In feminist theory, intersectionality has become the predominant way of conceptualizing the relation between systems of oppression which construct our multiple identities and our social locations in hierarchies of power and privilege. The aim of this essay is to clarify the origins of intersectionality as a metaphor, and its theorization as a provisional concept in Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw's work, followed by its uptake and mainstreaming as a paradigm by feminist theorists in a period marked by its widespread and rather unquestioned – if, at times, superficial and inattentive – usage. I adduce four analytic benefits of intersectionality as a research paradigm: simultaneity, complexity, irreducibility, and inclusivity. Then, I gesture at some critiques of intersectionality advanced in the last few years, during which the concept has increasingly come under scrutiny.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

In this article I examine the friction between xenophobic discourses on migration and the crisis caused by the politics of austerity in Greece. On the one hand, an ‘excessive’ influx of migration is managed through violent means by the state and the para-state; on the other, a ‘scarcity’ of domestic resources is blamed for a ‘rise’ in racist attitudes, and the political ascent of a fascist movement-cum-parliamentary party, Xρνσή Aνγή (Golden Dawn). ‘Crisis’ is said to give rise to ‘austerity'—and hostility. Inverting the inverted causal relationship between crisis, austerity and hostility, I problematise representations of hostility towards migrants that construct racism as a consequence of economic conditions or even as the antidote to the ‘bitter pill’ Greeks have been forced to swallow. I examine how racialised and gendered violence secures the politics of austerity in Greece focusing on three eruptions of violence (the feminicidal acid attack on Konstantina Kouneva, the murder of Shehzad Luqman and the drowning of eleven refugees near the island of Farmakonisi). I draw concrete connections between the politics of austerity and what, drawing on Sara Ahmed, might be termed an ‘affective economy of hostility’ that articulates racialised and gendered modes of belonging and estrangement. Some bodies are rendered vulnerable and precarious, while others assert an entitled relation to national space while being economically disentitled by austerity measures.

In this paper, I argue that intersectionality, the prevailing way of conceptualizing the relation between axes or systems of oppression (race, class, gender), illicitly imports the very model it purports to overcome: that is, the unitary model of identity. I first define “intersectionality” and distinguish between three senses that are frequently conflated. Then I subject the model to an analytic critique, revealing its hidden presuppositions about identity. Finally, I suggest that solidarity serves as a better norm for feminist practice than inclusion of “difference,” which seems to be the norm underlying many intersectional accounts.

Different evocations of “crisis” create distinct categories that in turn evoke certain social reactions. After 2008 Greece became the epicentre of the “financial crisis”; since 2015 with the advent of the “refugee crisis,” it became the “hotspot of Europe.” What are the different vocabularies of crisis? Moreover, how have both representations of crisis facilitated humanitarian crises to become phenomena for European and transnational institutional management? What are the hegemonically constructed subjects of the different crises? The everyday reality in the crisis-ridden hotspot of Europe is invisible in these representations. It is precisely the daily, soft, lived, and unspoken realities of intersecting crises that hegemonic discourses of successive, overlapping, or “nesting crises” render invisible. By shifting the focus from who belongs to which state-devised category to an open-ended, polyvocal account of capitalist oppressions, we aim to question the state’s and supranational efforts to divide the “migrant mob” into discrete juridical categories of citi-zens (emigrants), refugees, and illegal immigrants, thereby undermining coalitional struggles between precaritised groups.