SITUATING INTERSECTIONALITY PoLiTics, POLICY, AND POWER Edited by Angelia R. Wilson palgrave macmillanCONTENTS Series Introduction: The Politics of Intersectionality Acknowledgments Introduction Angelia R. Wilson 1 Intersectionality from Theoretical Framework to Policy Intervention Wendy G. Smooth 2 Intersectional Advances? Inclusionary and Intersectional State Action in Uruguay Erica E. Townsend-Bell 3 ID Cards as Access: Negotiating Transgender (and Intersex) Bodies into the Chilean Legal System Penny Miles 4 International Adoption as Humanitarian Aid: The Discursive and Material Production of the “Social Orphan” in Haitian Disaster Relief Kate Livingston 5 Gendered Subjectivity and Intersectional Political Agency in Transnational Space: The Case of Turkish and Kurdish Women’s NGO Activists Anil Al-Rebholz 6 Gender Variance: The Intersection of Understandings Held in the Medical and Social Sciences Ryan Combs xi xiii ll 43 63 89 107 131x 7 Intersectional Analysis at the Medico-Legal Borderland: ConTENTS HIV Testing Innovations and the Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure Daniel Grace Crossroads or Categories? Intersectionality Theory and the Case of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Equalities Initiatives in UK Local Government Surya Monro and Diane Richardson Notes on Contributors Index 157 189 209 2131 INTERSECTIONALITY FROM THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO PoLticy INTERVENTION Wendy G. Smooth Tntersectionalicy, the assertion that social identity categories such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability are interconnected and operate simultaneously to produce experiences of both privilege and marginalization, has transformed old conversations while inspir- ing new debates across the academy. Intersectionality encourages recognition of the differences that exist among groups, moving dialogue beyond considering only the differences between groups. Originating from discontent with treatments of “women” as a homogenous group, intersectionality has evolved into a theoreti- cal research paradigm that seeks to understand the interaction of various social identities and how these interactions define societal power hierarchies. Intersectionality encourages us to embrace the complexities of group-based politics by critically examining the variances in social location that exist among those claiming mem- bership in groups." At the same time that intersectionality helps to make sense of the experiences of people who find themselves living at the inter- sections of social identities, intersectionality also is concerned with the systems that give meaning to the categories of race, gen- der, class, sexual identity, among others. In other words, at the societal level intersectionality seeks to make visible the systems of oppression that maintain power hierarchies and organize society while also providing a means to theorize experience at the indi- vidual level.12 WENDY G, SMOOTH Intersectionality scholarship has emerged as one of the most significant areas of research across academic disciplines. It has. been considered “the most important theoretical contribution that women’s studies in conjunction with related fields has made so far” (McCall, 2005, 1771). It has opened a plethora of new and exciting research questions and analyses. Viewing the world from the intersections of various social locations, including race, gender, class, ability, nationality, sexuality, among other locations, has produced an important paradigm shift in terms of how we study and approach questions of hierarchy, inequality, power, and what constitutes the just society. As Berger and Guidroz (2010, 7) argue, intersectionality represents a new “social literacy” that challenges traditional framing of research questions and meth- odology. Speaking to the reach of this new social literacy, they assert that to be “an informed social theorist or methodologi in many fields of scholarly inquiry, but most especially in women’s studies, one must grapple with the implications of intersectional- ity.” (Ibid.) In this chapter, I focus largely on the developments of intersec- tionality from a Western, predominately US, perspective. However, as intersectionality is at its core concerned with questions of power and inequities, this discussion is applicable to wider political con- texts, In fact, as more scholars engage intersectionality in their work in non-Western contexts, under differing political regimes, power hierarchies, and varied historical understandings of how dif ference is constituted, we are able to further our collective under- standings of power and the role that institutions play in giving meaning to identities. Not all claims of intersectionality theory as constituted through a Western, specifically US, lens are applicable to non-Western, non-US contexts. As 1 show here, this perspec- tive reflects particular power hierarchies predominantly, though not exclusively around race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability. Social categories do not carry the same meaning across contexts and systems of oppression operate differently according to the context. While race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability have been central to intersectionality approaches in the United States, these same categories may be less salient in other contexts where citizen- ship, language, and region may structure the formation of social hierarchies.? For example, Anil Al-Rebholz in this volume illus- trates the salience of religion and culture as categories of analysis,THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 13 while race is less a determinant of social hierarchies in the lives of women in Turkey. ‘As intersectionality is used to understand power hierarchies in spaces outside the United States, the categories of analysis must change as well. However, as intersectionality travels, some elements are so fundamental that without these elements intersectionality