2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities

Abstract: The hypothesis that possessing multiple subordinate-group identities renders a person "invisible" relative to those with a single subordinate-group identity is developed. We propose that androcentric, ethnocentric, and heterocentric ideologies will cause people who have multiple subordinategroup identities to be defined as non-prototypical members of their respective identity groups. Because people with multiple subordinate-group identities (e.g., ethnic minority woman) do not fit the prototypes of their respe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

44
1,049
6
7

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,230 publications
(1,106 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
44
1,049
6
7
Order By: Relevance
“…They typically lack a social safety net by virtue of an absent supportive familial and social network and their attendant social isolation. Each of these marginalized positions interacts with the others and results in ‘intersectional invisibility’ [91], where experiences of people with intersectional subordinate group identities are misrepresented, marginalized, and disempowered. Every woman in Kelly’s study had a unique experience of identity, disadvantage, and inequality, creating individual-specific multiple jeopardy [92] and universal social injustice.…”
Section: Combining Biological Approaches and Intersectionalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They typically lack a social safety net by virtue of an absent supportive familial and social network and their attendant social isolation. Each of these marginalized positions interacts with the others and results in ‘intersectional invisibility’ [91], where experiences of people with intersectional subordinate group identities are misrepresented, marginalized, and disempowered. Every woman in Kelly’s study had a unique experience of identity, disadvantage, and inequality, creating individual-specific multiple jeopardy [92] and universal social injustice.…”
Section: Combining Biological Approaches and Intersectionalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[40][41][42] 'Intersectionality' is the study of how multiple systems of social stratification (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) influence an individuals' identity and lived experience, recognizing that every person holds a position (privilege or disadvantage) in different systems simultaneously, and that such positions can vary in magnitude and direction depending on time, place, and circumstance. [43][44][45][46] For example, an African-American bisexual man may inhabit a different social position as a part of a community coalition to address HIV than while at work in the police department. Intersectionality also explores how different levels of a social framework influence individuals experiences, including the intrapersonal level (e.g., internalized racism), 47 the interpersonal level (e.g., bias, discrimination), 48 the contextual level (e.g., societal victimization such as hate crimes), 49 and the macro-level, where structural inequalities (e.g., education, income distribution) exist.…”
Section: Applying Intersectionality To Health Disparitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the power imbalance in the gender-discordant care of female patients can be exacerbated by race or ethnicity, class, and other social identities that are marginalized in the US. As a result, women with multiple marginalized social identities (e.g., African-American women, women immigrants with language barriers) may be particularly at risk for not having their preferences for gender-concordance respected within clinical encounters [24][25][26]. Yet, even requests that reflect a patient's sense of entitlement and privilege rather than a position of individual or social vulnerability should still be considered as potentially falling within patients' right to be treated fairly in clinical encounters.…”
Section: Ethical Principles In Gender-concordant Care Requestsmentioning
confidence: 99%