The mutual constitution of risk and inequalities: intersectional risk theory

Abstract

This article examines the conceptual importance of integrating risk and intersectionality theory for the study of how risk and various forms of inequality intersect and are mutually constitutive. We argue that an intersectional perspective can advance risk research by incorporating more effectively the role of such social categories as gender and race into the analysis of 'risk' as an empirical phenomenon. In doing so, it articulates more clearly the connection between the social construction of risk with, on the one hand, the reproduction of new and complex social inequalities and, on the other, intersections of social class, gender, ethnicity, and other social categorizations. The article traces the intellectual division between risk and feminist-inspired intersectionality research, showing how these approaches can be aligned to study, for example, risk-based welfare and social policy. This case is used to illustrate how an intersectional perspective can reveal the ways in which new governance strategies create new divisions and reproduce existing forms of social inequality. The article concludes with a call for a new research agenda to integrate intersectional frameworks with 2 risk theory in order to provide a more nuanced analysis of the relationship between social inequality and risk. IntroductionFraming social problems in terms of risk has become a common strategy for managing complex social changes at national and international levels. As a consequence, the actions of social institutions that, for instance, deal with social challenges through welfare interventions or social inclusion initiatives are being transformed by the use of risk discourse and risk management practices. Thus, 'social problems', often associated with particular categories of 'vulnerable' people, are redefined, reframed, and-ultimately-managed as 'risks'.

Risk and Social Theory: the legitimacy of risks and risk as a tool of legitimation

“…comprehending the intersectionality of structures of class, gender, ethnicity, age and so on offer important purchase on this 'exercise of power' (Olofsson et al, 2014). The value of such insights is usefully illustrated through these authors' reflections on recent tendencies in welfare policy, but also in the following article by Montelius and Giritli-Nygren.…”

La perspectiva feminista de la interseccionalidad en el campo de la salud pública: revisión narrativa de las producciones teórico-metodológicas

“…Los desafíos de la incorporación de los presupuestos conceptuales y metodológicos y la potencialidad de la interseccionalidad para el campo de las investigaciones constituyen el foco del eje temático denominado debates teórico-metodológicos de la interseccionalidad en la salud, que incluye diez trabajos (16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26) producidos en los últimos diez años, cinco de los cuales corresponden a autoras canadienses. Autoras como Olena Hankivsky y Lisa Bowleg, originalmente vinculadas a los women's studies, promueven "revisiones críticas" a partir de sus áreas de actuación (estudios canadienses de los determinantes sociales de la salud y estudios estadounidenses sobre raza y minorías en salud, respectivamente), quienes enumeran y proponen debatir críticamente las posibles contribuciones del abordaje de la interseccionalidad como herramienta teórico-metodológica para comprender mejor y enfrentar las diferenciaciones y desigualdades en salud, hecho que actualmente también se coloca como desafío global (17,18,19) .…”

The Social Construction of Risk in Digital Preservation

“…To summarize, research has shown that lived experience, including exposure or vulnerability to risk, can influence risk perception (for instance, Konheim, ; Olofsson et al, ). This view of risk perception corresponds to the section about organizations above, which argues that vulnerability and privilege can affect risk perception—because different roles within an organization have varying amounts of perceived and real power, control, vulnerability, and exposure to risk.…”