becomes unrecognizable and incapable of doing the political work it was designed to do. Kimberle Crenshaw, who is credited with naming, the concept of intersectionality, has remarked that inter- sectionality often appears as a traveler who shows up at a destina- tion without her luggage (Crenshaw, 2011). As it has traveled it is often stripped of the very elements that made it a critical theory with a social justice imperative. One of my goals in this chapter is to connect intersectionality back to its origins and in doing so equip it for future travels. This volume attests that while the cat- egories of analysis may alter based on the political context under study, core elements of understanding engagements with power remain salient. As scholars around the world continue to contrib- ute to the development of intersectionality as a research paradigm, we are able to develop greater specificity regarding the processes by which groups are privileged and marginalized in societies. I begin this chapter by first offering a brief genealogy of inter- sectionality locating its origins with black feminist scholars and activists. Next, I assert a set of general principles reflected in articulations of intersectionality, noting the shifting terrain of intersectionality scholarship. Since intersectionality scholarship is understood widely as under development, I pose the question, “What do social scientists, such as political scientists and others interested in institutions and institutional processes, offer to the further development of the intersectionality paradigm?” Using my own work as an example of deploying intersectionality in the study of political institutions, I situate the types of questions political science illuminates in relation to intersectionality. I also recognize that the tensions that make intersectionality attractive to so many, may limit its advancement within political science and other social science disciplines. The paradox for social science researchers is that intersectionality exists as both a highly structured theoretical framework, yet a loosely configured research paradigm. An over- emphasis on this concern, as I argue at the close of the chapter, could derail the potential advocacy and policy work scholars are14 Wenpy G. SMOOTH poised to do in an attempt to address inequality across identity categories. Those of us who study the manifestations of power through itions are well positioned to push the development of intersectionality toward even greater attentiveness to the structures and institutions that give meaning to politicized identities. The legal apparatuses articulated through policies, con- ventions, resolutions, and institutions give individual subjects meaning, by at times extending, and at others resending, rights. As well, these institutions and structures bound, direct, and order individual and group choices. These apparatuses configure prominently in determining the material consequences for indi- viduals and condition how individuals articulate their identities. Ultimately, applying such structural analyses to intersectional- ity moves toward an expanded notion of what constitutes “iden- tity politics.” Such a focus on structures and institutions does the political work of troubling ¢ ntialized notions of identity and interrogates the idea of naturalized categories with distinct boundaries by understanding, identity as evolving as institutions (Le., laws, policies, and conventions) shift and change. In addition, this focus allows the foregrounding of the material consequences and implications of identity categorizations on individual life cir- cumstances and group politics. Understanding the internal logic and organizational patterns of the structures and institutions that dictate and enforce identity hierarchies, I argue, is a critical step toward reconfiguring the effects of these structures and their role in determining individual and group circumstances. The chapters in this volume are representative of the work political scientists and others interested in the study of institutions are contributing to deepening our understandings of how institu- tions and political structures give meaning to identities and struc- ture the relationships between social identity groups. The focus on institutions and institutional behavior allows us to add clarity to the conversation on the processes by which multiple identities are constituted and how the salience of identity categorizations shift and evolve over time as they interact with political institutions, structures, and movements. In honing political scientists’ contr bution to this ongoing conversation in this way, T do not mean to undermine or limit the study of intersectionality at the ana- lytical levels of individual subjective experience, cultural discourse,THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 15 = and representation for political scientists.* Indeed, these are all relevant levels of analysis for intersectionality research and illu- minate important aspects of how identity categories intersect and how social divisions are constructed and maintained (Yuval-Davis, 2006). However, in light of the specific claims and values of politi- cal science as a discipline, we are positioned uniquely to advance thinking about the role of institutions and structures in defining and maintaining identity categories. In other writings, I have made the case for political science and policy studies more fully adopting intersectionality as a research paradigm and how intersectionality contributes to the study of politics and policy analysis (Smooth, 2006, 2011). Here, I adopt a different approach, reflecting on what political science and policy studies offer to further develop the intersectional approach. Beyond, how do we situate intersectionality in the study of politics and policy, the question I explore in this piece is, “What specifi- cally can political science and policy studies contribute to the study of intersectionality as a research paradigm that crosses disciplinary locations?” In other words, “What tools of analysis do we offer to the development of intersectionality as a research paradigm?” As well, I consider the importance of political science and policy scholars well versed in intersectionality and policy, structures, and institutions to the emerging policy debates that seek to utilize intersectionality. INTERSECTIONALITY AND THE POLITICS OF ORIGIN STORIES Origin stories are important in terms of locating a historical tra- jectory and are equally important to determining what remains at stake in our politically engaged scholarship. Therefore, I find it critically important to locate intersectionality’s origins in struggles for inclusion that mark the experiences of those who first gave academic voice to the concept: black feminist theorists and activ- ists. Intersectionality stems from investments in societal transfor- mation, inclusion, and challenges to the status quo; therefore, in starting with this origin story I strive to maintain its critiques of durable hierarchies and privileges. Retaining this understanding of intersectionality’s origin is especially critical as it moves across disciplinary locations and16 Wenpy G. SMOOTH expands from its roots in black feminist theory to function as a theoretical paradigm that may or may not center on negotiations of race and gender hierarchies. With this expansion, it becomes easy to separate intersectionality from its roots in black feminist theory, thereby crasing the intellectual contributions of black fem- inist scholars and more so their commitments to dismantling race and gender hierarchies. ‘As intersectionality has grown into an academic “buzzword” (Davis, 2008), it has come to operate as shorthand verbiage used to signify a host of meanings. In its status as the current “it” theory, it takes on assumptions and con notations that move away from its foundation. It has also become all too easy to gesture to intersectionality as a means of mentioning interrogations with difference and power hierarchies without substantively taking up the demands of intersectional analysis. As Knapp (2005) argues, it allows scholars to use the terminology and gesture to inclu- sion, while continuing to pursue research in ways that do not substantively challenge the status quo. Stephanie Shields (2008) illustrates this tendency through the use of what she refers to as the “self-excusing,” often apologetic disclosure paragraph authors may include in their work. In this ceremonious paragraph, authors acknowledge the importance of intersectionality, yet absolve themselves from actually substantively including such analyses in their work (Shields, 2008, 305). In this way, scholars are cred- ited with recognizing the significance of such an analysis and are credited with being politically and intellectually relevant, but their refusal to participate in developing the concept through empirical and theoretical analysis contributes to a stagnating process. Such treatments transform intersectionality into a signifying keyword. Keywords, as Fraser and Gordon (1994) assert, assume 2 taken- for-granted common-sense status that elide critical reflection. In the wake of becoming academic cache, we can too easily take for granted the historical roots of intersectionality and the politicized struggles associated with the term. My locating and centering the origin story of intersectional- ity with black feminist intellectuals also represents an attempt to return attention to intersectionality’s critical stance on uncovering the operation of power and privilege that render individuals and groups marginalized. This stands in contrast to deployments of intersectionality that explore how power is most familiar, or exploreE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 17 the compounded privileges of the powerful.* Intersectionality can tell us much about the ways in which intersections of privilege col- lide to produce greater privilege. For example, a white, Western, middle-classed, heterosexual, able-bodied man presents interlock- ing social identities that help to explain how he experiences the political world. Intersectionality theory is capable of shedding light on his experiences, identities, and the resulting compounded privileges. However, I maintain that intersectionality is most use- ful not when it is used to explore how power is most familiar, but when intersectionality offers us a means to make visible hid- den power differentials that are naturalized through systems of inequality, or when it helps researchers disrupt dominate narra- tives of privilege. In such projects, intersectionality is aligned more closely with its origins and does the political work of unraveling oppressive systems of power. A Brief GENEALOGY OF INTERSECTIONALITY While critical race legal theorist Kimberle Crenshaw is credited with coining the term intersectionality in her writings on black women’s experiences with employment discrimination (1989) and domestic violence (1991), scholars including Crenshaw acknow- ledge the foundations of intersectionality as emerging much earlier in the works of early black feminist intellectuals. Around the same time of Crenshaw’s writings, scholarship reflecting upon oneself as belonging to multiple identity groups and understanding that identity as a qualitatively different experience was developing also beyond the United States (see, for example, Anthias and Yuval- Davis, 1992). Crenshaw (1989) coined the term “intersectionality” as a meta- phor to explain the ways in which black women under the US legal system are often caught between multiple systems of oppres- sion marked by race, gender, and economic hierarchies without being recognized for their unique experiences at the convergence of these systems.® Focusing on employment discrimination cases, Crenshaw argues that dominant conceptualizations of discrimina- tion under the law rely on determining discrimination using only a single axis framework. Using court cases brought forth by black women, Crenshaw illus- trates a repeated pattern in which black women are protected under18 WENDy G. SMOOTH discrimination laws only to the extent in which their experiences align with either white women or black men (Crenshaw, 1989, 143). Racial discrimination cases are thus determined by the experiences of black men, and, in sex discrimination cases, the experiences of white women are privileged. As Crenshaw shows, the courts have a history of failing to account for the lives of black women who experience the effects of discrimination injuries on the basis of both race and gender. As well, Crenshaw argues that discrimination law discredited black women as suitable representatives in cases of race or sex discrimination because in either context their “hybrid” iden- tity precluded them from serving as “pure” representatives of either claim (Crenshaw, 1989, 145). In fact, their claims of belonging to both groups have been treated as a compounded discrimination that reaches beyond the intent of antidiscrimination law. Crenshaw argues that the single axis framework articulated by the courts limits claims of discrimination as emanating from a discrete source of discrimination race or sex but not accounting for the experiences of those who are “mutually burdened.” The intersectional metaphor is explained: Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions. Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in anot her. Ifan accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling, from any number of directions, and sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination. (Crenshaw, 1989, 149) It is through this analysis of discrimination law that Crenshaw sets the parameters of the intersectionality framework. In discuss- ing the responses of the courts, she argues that the simultane- ous experience of race and sex discrimination render black women invisible by the courts. Similarly, women of color were rendered invisible through the early discursive practices of both feminist and critical race theory. While Crenshaw bases her discussion of intersectionality on the experiences of black women, scholars later extended her discussion to focus on the ways in which single-issue frameworks fail to adequately capture the experiences of a myriad of groups in society that experience marginalization along mul- tiple axes of power.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 19 Writing in the late 1980s, Crenshaw’s work is a continuance of women of color’s writings that reflect dissatisfaction with treat- ments of women of color’s activism, writings, and lived experiences. Numerous scholars argue that women of color’s contributions were suppressed through failures to recognize the convergence of identity categories or systems of oppression. The Combahee River Collective (1982 [1977]), Anzuldua (1987), Dill (1983), Moraga and Anzuldua (1984), King (1988), and Mohanty (1988), all pro- duced pivotal writings during this period that shared in disrupting notions that the category “woman” denotes a universal, homoge- neous experience. Instead, these authors asserted that race, class, and sexuality distinguish women’s behavior and experiences. These writings represent a continuance of feminist scholars of color articulating the multiplicities of their identities and the politi- cal consequences of multiple constituted identities. For centuries, women of color have articulated the conundrum that the term inter- sectionality represents and have articulated both a scholarly and activist tradition emanating from their social location in US society. Nineteenth-century African American scholar-activist Anna Julia Cooper recognized the unique position of African American women at the nexus of struggles for racial and gender equality. Cooper argued that the progress of African Americans rested upon the abilities of African American women to advance, She eloquently articulates that it is “when and where I enter, in the quiet, undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without violence and without suing or special patron- age, then and there the whole... .race enters with me” (Cooper, 1892, 31). Cooper’s words were similar to other activist women of color such as Sojurner Truth and Ida B. Wells who also articulated the unique positioning of African American women. Later, groups such as the Combahee River Collective, a cadre of black lesbian feminist activists writing in the 1970s, articulated the simultaneous effects poised by race, class, gender, and sexuality. Across social movements, women of color argued for a politics of inclusion that recognized the legitimacy of their claims based upon their needs as women of color. Many authors recognize the linkages of intersectionality to the developments in black feminist theory. Evelyn Simien (2006) situates intersectionality as growing from black women’s lived experience and argues that such theoriz- ing developed as a pragmatic response to their life circumstances. Black feminist theory remains an important theoretical home for20 Wenpy G. SMOOTH the study of intersectionality, though more contemporary discus- sions of intersectionality advocate for moving away from thinking of intersectionality as a framework solely explaining the experi- ences of women of color to thinking in terms of how intersection ality offers more robust understandings of power differentials that exist among various groups in society (Hancock, 2007a). As intersectionality developed, and in its earliest theorizing and application, most scholars focused on the triumvirate of oppres- sion: race, class, and gender. These three social identities and sys- tems of power were given primacy in light of the ways systems of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and class oppres- sion work in tandem to situate women of color, particularly in US society. However, as intersectionality has evolved, there is greater emphasis on the systems and processes that operate in tandem to produce various inequalities and privileges. Several chapters in this volume do this work. For example, Miles engages intersectional- ity as a framework to interrogate state-administered identification practices that protect state interests in maintaining a gender binary while the trans community in Chile must live between legal and lived identities that as Miles argues, “renders everyday interaction a complex, distressing and destabilizing process” (67). Miles and contributors to this volume are not only mobilizing intersectional- ity scholarship beyond the parameters of the United States where different systems map the basis for discrimination and inequality, but they are also placing an important emphasis on the institutions, processes, and systems that undergird systems of inequality. PRINCIPLES OF INTERSECTIONALITY Intersectionality’s substantial popularity is driven partially by its appeal to progressive politics exercising a practice of inclusionary politics in which marginalized groups are given voice, With the great acclaim that surrounds intersectionality, there is still much dissent surrounding its boundaries. Scholars from across disciplin- ary locations are engaging in further developing intersectionality by asserting new definitions, new levels of analysis, and arguing the most appropriate methodologies to capture the theoretical assertions of intersectionality. Intersectionality presents as in flux with limited distinctive boundaries, which is both inviting and problematic for scholars.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO PoLicy INTERVENTION 21 . Here, I present some general premises of intersectionality as an evolving paradigm and then reflect on each in more detail. In doing so, I fully recognize that intersectionality continues to develop across disciplinary spaces; its elements are under constant negotiation and revision. Nevertheless, these principles are start- ing points to understanding this dynamic and complex frame- work. At its core foundations, intersectionality is concerned with the following: J. Resisting additive models that treat categories of social identity as additive, parallel categories and instead theorizes these categories as intersecting; 2. Antiessentialism and insists upon variation within categories of social identity; 3. Recognition that soctal identity categories and the power systems that give them meaning shift across time and geographical location; 4, Embracing the coexistence of privilege and marginalization acknowl- edging that they are not mutually exclusive; 5. Changing the conditions of society such that categories of identity are not permanently linked to sustained inequalities in efforts to build a more just world. 1. Resisting Additive Models and Parallel Categories Intersectionality has encouraged scholars to move away from mod- els that situate categories such as race, gender, class, and sexuality as a singular axis of power. This framework staunchly resists an understanding of gender, race, class, sexuality, ability as parallel categories. Instead, what intersectionality encourages us to do is to understand the ways in which these categories are not simply par- allel but intersecting categories. Intersectionality posits that race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and various aspects of identity are constitutive. Each informs the other and taken together, they pro- duce a way of experiencing the world as sometimes oppressed and marginalized and sometimes privileged and advantaged depend- ing on the context. Intersectionality requires that we pay close attention to the par- ticulars of categories of social identity. As many have argued, it is not enough to simply “add race and stir” to include perspectives of women of color. Intersectionality requires that we recognize that systems of oppression and hierarchy are neither interchangeable22 Wenpy G. SMOOTH nor are they identical; therefore, much is made of understanding the ways that these categories function. These social categories have differing organizing logics in that race works differently than gender, class, or sexuality. Power associated with these categories is neither configured in the same ways nor do they share the same histories therefore, they cannot be treated identically (Phoenix and Pattynama, 2006). 2. Antiessentialism and Diversity within Categories Intersectionality takes into account that there is great variation within categories of social identity, Understanding social identities as mutually constitutive produces an array of ways of experiencing blackness, working class, or sex and sexuality. This encourages us to move away from essentializing or reducing experiences to “the Latino experience” or “¢he lesbian experience” and allows for mul- tiple ways of experiencing these social categories as they link and are informed by other categories. Cathy Cohen (1999) argues that in doing so, we avoid producing secondary marginalization in which issues are defined based upon the needs of the more privileged of a group and not in the interests of those who are impacted by mul- tiple systems of oppression or even less valued systems of oppres- sion by particular communities. This reduces the lure to privilege one aspect of a person’s identity at the expense of other aspects. In Affirmative Advocacy, Dara Strolovich (2007) shows how this sec- ondary marginalization process happens among advocacy groups that purport to represent complex identities often marginalized in US politics. She finds that despite claims of representing the totality of their group, advocates representing marginalized groups seldom represent their constituents who are intersectionally marginalized, even among the most well-intentioned groups. 3. Power as Shifting and Changing While intersectionality places great emphasis on understanding the means by which power is configured, it also establishes power as dynamic and shifting rather than static and fixed. As such, we cannot conclude that power operates in the same ways across con- texts of time and location. Sociopolitical and economic histories figure prominently into adequately defining the power relations intersectionality seeks to make visible.