No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Clinical Encounters: The Social Justice Question in Intersectional Medicine
... Therefore, the "fundamental causes" of social inequalities in health are taken into consideration, such as poverty and social discrimination [13,71]. The last aspect mentioned on the macro level concerns historical forms of discrimination, such as White supremacy [46]. It is deemed relevant to consider the effects of being a member of a marginalised community, which has experienced enslavement, attempted genocide, mass incarcerations, and neocolonialism in the sense of racial trauma in regard to trauma recovery [17]. ...
... On the other hand, there is a demand for further discussion on the conditions of its application. Grzanka and Brian highlight that "clinical encounters do not occur in a vacuum" [46], and institutional aspects need to be considered [112]. Lanphier and Anani [68] additionally argue that intersectionality might create the risk within the clinical encounter for clinicians to impose and reproduce biases towards patients. ...
Background
Intersectionality is a concept that originated in Black feminist movements in the US-American context of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the work of feminist scholar and lawyer Kimberlé W. Crenshaw. Intersectional approaches aim to highlight the interconnectedness of gender and sexuality with other social categories, such as race, class, age, and ability to look at how individuals are discriminated against and privileged in institutions and societal power structures. Intersectionality is a “traveling concept”, which also made its way into bioethical research.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review to answer the question of where and how the concept of intersectionality is applied in bioethical research. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and 192 articles addressing bioethical topics and intersectionality were finally included.
Results
The qualitative analysis resulted in a category system with five main categories: (1) application purpose and function, (2) social dimensions, (3) levels, (4) health-care disciplines and academic fields, and (5) challenges, limitations, and critique. The variety of academic fields and health-care disciplines working with the concept ranges from psychology, through gynaecology to palliative care and deaf studies. Important functions that the concept of intersectionality fulfils in bioethical research are making inequities visible, creating better health data collections and embracing self-reflection. Intersectionality is also a critical praxis and fits neatly into the overarching goal of bioethics to work toward social justice in health care. Intersectionality aims at making research results relevant for respective communities and patients, and informs the development of policies.
Conclusions
This systematic review is, to the best of our knowledge, the first one to provide a full overview of the reference to intersectionality in bioethical scholarship. It creates a basis for future research that applies intersectionality as a theoretical and methodical tool for analysing bioethical questions.
... All should strive to increase their understanding of privilege and its role in oppression and continuously work to cultivate empathy for others with both similar and different identities (Gonzalez, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2015), while working to eliminate interpersonal and environmental microaggressions (Sue, 2010;Vaccaro & Koob, 2019). Intersectionality is not just about clinical encounters; research has noted the importance of structural transformation and the need to reimagine service providers as advocates of social justice (Grzanka & Brian, 2019). All should, therefore, be attuned to and address the structures, institutions, and powers that are inseparable from psychological well-being (e.g., discrimination, income inequality, mass incarceration, housing, food insecurity, and poverty; Grzanka & Brian, 2019). ...
... Intersectionality is not just about clinical encounters; research has noted the importance of structural transformation and the need to reimagine service providers as advocates of social justice (Grzanka & Brian, 2019). All should, therefore, be attuned to and address the structures, institutions, and powers that are inseparable from psychological well-being (e.g., discrimination, income inequality, mass incarceration, housing, food insecurity, and poverty; Grzanka & Brian, 2019). ...
The current study draws attention to the multiple identities of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) respondents, in particular their religious–spiritual identities, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and the relationship of these identities and orientations to self-esteem, life satisfaction, and LGB negative identity. Participants were recruited through online posts on social media platforms, communication via e-mail requests, and word
of mouth. Four hundred 36 LGB respondents’ data were included in the analysis. Results revealed that religiosity and spirituality were both associated with LGB negative identity but were not associated with self-esteem and life satisfaction. Respondents who identified as a woman or as bisexual reported lower levels of self-esteem, and bisexual respondents reported more negative views of their sexual identity
than did gay or lesbian respondents. LGB negative identity was the only significant predictor of life satisfaction. Although studies have investigated the differential effects of religiosity and spirituality on sexual minority well-being, they have not applied the intersectionality framework or investigated life-satisfaction. Therefore, the study contributes to the literature with the inclusion of life satisfaction and the application of the
intersectionality framework, with an emphasis on its central tenets of challenging and transforming structures of privilege and oppression. Implications for psychologists and clergy are provided.
... Such questions invoke longstanding debates about the place of science in social movements and vice versa, the ethical dimensions of clinical work informed by politics, and the limits and potentials of clinical encounters to engender social justice (cf. Grzanka & Brian, 2019). ...
... Nonetheless, psychologists have often attempted to incorporate intersectionality without reconsidering fundamental assumptions of the discipline, including its epistemological foundations and methodological doxa (Shin et al., 2017). This kind of "intersectionality-lite" (Grzanka & Miles, 2016, p. 384) work fails to account for how psychology itself limits intersectional thinking by organizing human experience into discrete variables (among other practices and assumptions; see Goff & Kahn, 2013;Grzanka, 2017), as well as the limits of clinical practice to actually produce transformative, systems-level social justice (Grzanka & Brian, 2019). Debates about the value and necessity of interdisciplinarity in intersectional psychology are nevertheless nuanced and multifaceted. ...
The mainstreaming of White nationalism in the United States and worldwide suggests an urgent need for counseling psychologists to take stock of what tools they have (and do not have) to combat White supremacy. We review the rise of social justice issues in the field of counseling psychology and allied helping professions and point to the limits of existing paradigms to address the challenge of White supremacy. We introduce transnationalism as an important theoretical perspective with which to conceptualize global racisms, and identify White racial affect, intersectionality, and allyship as three key domains of antiracist action research. Finally, we suggest three steps for sharpening counseling psychologists’ approaches to social justice: rejecting racial progress narratives, engaging in social justice-oriented practice with White clients, and centering White supremacy as a key problem for the field of counseling psychology and allied helping professions.
... Barned, Lajoie, and Racine (2019) applaud our attention to social structure and our emphasis that clinical encounters do not occur in a vacuum, while they and Grzanka and Brian (2019) worry that our focus on the dyadic interactions between patients and clinicians somehow diminishes our commitment to challenging the unjust social institutions and practices that form the central concern of intersectionality. Barned, Lajoie, and Racine rightfully point out that commitment to intersectionality requires broader commitment to institutional change, which can be difficult to bring about, given the intransigence of institutional policies and practices (Barned, Lajoie, and Racine 2019). ...
... Our position is and had been that it is squarely in the realm of what bioethicists should be doing to address all of the complex factors that shape health, health outcomes, and health care (Wilson, Danis, and White 2016, W1). Grzanka and Brian highlight social justice commitments to ending discrimination, income and wealth inequality, mass incarceration, precarious housing, food insecurity, and poverty as the kind of work that will fall largely outside of the clinical encounter but that bioethicists have obligations to pursue (Grzanka and Brian 2019). These suggestions are consistent with the kinds of interventions falling outside of the clinical setting that we have previously highlighted as important spaces for bioethicists to contribute in, including addressing police violence, rejecting the practice of segregating hospital floors by ability to pay, persistent wealth gaps persisting even after attaining higher education, and racially biased jury selection practices (Danis, Wilson, and White 2016, 3-8 en passant). ...
... Using examples from the context of mental health, we demonstrate how diversity is not adequately represented in discourses of 'successful ageing' and propose an intersectional perspective to address issues of ageism and ableism in discussions of 'good ageing' . Although the recent literature on medical ethics has begun to engage with intersectionality as a relevant approach to addressing multi-categorical inequalities and injustices in medicine and healthcare [16][17][18][19], there is still a significant research gap in the intersectional medical ethics approach to ageing and older age. However, particularly in the debates on successful ageing, the question arises of what successful ageing and a good life in old age mean for people who have experienced intersectional discrimination in relation to disabilities throughout their lives. ...
Background
The concept of ‘successful ageing’ has been a prominent focus within the field of gerontology for several decades. However, despite the widespread attention paid to this concept, its intersectional implications have not been fully explored yet. This paper aims to address this gap by analyzing the potential ageist and ableist biases in the discourse of successful ageing through an intersectional lens.
Method
A critical feminist perspective is taken to examine the sensitivity of the discourse of successful ageing to diversity in societies. The paper analyzes how ageist and ableist biases can manifest in the ways we conceptualize ageing, drawing on examples in the context of mental health.
Results
We argue that the conventional approach to successful ageing is limited in its ability to account for the experiences of people who have faced intersectional discrimination throughout their lives. Drawing on examples in the context of mental health, we explore among others the link between depression and disabilities. Furthermore, we shed light on the negative impact of ageist and ableist attitudes concerning the diagnosis and treatment of dementia.
