Why we keep separating the ‘inseparable’: Dialecticizing intersectionality

Abstract

Disputes about how to understand intersectional relations often pivot around the tension between separateness and inseparability, where some scholars emphasize the need to separate between different intersectional categories while others claim they are inseparable. In this article the author takes issue with the either/or thinking that underpins an unnecessary and unproductive polarization in the debate over the in/ separability of intersectional categories. Drawing on Roy Bhaskar's dialectical critical realist philosophy, the author argues that we can think of intersectional categories as well as different ontological levels as both distinct and unified and elaborates on the issue of how significance of the dialectical notion of unity-in-difference for intersectional studies. As part of the argument the author addresses the issue of what it actually means for something to be distinct or separate as opposed to inseparable or unified with something else, demonstrating that lack of clarity about this is at the heart of polarized arguments about separateness versus inseparability in intersectionality theory. KeywordsAnalytical distinctions, anticategorical intersectionality, critical realism, dialectical critical realism, dialectics, feminist theory, intersectionality, intra-action, ontology, unity-in-difference What precisely do we mean when we say that something intersects with something else? Whether it be used narrowly so as to depict the intersection between different axes of power and identity categories, or broadly so as to include an infinite range of possible ontological intersections between levels and dimensions of reality, intersectionality gives

Language and identity beyond the mainstream. Democratic and equity issues for and by whom, where, when and why

“…In addition to a regression to Otherness, not least in terms of ethnicity and race, there exists an absence of an engagement with discussions on "intersectionality" (McCall, 2005;Gunnarsson, 2017) and "hybridity" (Bhabha, 1994;Gutiérrez et al, 1999). The latter discussions appear to flourish primarily in philosophical and theoretical arenas.…”

Queer Genes: Realism, Sexuality and Science

“…Barad's account, instead, very much depends on the inseparability of the ontological and the epistemological. I do not wish to argue that they are inseparable in this way (Gunnarsson 2015). Rather, I simply claim that the boundary-making practices between ontology and epistemology are contingent, historical and cultural, and that they are themselves open to debate and reconfiguration.…”

Queer Genes: Realism, Sexuality and Science

“…Barad's account, instead, very much depends on the inseparability of the ontological and the epistemological. I do not wish to argue that they are inseparable in this way (Gunnarsson 2015). Rather, I simply claim that the boundary-making practices between ontology and epistemology are contingent, historical and cultural, and that they are themselves open to debate and reconfiguration.…”