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 23 Depending upon the context, those who are marginalized and those who have power differ. Therefore, we cannot evaluate oppres- sion and marginalization without a sense of history as well as the social, political, and economic opportunities available to various groups across history. Categories are not fixed and change over time. Their social and political meanings often change in different historical contexts, and are contested and restructured both at the level of the individual (what it means to me and my experiences) and at the societal level (what it means to society and social sys- tems) (Yuval-Davis, 2006). The significance of geographical loca- tion to transforming the relationships between categories as well as within categories has grown as intersectionality travels across disci- plinary locations and into transnational conversations. The systems of power that dictate whether that social identity is a marker of privilege or marginalization also changes according to geographi- cal location and configurations of power in that society. 4. Privilege and Marginalization Privilege and marginalization are central to studies of intersec- tionality. While many might assume that these two categories are mutually exclusive, intersectionality scholarship has focused on their coexistence. One can experience oppression along one axis and privilege along another. Intersectionality focuses on power across categories and in relation to one another understanding that power is not equal across categories. Patricia Hill Collins (1990) situates race, class, and gender as interlocking systems that create an overarching “matrix of domination” in which actors can not only be victimized by power but can also exercise power over oth- ers. Collins highlights the contradictory nature of oppression sug- gesting that few “pure victims” or “pure oppressors” exist. Penalty and privilege are distributed among individuals and groups within the matrix of domination such that none are marked exclusively by one or the other. 5. Changing Conditions Julia Jordan-Zachery (2007) reminds us that from the earliest con- ceptualizations of intersectionality, embedded in the theory is a lib- eratory agency possessed by those experiencing the effects of life at24 WenNpy G. SMOOTH the intersection. The imperative to change existing conditions and take action from their location at the intersection toward impact- ing the lives of those both within and between social identity cat- egories is an important theme woven throughout. So as much as researchers categorize intersectionality as a descriptive framework or research paradigm, it is very much a political concept grounded in an emancipatory politics with social justice-based outcomes as the goal. Intersectionality is understood as rooted in efforts to change societal conditions that create and maintain oppre ive power hierarchies. In addition to recognizing the differences that exist among individuals and groups, intersectionality is invested in modes of institutional change designed to remedy the effects of inequalities produced by interlocking systems of oppressior In summary, the version of intersectionality to which T subscribe is informed by a plethora of scholarly thinking on the parameters of intersectionality. It can apply to everyone, as we all have a race, gender, sexuality, and social class, whether we experience our social locations as inequalities or privileges. However, intersectionality is at its best when used to uncover patterns of privilege and marginal- ization as opposed to focus on familiar understandings of privilege. Our social locations are not fixed such that we are construed per- manently as oppressors or the oppressed.° Intersectionatity is con- text specific; structural and dynamic (Weldon, 2006). The relevant axes of power for investigation are determined by the situation and site under study. As Hancock (2007a) surmises, the intersectional approach “changes the relationship between the categories of inves- tigation from one that is determined a priori to one of empirical investigation” (2007a, 67). It asserts that categories are relevant and have an impact on understanding material lives and at the same time it is interested in disrupting the impetus to render categories as fixed and mutually exclusive. Intersectionality offers a means to contest the power arrangements between categories and even embraces and envisions a futuristic intellectual politics in which categories are stripped of any deterministic powers.” INTERSECTIONALITY, AGENCY, INSTITUTIONS, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES So, what does political science and other fields that center on insti- tutions, institutional processes, and structures contribute to theTHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 25 ongoing development of intersectionality as a research paradigm? Such disciplines as political science can help intersectionality studies gain greater balance between the individual and structural levels of analysis. By virtue of intersectionality’s development as a response to the law’s treatment of individuals, it is borne out of a politics of recognition. As such, it demands that the law recognize the ways in which individuals’ multiple identities mat- ter to their treatment. While the law necessitates this focus on the individual, intersectionality theorists have pushed against the reliance on the individual as the fundamental level of analysis for intersectional analyses (Yuval-Davis, 2006; Conaghan, 2009). With such an approach, the structures, institutions, processes, and systems that generate and mediate the experiences of indi- viduals are elided in favor of a focus on the individual or particu- lar groups. The