Discussion
We demonstrate how diversity is often overlooked in discussions of ageing well, and how ageist and ableist biases can manifest in the ways we conceptualize ageing. We argue that focusing solely on the health status as a means of achieving success fails to adequately counter ageism for all people. We further emphasize the role of structural factors, such as ageist attitudes, in shaping the experience of ageing and exacerbating health inequalities.
Conclusion
Overall, our findings emphasize the need for a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of ageing and therefore an intersectional approach to conceptions of ageing well that recognizes and addresses the biases and limitations of current discourses. Thereby, this paper offers valuable insights into the complex intersections between age and disabilities from a bioethical perspective, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and intersectional approach to ageing.
... Ageism in healthcare becomes visible when we observe underprivileged groups, and since they often lack the capabilities and resources to overcome or resist, they become less able to disregard or push back against discrimination by healthcare professionals and authorities (Walsh et al., 2017). This is why arguments for age rationing arise, and these could further exacerbate existing disadvantages for accessing health and healthcare within intersections of age, gender, and class (Grzanka & Brian, 2019). In fact, representations of aging and old age tend to influence healthcare professionals' attitudes toward older patients as well as their treatment plans (Ubachs-Moust et al., 2010;Kydd & Fleming, 2015) with consequences that result in premature claims of medical futility that could lead to exclusion of older patients from necessary and useful medical services. ...
As the aging phenomenon sweeps across India and calls for creating supportive structures for enabling healthy aging and productive aging for senior citizens reverberate, the importance of studying age as an element of intersectionality and cumulative disadvantage that results in disparities in healthcare access to older adults is underlined. There is evidence of intersectionality that emerges from disadvantages on account of age, caste, race, socioeconomic conditions, employment, and education, for example, and all of these have strong bearings on older adults’ access and utilization of healthcare. The cumulative disadvantage that older adults face as they age stems from the logical, theoretical, and empirical intersectionality that accrues implicitly and irreducibly with relation to time. Social gerontological explorations highlight these intersectional characteristics that result in the initiation, elaboration, and perpetuation of the cumulative disadvantage perspective that older adults face due to deprivation, discrimination, and the continuance of ageist perspectives. There is an overbearing influence of disadvantage and inequality for older adults although the characteristics of older adults reflect heterogeneity in a large measure. This chapter reviews intersectionality – its basis, origin, elaboration, and implications that result in cumulative disadvantage for older adults’ access and utilization of healthcare in India. The synthesis reflects a nuanced delve into intersectional forbearance that older adults experience in their life course as they age within a contextual situation of disadvantage. The chapter deliberates on the layers of intersectionality that coexist and interact in multiple ways to compound the perception and existence of disadvantage and discrimination for older adults in accessing care within family, society, and policy constructs. Based on the perspectives that emanate in this body of work, the chapter offers a synthesized review on cumulative disadvantage and intersectionality and provides directions for future research as well as suggestive public policy recommendations for reducing disparity and disadvantages for older adults in accessing and utilizing healthcare.
... There is evidence that this kind of ageism affects underprivileged groups even harder, since they often lack the capabilities and resources to resist, or to compensate for or push back against disregard and discrimination by health care professionals and authorities (Walsh et al., 2010). While there may be legitimate arguments for age rationing as such, this could effectively create considerable disadvantages regarding health and health care at the intersection of age, gender, and class (Grzanka and Brian, 2019). ...
Public and academic medical ethics debates surrounding justice and age discrimination often proceed from a problematic understanding of old age that ignores the diversity of older people. This article introduces the feminist perspective of intersectionality to medical ethical debates on aging and old age in order to analyze the structural discrimination of older people in medicine and health care. While current intersectional approaches in this field focus on race, gender, and sexuality, we thus set out to introduce aging and old age as an additional category that is becoming more relevant in the context of longer life expectancies and increasing population aging. We analyze three exemplary cases on the individual, institutional, and public health level, and argue that considering the intersections of old age with other social categories helps to accommodate the diverse identities of older people and detect inequality and structural discrimination.
