Journals / Praksis / 2020 / Sayı: 52

Intersectionality and Historical Materialism: Problem of the Unity of Different Subordination Forms

Kesişimsellik ve Tarihsel Materyalizm: Farklı Tâbiyet Formlarının Bütünlüğü Sorunu

Journal
Praksis
Pages
69–90
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It then questions the theoretical limitations of the concept, and finally takes into consideration the contributions of the contemporary social-reproduction feminism, which aims to go beyond these limitations by emphasizing the totality of capitalism, and discusses social-feminist strategy built upon the contributions of the latter.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article critically engages from a historical-materialist perspective with the notion of intersectionality that is frequently employed both in gender studies and in women’s and LGBTI+ movements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:First, it examines the popular uses of intersectionality, particularly in the US case, within the scope of both state policies and progressive/left political discourses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It then questions the theoretical limitations of the concept, and finally takes into consideration the contributions of the contemporary social-reproduction feminism, which aims to go beyond these limitations by emphasizing the totality of capitalism, and discusses social-feminist strategy built upon the contributions of the latter.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article critically engages from a historical-materialist perspective with the notion of intersectionality that is frequently employed both in gender studies and in women’s and LGBTI+ movements. First, it examines the popular uses of intersectionality, particularly in the US case, within the scope of both state policies and progressive/left political discourses. It then goes on to explore the historical development of the concept in response to the need of thinking different forms of subjection in their unity, by taking into account the experiences of Black women’s movement in the US on the basis of gender–race–class trilogy. It then questions the theoretical limitations of the concept, and finally takes into consideration the contributions of the contemporary social-reproduction feminism, which aims to go beyond these limitations by emphasizing the totality of capitalism, and discusses social-feminist strategy built upon the contributions of the latter.

Özet

Bu makale hem toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmalarında hem de kadın hareketlerinde sıklıkla başvurulan kesişimsellik kavramının tarihsel materyalist perspektiften eleştirel bir incelemesini yapmaktadır. İlk olarak, kesişimselliğin özellikle de ABD örneğinde güncel siyasal tartışmalardaki popüler kullanımı hem devlet politikaları hem de ilerici/sol siyasetlerin söylemleri çerçevesi içerisinde ele alınmıştır. Devamında, ABD’de siyahi kadın hareketinin toplumsal cinsiyet–ırk–sınıf üçlemesi temelinde oluşan deneyimi üzerinden, kavramın farklı türden tâbiyet formlarını birlikte düşünme temelinde gerçekleşen tarihsel gelişimi incelenmiştir. Daha sonrasında, kesişimsellik kavramının teorik sınırları sorgulanmış; son bölümde ise, kapitalizmin bütünlüğünü vurgulayarak bu sınırları aşmayı öne süren güncel toplumsal yeniden-üretim feminizminin katkıları ele alınmış ve bu katkılar etrafında şekillenen sosyalist-feminist strateji tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

UZ, S., ÖZPINAR, C. (2020). Intersectionality and Historical Materialism: Problem of the Unity of Different Subordination Forms. Praksis, Sayı: 52, 69–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/302898

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Arruzza, C., T. Bhattacharya ve N. Fraser (2019) Feminism for the 99 Percent, Londra ve New York: Verso. Berger, M.T. ve K. Guidroz (2009a), “Introduction”, Berger ve Guidroz (2009b) içinde, 1–19.
  2. Berger, M.T. ve K. Guidroz (der.) (2009b), The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy through Race, Class, & Gender, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
  3. Bhattarchaya, T. (der.) (2017) Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression, Londra: Pluto. Boggio Éwanjé-Épée, F. ve S. Magliani-Belkacem (2012) Les féministes blanches et l’empire, Paris: La Fabrique. Bouteldja, H. (2014) “Race, Class and Gender: Intersectionality between Social Reality and Political Limits”, Parti des Indigènes de la République, http://indigenes-republique.fr/race-class-and-genderintersectionality-between-social-reality-and-political-limits/, Erişim tarihi: 31.08.2019.
  4. Bouteldja, H. (2016) “Race, Class and Gender: A New Three-headed Divinity”, Parti des Indigènes de la République, http://indigenes-republique.fr/race-class-and-gender-a-new-three-headed-divinity, Erişim Tarihi, 31.08.2019.
  5. Brenner, J. (1993) “The Best of Times, The Worst of Times: US Feminism Today”, New Left Review I/200, 101–59.
  6. Brenner, J. (2000)
  7. Women and the Politics of Class, New York: Monthly Review Press.
  8. Brenner, J. ve M. Ramas (1984) “Rethinking Women’s Oppression”, New Left Review I/144: 33–71.
  9. Carbin, M. ve S. Edenheim (2013) “The Intersectional Turn in Feminist Theory: A Dream of a Common Language?”, European Journal of Women’s Studies 20(3): 233–48.
  10. Crenshaw, K. (1989) “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics”, The University of Chicago Law Forum 1989: 139–167.
  11. Crenshaw, K. (1991) “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–99.
  12. Davis, A. (1981)
  13. Women, Race & Class, New York: Vintage. Ferguson, S. (2016) “Intersectionality and Social-Reproduction Feminisms: Toward an Integrative Ontology”, Historical Materialism 24(2): 38–60.
  14. Fraser, N. (1995) “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age”, New Left Review I/212: 68–93.
  15. Fraser, N. (2016a) “Contradictions of Capital and Care”, New Left Review II/100: 99–117.
  16. Fraser, N. (2016b) “Progressive Neoliberalism versus Reactionary Populism: A Choice that Feminists Should Refuse”, NORA – Nordic Jour