potential contributions of political scientists to the study of intersectionality lie precisely in illuminating the structural effects and the processes by which institutions contribute to identity con- structions and mobilizations. In her discussion of the salience of structure to intersectionality, political scientist S. Laurel Weldon aggressively situates structural analysis as the core of intersec- tionality offering that the focus on identity itself is a misguided understanding of intersectionality. She argues, “It is not often rec- ognized that structural analysis is required by the idea of intersec- tionality. It is the intersection of social structures, not identities, to which the concept refers. We cannot conceptualize ‘interstices’ unless we have a concept of the structures that intersect to create these points of interaction” (Weldon, 2006, 239). Such consider- ations of structure necessitate a focus on institutions and institu- tional processes, necessitating engagements with the law, public policy, and governing bodies. Rather than advocate the primacy of one level over the other, J am arguing that intersectionality scholarship has gone so far in the direction of centering its analysis at the level of the individual and the individual’s agency that it overlooks the powerful role of institutions and structures in mediating the individual’s behavior and structuring the range of available choices. It is from this per- spective that I suggest political science’s contribution to intersec- tionality as potentially restoring some balance and tempering the explanatory value of individual agency in intersectional analysis.26 WENpDy G. SMOOTH To be clear, I do not draw the types of distinctions as Baukje Prins (2006) does between an intersectionality grounded in struc- tural analysis with subjects being constituted through static systems of domination and marginalization and a constructionist version of intersectionality in which the subject is understood as the primary factor determining identity. For Prins, the constructionists approach treats identity as more a point of narration in which the subject is “both actor in and co-author of our own life story” (2006, 281) and understands the individual’s identity as a matter of choice and as constituted through the individual’s “own acting and thinking” (2006, 280). In contrasts, she interprets the structural approach to treat identity as a matter of recognition, naming, and categorization that is predetermined by systems of domination and profoundly sta- ble and predictable. Such a constructionist vision of intersectionality is deeply invested in the power of individual agency. The emphasis on the subject’s free will to become a subject by their own determi- nation, on their own terms, dismisses the myriad of ways that the “isms” (racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism) interplay with the subject’s possibilities. More so, it reflects a failure to understand the ever-evolving processes of institutions and structures. Far from static, institutions are shifting constantly, but with particular goals in mind—to protect the values of the institution, ensure its survival, and extend its values and ideas of appropriateness. A more integrated vision of intersectionality that articulates roles for both the structure and the individual offers a closer approximation social reality. Understanding institutions and struc- tures not as static and overly deterministic but as evolving often in relation to the resistance politics and strategies of intersectional actors, reflects the complex relationship between individual and structural levels of analysis. Resistance strategies are understood in larger contexts of institutional processes and historical events that can facilitate as well as curtail opportunities for changing cat- egorizations and dismantling dominant frameworks. Such an inte- grated model appreciates the weight of institutional and structural forces as well as the transformative potential of resistance strategies employed by intersectional actors. Intersectionality, particularly as it interfaces with other politi- cal projects that uplift individual agency, threatens a move toward suppressing the role that institutions and structures play in modi- fying individual behavior and ordering choices. Such approaches toTHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 27 jntersectionality theorizing overstate the agency of individuals and their freedom to act independently with the power to shape their own political understanding of their identities. As Gill Valentine (2007) concurs, “the existing theorization of the concept of inter- sectionality overemphasizes the abilities of individuals to actively produce their own lives and underestimates how the ability to enact some identities or realities rather than others is highly contingent on the power-laden spaces in and through which our experiences are lived” (2007, 19). Political scientists and others who focus on institutions such as the law, public policy, governing bodies, and social move- ments understand that individual agency is subject to and enacted within institutions and as such is always bounded and beholden to strong institutional forces that can render groups visible or invis- ible, beneficiaries or pariahs, in relation to the state. Advancing an appreciation for the role of institutions in relation to individual agency allows us to engage more fully with the political and mate- rial implications of multiply constituted identities, the institutional processes by which identities are made meaningful, as well as the conditions under which institutions offer to recognize identities as multiply constituted. For an example of this kind of research approach, I turn to my own work on US state legislatures to reflect on how an atten- tiveness to intersectionality produces new insights on institutional processes that are unavailable through a focus on either dominant groups or through the focus on