... For some, the ability of intersectionality to address health inequalities has been limited due to the idealist (rather than scientific realist) ontology by which it lends to moral relativism (Muntaner & Augustinavicius, 2019). For others, the framework of intersectionality has held significant appeal (Barned et al., 2019;Grzanka & Brian, 2019). Nevertheless, these authors are critical of Wilson et al. (2019a) because of their focus on the dyadic interactions between patients and clinicians, and argue that it diminishes the importance of other requirements of intersectionality, like social justice. ...
The field of bioethics struggles with the complexity of diversity and power differences. ‘Intersectionality in Clinical Medicine: The Need for a Conceptual Framework’ (Wilson et al., 2019) and its accompanying commentaries, though inventive and thought-provoking, overlook key principles of biomedical ethics. In this paper, I reflect on the debate and consider how an intersectional approach could inform normative theorizing. Traditional principlist reasoning leads to serious problems when we are trying to deal with the complexities of intersectionality, and this is especially true if we look at the principle of autonomy. I develop the idea that intersectionality is more in line with feminist inquiry in bioethics that attempts to reconfigure autonomy. However, feminist critiques of autonomy often remain less than thoroughly engaged with intersectionality. The case of social egg freezing is used to further support this claim. By foregrounding an intersectional approach to the existing relational autonomy claims in this debate, the complicated relational and justice concerns of reproduction are better brought into focus.
... For some, the ability of intersectionality to address health inequalities has been limited due to the idealist (rather than scientific realist) ontology by which it lends to moral relativism (Muntaner & Augustinavicius, 2019). For others, the framework of intersectionality has held significant appeal (Barned et al., 2019;Grzanka & Brian, 2019). Nevertheless, these authors are critical of Wilson et al. (2019a) because of their focus on the dyadic interactions between patients and clinicians, and argue that it diminishes the importance of other requirements of intersectionality, like social justice. ...
Wilson et al. argue that the field of bioethics struggles with the complexity of diversity and power differences. Although their article 'Intersectionality in Clinical Medicine: The Need for a Conceptual Framework' and its accompanying commentaries are inventive and thought-provoking, key principles of biomedical ethics are overlooked. In this paper, I reflect on the debate and consider how an intersectional approach could inform normative theorizing. Traditional principlist reasoning leads to serious problems when we are trying to deal with the complexities of intersectionality, and this is especially true if we look at the principle of autonomy. I develop the idea that intersectionality is more in line with feminist inquiry in bioethics that attempts to reconfigure autonomy relationally. However, feminist critiques of autonomy often do not sufficiently engage with intersectionality. The case of social egg freezing is used to further support this claim. By foregrounding an intersectional approach to the existing claims on relational autonomy in this debate, the complicated relational and justice concerns around reproduction are better brought into focus.
... There is evidence that this kind of ageism affects already underprivileged groups even harder since they often lack the capabilities and resources to resist, compensate for or push back against disregard and discrimination by healthcare professionals and authorities (Walsh et al., 2010). This may effectively create considerable disadvantages and plain injustice with regard to health and healthcare at the intersection of age, gender and class (Grzanka and Brian, 2019). ...
Public and academic medical ethics debates surrounding justice and age discrimination often proceed from a problematic understanding of old age that ignores the diversity of older people. This article introduces the feminist perspective of intersectionality to medical ethical debates on aging and old age in order to analyze the structural discrimination of older people in medicine and healthcare. While current intersectional approaches in this field focus on race, gender, and sexuality, we thus set out to introduce aging and old age as an additional category that is becoming more relevant in the context of longer life expectancies and increasing population aging. We analyze three exemplary cases on the individual, institutional, and public health level, and argue that considering the intersections of old age, with other social categories, helps to accommodate the diverse identities of older people and detect inequality and structural discrimination.
In this article, I begin by describing what I call this Black Lives Matter moment in the US. I then offer three reasons for considering racism as a bioethical issue, the least discussed of which is the way in which racism acts as a barrier to the creation of better healthcare systems. Next, I argue that the concept of race itself constitutes a bioethical issue in a way that is not fully reducible to racism. Finally, I discuss how we, both bioethicists and health care professionals, might meet this moment by identifying individual points of responsibility (beyond liability) for structural injustice.
Intersectionality has become a significant intellectual approach for those thinking about the ways that race, gender, and other social identities converge in order to create unique forms of oppression. Although the initial work on intersectionality addressed the unique position of black women relative to both black men and white women, the concept has since been expanded to address a range of social identities. Here we consider how to apply some of the theoretical tools provided by intersectionality to the clinical context. We begin with a brief discussion of intersectionality and how it might be useful in a clinical context. We then discuss two clinical scenarios that highlight how we think considering intersectionality could lead to more successful patient–clinician interactions. Finally, we extrapolate general strategies for applying intersectionality to the clinical context before considering objections and replies.
The framework of intersectionality is a powerful analytical tool for making sense of how interlocking systems of privilege and oppression are experienced by individuals and groups. Despite the long history of the concept, intersectionality has only recently gained attention in psychology. We conducted a content analysis to assess counseling psychology’s engagement with an intersectional perspective. All articles published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (n = 4,800) and The Counseling Psychologist (n = 1,915) from their first issues until July 2016 were reviewed to identify conceptual and empirical work focused on intersectionality. A total of 40 articles were identified and examined for themes. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
Since the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973, psychology has transformed the way it approaches sexual orientation and gender identity issues in scientific research and clinical practice. The paradigmatic shift from psychopathology to identity has corresponded with the introduction of “LGBT affirmative therapy,” which suggests that therapists should affirm clients’ sexual orientations rather than reinforce sexual minorities’ experiences of stigma and marginalization. This qualitative study used a subset of psychotherapy training videos about LGBT issues to explore the form of content of LGBT affirmative therapy in the context of increased attention to identity and multiculturalism in applied psychology. The videos suggest that multiculturally competent therapists should understand sexuality and gender issues in terms of what psychologists call “multiple” or “intersecting” identities, namely race and ethnicity. While the multicultural turn in psychotherapy may signal a transformation in mental health service provision, our analysis questions whether these videos may unintentionally reflect a neoliberal logic of inclusion that obscures the structural dimensions of social inequality. We suggest that the uptake of intersectionality-like identitarian discourse in psychotherapy in particular offers opportunities for challenging and reinforcing neoliberalism.
“Intersectionality” is a powerful analytic lens through which psychologists can consider how multiple forms of marginality and privilege shape the lived experiences of all individuals and social groups (Shields, Settles, & Warner, this Handbook). Critical, multicultural research (Cole, 2009), teaching (Case, 2016), and practice (Shin, 2015) have illustrated the tremendous capacity of intersectionality to inform feminist, antiracist, queer, and other forms of social justice-focused psychological work. Whether conceptualized as a paradigm (Hancock, 2007), analytic disposition (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013), methodology (Bowleg, 2008; Syed, 2010), and/or politics (Collins, 1998), intersectionality is increasingly considered an invaluable tool for psychologists across the discipline whose work addresses systemic inequalities and complex social issues (e.g., Parent, Moradi, & DeBlaere, 2013). But intersectionality studies can also inform how we understand psychological science itself, including the ways in which scientific knowledge about behavior, cognition, affect, and mental health is produced, practiced, disseminated, and transformed by intersecting dimensions of difference and inequality. Through an interdisciplinary approach to the sociology of psychological knowledge (i.e., thinking through the ways in which knowledge production in psychology is fundamentally a social and political process) (e.g. Collins, 2015), this chapter explores intersectionality’s capacity to highlight, critique, and transform the social construction of psychological knowledge and practice. After contextualizing intersectionality studies and its emergence in psychological research, I turn to three interconnected sections that foreground the concepts of power, knowledge, and process to illuminate intersectionality’s implications for generating, practicing, and critiquing psychological science. While the discussion here foregrounds the production of psychological research, I also point toward the potential consequences of intersectionality theory in other areas of psychologists’ professional lives, including teaching, psychotherapy, and advocacy.
Danis, Williams, and White (2016) argue that bioethicists have been glaringly absent from ongoing social movements to combat racism, particularly the institutional and systematic oppression of African Americans in the United States. They assert that bioethics is uniquely positioned to promote antiracism in scholarship, training, and advocacy. In our title, we borrow from Flavia Dzoden’s (2011) (in)famous assertion about the importance of attending to “intersectionality” in the study and contestation of oppression. Intersectionality theory, rooted in Black feminist thought, has illuminated the weaknesses of social justice movements that conceptualize systems of inequality as discrete or parallel rather than intertwined. While we concur with Danis et al.’s assertions and share their commitment to an interdisciplinary bioethics that is rooted in social justice, we suggest that an intersectional approach would greatly enhance their prescription for bioethical antiracism. Innovative work in bioethics and related fields (e.g., medical sociology, science & technology studies) – including some of own scholarship – has demonstrated that race and racism are co-constituted by various intersecting forms of social inequality, including but not limited to sexism, capitalism, heterosexism, ableism, and globalization/neocolonialism. We outline the key analytic and political strengths of intersectionality theory and specify how Danis et al.’s recommendations may better attend to racism’s causes and material effects when infused with intersectional perspectives. We argue that intersectional antiracism should be at the center of bioethics – a more potent antiracism that attends to the empirical realities of racism’s collusion with intersecting systems of inequality.
Purpose – This chapter reflects on the interpretation and effects of the term intersectionality within the academy and across a broad spectrum of institutional and grassroots environments in which it is operationalized and deployed.Design/methodology/approach – Based on the authors’ experiences within the academy and their respective participation as researchers and organizers within feminist, queer, and racial and economic justice movements, the chapter surveys the rhetorical, political, and organizational uses of intersectionality across these realms.Findings – Five general challenges to intersectional practice are identified and described: misidentification, appropriation, institutionalization, reification, and operationalization. The authors trace these challenges across the academy, grassroots movements, and nonprofit organizations.Originality/value – Offers a new articulation of intersectional practice as the application of scholarly or social movement methodologies aimed at intersectional and sustainable social justice outcomes.
This chapter engages the challenges immanent to approaching a social science course on gender from an intersectional perspective. Grzanka argues that intersectionality presents a critique of both psychology and gender that makes teaching an intersectionality-focused Psychology of Gender course more complex than simply incorporating attention to multiple dimensions of human cultural diversity. Grzanka explains specific strategies he took to implement an intersectional version of the this course and discusses implications of these ideas for teaching intersectionality within the confines of disciplines that traditionally take single-axis approaches to the study of multiculturalism and inequality.
The problems of racism and racially motivated violence in predominantly African American communities in the United States are complex, multifactorial, and historically rooted. While these problems are also deeply morally troubling, bioethicists have not contributed substantially to addressing them. Concern for justice has been one of the core commitments of bioethics. For this and other reasons, bioethicists should contribute to addressing these problems. We consider how bioethicists can offer meaningful contributions to the public discourse, research, teaching, training, policy development, and academic scholarship in response to the alarming and persistent patterns of racism and implicit biases associated with it. To make any useful contribution, bioethicists will require preparation and should expect to play a significant role through collaborative action with others.
This article examines the growing body of commemorative feminist work on intersectionality – the myriad journals and books that have marked intersectionality’s twentieth anniversary and celebrated the analytic’s field-defining status and cross-disciplinary circulation. I argue that this commemorative scholarship is marked by its own genre conventions, including the emergence of originalism, an investment in returning to the ‘inaugural’ intersectional texts – namely Crenshaw’s two articles (1989, 1991) – and assessing later feminist work on intersectionality by its fidelity to those texts. The article reveals that intersectional originalism is its own practice of re-reading and re-interpretation that has its own complex temporal and racial politics, and which is animated by a desire to rescue intersectionality from critique in a moment in which identity politics are increasingly suspect.
The term intersectionality references the critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather as reciprocally constructing phenomena. Despite this general consensus, definitions ofwhat counts as intersectionality are far from clear. In this article, I analyze intersectionality as a knowledge project whose raison d'etre lies in its attentiveness to power relations and social inequalities. I examine three interdependent sets of concerns: (a) intersectionality as a field of study that is situated within the power relations that it studies; (b) intersectionality as an analytical strategy that provides new angles of vision on social phenomena; and (c) intersectionality as critical praxis that informs social justice projects.
The call for structural competency encourages medicine to broaden its approach to matters of race and culture so that it might better address both individual-level doctor and patient characteristics and institutional factors.
Intersectionality: A transformative paradigm in feminist theory and social justice
- B T Dill
- M H Kohlman
Dill, B. T., and M. H. Kohlman. 2012. Intersectionality: A
transformative paradigm in feminist theory and social justice. In
The handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis. (2nd ed.), ed.
S. N. Hesse-Biber (154-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the chthulucene
- D J Haraway
Haraway, D. J. 2016. Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the
Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- P H Collins
- S Bilge
Collins, P. H., and S. Bilge. 2016. Intersectionality. Maiden, MA:
Polity Press.