Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:20:04.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MOVEMENT INTERSECTIONALITY

The Case of Race, Gender, Disability, and Genetic Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2014

Dorothy Roberts  and
Sujatha Jesudason
Dorothy Roberts*
Affiliation:
Law School, Department of Africana Studies, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania
Sujatha Jesudason
Affiliation:
Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California at San Francisco
*
Dorothy Roberts, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 3501 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intersectional analysis need not focus solely on differences within or between identity-based groups. Using intersectionality for cross movement mobilization reveals that, contrary to criticism for being divisive, attention to intersecting identities has the potential to create solidarity and cohesion. In this article, we elaborate this argument with a case study of the intersection of race, gender, and disability in genetic technologies as well as in organizing to promote a social justice approach to the use of these technologies. We show how organizing based on an intersectional analysis can help forge alliances between reproductive justice, racial justice, women's rights, and disability rights activists to develop strategies to address reproductive genetic technologies. We use the work of Generations Ahead to illuminate how intersectionality applied at the movement-building level can identify genuine common ground, create authentic alliances, and more effectively advocate for shared policy priorities.

Keywords

IntersectionalitySocial MovementsRaceGenderDisabilityGenetic Testing
Type
Intersectionality
Information
Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Fall 2013 , pp. 313 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anzaldua, Gloria and Keating, AnaLouise (Eds.) (2002). This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asch, Adrienne (2007). Why I Haven't Changed by Mind about Prenatal Diagnosis: Reflections and Refinements. In Parens, Erik and Asch, Adrienne (Eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, pp. 234–258. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Beamish, Thomas D. and Luebbers, Amy J. (2009). Alliance Building across Social Movements: Bridging Difference in a Peace and Justice Coalition. Social Problems, 56(4): 647–676.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy (1997). The Impossibility of Women's Studies. Difference: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 9(3): 79–101.Google Scholar
Canaan, Andrea (1983). Brownness. In Moraga, Cherrie and Anzaldua, Gloria (Eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, pp. 232–237. New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Elizabeth (2008). Coalitions as a Model for Intersectionality: From Practice to Theory. Sex Roles, 59: 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, pp. 139–167.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (2011). Postscript. In Lutz, Helma, Vivar, Maria Teresa Herrera, and Supik, Linda (Eds.), Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, pp. 221–233. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy (2008). Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1): 67–85.Google Scholar
Dhamoon, Rita Kaur (2011). Considerations on Mainstreaming Intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1): 230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fireandreamitchell.com (2010). British Progressive Liberal Virginia Ironside Says Would Put a Pillow over the Head of Her Baby If it Was Suffering from a Disability. October 4. ⟨http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/10/04/british-progressive-liberal-virginia-ironside-says-would-put-a-pillow-over-the-head-of-her-baby-if-it-was-suffering-from-a-disability/⟩ (accessed May 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Garland-Thomson, Rosmarie (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA Journal, 14(3): 1–32.Google Scholar
Generations Ahead (2008). A Reproductive Justice Analysis of Genetic Technologies: Report on A National Convening of Women of Color and Indigenous Women. ⟨http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/articles/GenAheadReport_ReproductiveJustice.pdf⟩ (accessed May 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Generations Ahead (2009). Bridging the Divide: Disability Rights and Reproductive Rights and Justice Advocates Discussing Genetic Technologies, convened by Generations Ahead 2007–2008. ⟨http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/articles/GenAheadReport_BridgingTheDivide.pdf⟩ (accessed May 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Generations Ahead (2010). Robert Edwards, Virginia Ironside, and the Unnecessary Opposition of Rights. ⟨http://www.generations-ahead.org/resources/the-unnecessary-opposition-of-rights⟩ (accessed May 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Gordon, Beth Omansky and Rosenblum, Karen E. (2005). Bringing Disability into the Sociological Frame: A Comparison of Disability with Race, Sex, and Sexual Orientation Statuses. Disability & Society, 16(1): 5–19.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Ronni Michelle (2008). Intersectional Political Consciousness: Appreciation for Intragroup Differences and Solidarity in Diverse Groups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32: 36–47.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, Elena R (2008). Fertile Matters: The Politics of Mexican Origin Women's Reproduction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hill Collins, Patricia (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment, 2ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jesudason, Sujatha A. (2009). In the Hot Tub: The Praxis of Building New Alliances in Reprogenetics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 34(Summer): 901–924.Google Scholar
Jesudason, Sujatha and Epstein, Julia (2012). The Paradox of Disability in Abortion Debates. ⟨http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/success-stories/Paradox_of_Disability_in_Abortion_Debates_FINAL.pdf⟩ (accessed May 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Keating, AnaLouise (2009). From Intersections to Interconnections, Lessons for Transformation from This Bridge Called my Back: Radical Writings by Women of Color. In Berger, Michele Tracy and Guidroz, Kathleen (Eds.), The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy through Race, Class, and Gender, pp. 81–99. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
McCall, Leslie (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs, 30(3): 1771–1800.Google Scholar
Morales, Rosario (1983). We're All in The Same Boat. In Moraga, Cherrie and Anzaldua, Gloria (Eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, pp. 91–93. New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Jennifer (2003). Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Parens, Erik and Asch, Adrienne (1999). The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Reflections and Recommendations. The Hastings Center Report, 29(5): s1–s22. The Hastings Center.Google Scholar
Pokempner, Jennifer and Roberts, Dorothy E. (2001). Poverty, Welfare Reform, and the Meaning of Disability. Ohio State Law Journal, 62: 425–463.Google Scholar
The Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act Fact Sheet. ⟨http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/success-stories/InfoSheetBrownbackKennedyLegislation_final.pdf⟩ (accessed May 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and The Meaning of Liberty. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. (2004). Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 13: 535–539.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. (2005). Privatization and Punishment in the New Age of Reprogenetics. Emory Law Journal, 54: 1343–1360.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (2009). Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia? Signs, 34: 783–804.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Russo, Ann (2009). Epilogue: The Future of Intersectionality: What's at Stake. In Berger, Michele Tracy and Guidroz, Kathleen (Eds.), The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy through Race, Class, and Gender, pp. 309–318. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Saxton, Marsha (2007). Why Members of the Disability Community Oppose Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion. In Parens, Erik and Asch, Adrienne (Eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, pp. 147–164. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Silliman, Jael, Fried, Marlene Gerber, Ross, Loretta, and Guttierez, Elena R. (2004). Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Phil (2004). Whiteness, Normal Theory, and Disability Studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 24(2): 1–30.Google Scholar
Thornton Dill, Bonnie (1983). Race, Class, and Gender: Prospects for an All-Inclusive Sisterhood. Feminist Studies, 9(1): 131–150.Google Scholar
Wendell, Susan (1996). The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yuval-Davis, Nira (2011). Beyond the Recognition and Re-distribution Dichotomy: Intersectionality and Stratification. In Lutz, Helma, Vivar, Maria Teresa Herrera, and Supik, Linda (Eds.), Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, pp. 155–169. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar