward.
Race and Paradoxical Representation
Neema Begum, Michael Bankole, Shardia Briscoe-Palmer, Dan Godshaw, and Rima Saini employ an intersectional approach to re-appraise the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation, theorizing instances in which certain ethnic minority politicians not only refrain from substantively representing the constituencies that they substantively represent, but actively act against those constituents. The authors introduce the concept of “paradoxical representation” to capture this phenomenon, which they argue occurs in a context of “hegemonically white and patriarchal structures on ethnically diverse conservative politics.” In so doing, Begum et al demonstrate the value of investigating the range of ideological perspectives among people of color and how the racing and gendering within institutions shapes representation.
Disability and Global South Perspectives
Adetokunbo Johnson contributes an application of intersectionality in two ways which have thus far remained understudied: intersections between gender and disability and intersectionality in a global south context. Her analysis of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, also known as the Maputo Protocol, highlights the ways in which Article 14(2)(C) simultaneously promotes “recognition and support of African women’s reproductive autonomy,” while also risking “perpetuation of prevalent stigma and discrimination against women with disabilities” without “deliberate and intentional intersectional interpretation.” This analysis exposes the limits of single axis approaches and the ambivalences experienced by multi-marginalized groups in many other contexts.
Gender and Ethnicity in a Cross-National Context
Fan Lu examines Asian women candidates for office in the US and Canada. In this innovative work, Lu shows that Asian Canadians face more barriers to achieving descriptive representation than do Asian American women, due in part to the deference of recruitment to male-dominated religious organizations within particular communities. By moving beyond an assumption that shared racial identity would lead to identical experiences for Asian women candidates, this study reinforces the importance of keeping in mind the role of context when conducting studies on women of color and their entrance into electoral politics.
Advancing Intersectional Research on Representation
By presenting this collection, the authors and editors hope to generate further research into the diversity within various political categories that thus far have only been presented as homogenized groups. In doing so, political science will come closer to understanding real political lives and move away from tokenism both of its subjects and of political diversity itself. We hope to engage senior scholars whose initial research has created the foundations upon which to build as well as the cutting-edge contributions of those most recently inaugurated into the discipline into this conversation. We recognize that this may be an uncomfortable undertaking that may question the findings of long-standing works and invite self-interrogations of methodological choices throughout the canon. Our own work may be found in the crosshairs, and we welcome the opportunity to question our own assumptions and learn new ways of inquiry. We see this reflection as an opportunity for all scholars to expand our understanding and work collaboratively to better illustrate the political world in which we all strive for representation.