a singular axis—race or gender. As well, I seek to show the ways political science scholarship can con- tribute to extending intersectionality’s reach beyond traditional identity politics. By examining the legislative experiences of African American women, I explore the effects of race and gender on the meanings of legislative power and influence. Dominant understandings and narratives of legislative power are disrupted when viewed from an intersectionality perspective, which highlights the way in which legislative power is a deeply gendered and racialized construct. Race and gender impact the paths to power and influence avail- able to legislators, as well as the types of influence they are even afforded in the eyes of their colleagues. These are critical concerns as US state legislatures have become increasingly diverse. The key questions are: How are these28 Wenpy G. SMOOTH institutions incorporating women and men of color and white women—all relative newcomers to these lavmaking bodies? How are the traditional politics of these institutions changing in light ofa more diverse group of legislators? I focus on the experiences of African American women legislators, but the goal is not simply to document their experiences as African American women, though admittedly that would indeed be a contribution given the sparse research on the experiences of women of color in US electoral politics. The questions engendered from this research center on how institutions respond to difference: How do race and gender interact with commonly held assumptions about institutions and legislative behavior? Does race and gender impact the power that is commonly understood to emanate from holding positions in the legislative leadership, having seniority, and high levels of legislative activity? What happens when African American women legislators occupy the leadership positions or have the legislative attributes thar traditionally confer power and influence? Are these institu- tional norms gendered and racialized? The effects of race and gender on legislative power arrangements are substantial. The formal leadership structure is evidence of race and gender hierarchies in the legislature. Few African American women hold the top leadership positions or chair the powerful committees that are commonly associated with increasing a legis- lator’s influence. Their exclusion from these leadership posts only partially accounts for their more limited influence among their colleagues. The challenge for African American women Iegisla- tors is more complex than gaining access to legislative leadership positions. Their limited access to legislative power is complicated by their exclusion from informal power structures that exist in the legislature. African American women who hold positions in the formal leadership repeatedly report that they are not included among the inner circle of confidents hand selected by top party leaders, even though their positions suggest they would have access to these inner circles. This exclusion precludes them from partici- pating in critical policy discussions that impact their constituents. Such informal circles of power become a parallel power structure that contests the power of the official party leadership structure and undermines the power of some formal leaders. Even when African American women legislators occupy the same political spaces, share si milar positions, and political titles, they areF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLICY INTERVENTION 29 regarded differently by their colleagues, Influence that would have otherwise been associated with individual legislators in alignment with traditional institutional norms regarding the power of lead- ership positions is not equally conferred upon African American women. What it means to be a party leader or a committee chair is mediated by the legislator’s race and gender. These traditionally powerful positions neither hold the same meaning nor do they lead to the same outcomes for African American women. African American women’s legislative performances are bounded by such deeply racialized and gendered institutional processes and struc- tures in the legislature. My findings, along with other scholars working on race and gender in legislative institutions, are showing how gender and race problematize even the most stable categories such as party leader and committee chair. What it means to hold these posi- tions and the outcomes these positions produce differ when African American women occupy these positions. These stable cat- egories are transformed by race and gender, producing outcomes that are, as Crenshaw argues, “qualitatively different” (Crenshaw, 1991, 1245). Gender and race are not merely identity categories, but act as mediating forces that serve to limit avenues that would lead traditionally to institutional influence. The gender and race hierarchies prevalent in US society more broadly compete with well-established norms of legislative behavior. Adherence to these power arrangements ultimately impact policy outcomes and raise questions on the quality of representation, particularly for com- munities of color. When traditional paths to power and influence are either unavailable to them or fail to yield the desired outcomes, African American women are forced to devise alternative strategies to remain relevant and effective representatives on behalf of their constituents. If we were to employ only an individual level of analysis, focused on evaluating individual African American women’s effectiveness, we miss the institutional norms and characteristics that structure legislative behavior. African American women’s individual agency is intertwined with the formal and informal structures and pro- cesses that render some legislators influential and others less so, much on the basis of race and gender preferences and hierarchies. The presence of African American women in state legislatures challenges and expands our understandings of legislative norms