Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries

May, Vivian M.

doi:10.4324/9780203141991

Cited by 470 publications

(320 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

312

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…225)." The abiding broad and vital relevance of the intersectionality framework is reflected in an upsurge of contemporary intersectionality scholarship (Carastathis, 2016;Collins & Bilge, 2016;Crenshaw, 2018;Grzanka, 2014;Hancock, 2016;May, 2015, Romero, 2018. The reproductive justice movement has embraced the intersectionality framework as a key strategy of analysis and activism.…”

Section: Theory and Praxis: Intersectionalit Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceiving the field: Infant mental health, intersectionality, and reproductive justice

John

2019

Infant Mental Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of infant mental health is conventionally comprised of professional discourses including developmental science, psychology, and psychiatry, among others, and involves spheres of practice as wide‐ranging as pediatrics, maternal/child health, early intervention, early care and education, and child welfare. The World Association of Infant Mental Health [WAIMH] put out its position paper on the rights of infants in 2014 (amended in March 2016) in recognition of the human rights implications of professional understanding of infants’ unique, yet universal, developmental capacities and needs. This article links the policy issues outlined in the WAIMH position paper with critical issues in the field of reproductive justice, extending the reach of WAIMH's call to action on behalf of infants’ rights, and pointing the way toward potent alliances among interconnected movements. Connecting the dots among economic injustice, race‐based health disparities, and gender inequities, the article demonstrates that it is not possible to safeguard infant mental health unless we make reproductive justice a reality.

show abstract

Section: Theory and Praxis: Intersectionalit Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceiving the field: Infant mental health, intersectionality, and reproductive justice

John

2019

Infant Mental Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If power asymmetries have skewed readings of Black feminist ideas and lives, navigating this problem of distortion, borne of unequal social relations, has also shaped Black feminists’ textual, rhetorical, and political strategies (Christian ; Alexander ; May ). To adequately appreciate all that a heterogeneous Black feminist love‐politics has to offer, in addition to tracing longer histories, everyday interpretive practices may also need transforming, since Black feminists’ theoretical innovations have often been flattened, distorted, or violated (Tomlinson ; May ).…”

Section: Countering “Unloving” Interpretive Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means developing the capacity to exercise ruptures with hegemony and to embark on (coalitional) journeys toward each other's worlds/histories/meanings/imaginaries. (May , 227)…”

Section: Countering “Unloving” Interpretive Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anna Julia Cooper's Black Feminist Love‐Politics

May¹

2017

Hypatia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To flesh out love's potential for transformative imaginaries and politics, it is important to explore earlier examples of Black feminist theorizing on love. In this spirit, I examine Anna Julia Cooper (1858–1964), an early Black feminist educator, intellectual, and activist whose work is generally overlooked in feminist and anti‐racist thinking on love, affect, and social change. Contesting narrow readings of Cooper, I first explore how critics might engage in more “loving” approaches to reading her work. I then delineate some of her contributions to a Black feminist love‐politics. In unmasking dominance enacted in love's name, Cooper analyzes romantic love, marriage, and gendered care‐work in the domestic sphere. Using an intersectional lens, she contests gendered‐raced hierarchies and links normative masculinity and femininity with white supremacy, xenophobia, and imperial rule. Cooper also extolls the possibilities of love rooted in nonhierarchical, intersubjective cooperation: such loving has the potential to transform interpersonal relations and foster broad collaborative action to eradicate inequality, locally and globally. Structural subjection, internalized oppression, and colonized imaginations have no part in Cooper's reciprocal, political love‐force. Unfortunately, her ideas about transforming gender relations, contesting racism, challenging imperialism, seeking decolonized selves, and pursuing solidarity as a loving political orientation remain relatively unknown.

show abstract

“…This type of analysis was recently suggested by Floya Anthias (), who pointed out that research on different systems of categories can be carried out at different levels of abstraction, for different analytical purposes. Most intersectional analysis is pitched at the level of ‘concrete social relations’ (Anthias : 10–11), where categories are ‘always permeated by other categories’ (Cho, Crenshaw and McCall : 795) and multiple categorical affiliations shape identities and life chances in an interactive and irreducibly intersectional rather than an ‘additive’ manner (Anthias : 12; Cho, Crenshaw and McCall ; Choo and Ferree ; Ferguson ; May ; Weldon ). At more abstract levels, however, we can fruitfully compare systems of categorically organized difference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interconnection in practice is not only a matter of the ‘intersectionality’ of social life, about which there is a vast literature (Cho, Crenshaw and McCall ; Collins ; May ). It is also matter of cross‐domain modelling or ‘translating’.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐domain comparison and the politics of difference

Brubaker

Fernández

2019

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper makes the case for cross-domain comparison as an undertheorized form of comparative analysis. The units of analysis in such comparisons are not (as in most comparative analysis) predefined units within a domain or system of formally similar yet substantively different categories or entities; they are the domains or systems of categorically organized differences themselves. Focusing on domains of categorical difference that are central to the contemporary politics of difference, we consider two examples of cross-domain comparison. The first compares sex/gender and race/ethnicity as systems of ascribed identities that are increasingly, yet to differing degrees and in differing ways, open to choice and change. The second compares religion and language as domains of categorically organized cultural difference that are centrally implicated in the politics of cultural pluralism. We situate these cross-domain comparisons, premised on a logic of 'different differences', between generalizing and particularizing approaches to the politics of difference, arguing that these domains are similar enough to make comparison meaningful yet different enough to make comparison interesting. We outline five analytical focal points for cross-domain comparison: the criteria of membership and belonging, the categorical versus gradational structure of variation within domains of difference, the consolidation or proliferation of categories of difference, the procedures for dealing with mixed or difficult-to-classify instances, and the relation between categories of difference and the production and reproduction of inequality. We conclude by considering several potential objections to crossdomain comparison.Political struggles over categorical difference -in the domains of race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, indigeneity, religion, language, gender, sexuality, disability, and so on -have become increasingly salient in Western liberal democratic settings. Such struggles are addressed by large bodies of work, much of it implicitly or explicitly comparative. With the significant exception of certain forms of intersectional scholarship, however, comparative work on the politics of difference has been largely restricted to within-domain comparison. 2 We propose that such work can usefully be complemented by cross-domain comparison. Such comparisons can enrich the analysis of the politics of difference by bringing into analytical focus both important cross-domain similarities and key cross-domain differences in matters such as the criteria of membership and belonging, the categorical versus gradational structure of variation within domains of difference, the consolidation or proliferation of categories of difference, the procedures for dealing with mixed or difficult-to-classify instances, and the relation between categories of difference and the production and reproduction of inequality.This type of analysis was recently suggested by Floya Anthias (2013), who pointed out that research on different systems of categories can be c...

show abstract

Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries

Cited by 470 publications

References 0 publications

Reconceiving the field: Infant mental health, intersectionality, and reproductive justice

Reconceiving the field: Infant mental health, intersectionality, and reproductive justice

Anna Julia Cooper's Black Feminist Love‐Politics

Cross‐domain comparison and the politics of difference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About