Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis
Anthias F. (2013)
Anthias (2013) argues for a more rigorous and nuanced approach to intersectionality, highlighting
the need to consider different levels of analysis and to go beyond a simplistic "listing" of
intersecting categories.
Intersectionality: presented as a corrective to essentialist views of identity that “homogenise social
categories” like gender, ethnicity, and class
● Note: Anthias cautions against its uncritical application → can lead to a reductionist
understanding of social divisions
● She argues that intersectionality is not a unified theory but a collection of perspectives that
helps us understand the boundaries and hierarchies shaping social life
● ‘Heuristic device’: an invaluable conceptual tool that aids in the exploration, explanation, and
understanding of social phenomena → offers a lens for understanding the complex
interrelationships between social divisions and hierarchies
● Anthias explores the “societal arenas of investigation”, arguing for an intersectionality
approach that focuses on ‘interactions between inequality-creating social structures (ie of
power relations), symbolic representations and identity constructions that are context-specific,
topic-oriented and inextricably linked to social praxis’ (Winker and Degele, 2011)
1.1 Origins of Intersectionality
● Anthias acknowledges that the concept of interconnected social divisions isn't entirely new,
drawing parallels with classical sociological theories
○ The interactionist perspective: argues meaning to be produced through the
interactions of individuals → the social interaction is a face-to-face process consisting
of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between two or more individuals, with
the goal of communicating with others (Mead, 1934)
○ The conflict perspective: describes the inequalities that exist in all societies globally,
and considers aspects of society as ways for those with power and status to maintain
control over scarce resources (Giddens, 1987, 1997)
○ The functionalist perspective: sees society as a complex system whose parts work
together to promote solidarity and stability (Turner, 1979)
, ● Broadly, intersectionality: posits that social divisions interrelate in terms of the production of
social relations and in terms of people's lives
Eg gender is influenced by other social divisions like ‘race’ and class, and they are seen
as mutually fundamental → highlights division amongst ‘women’ by pointing
towards process of racialisation and class, and the disadvantages that follow
Big 3 of intersectionality:
1. Gender,
2. Ethnicity/race, and
3. Class
Note: other categories can also be implemented → sexuality, age, disability, faith…
● Anthias highlights the contributions of Black feminist scholars (eg Patricia Hill Collins and
Kimberle Crenshaw) in formally articulating intersectionality
○ Patricia Hill Collins' work focuses on gender, race, and class as ‘ideological or
discursive practices’ within power dynamics → concept of a interlocking oppression
organised through a "matrix of domination" underscores the interconnectedness of
these social divisions across various domains of power
→ matrix of domination: a sociological paradigm that explains issues of oppression
that deal with race, class, and gender, which, though recognized as different social
classifications, are all interconnected
○ 4 domains of power as highlighted by Collins: interpersonal, hegemonic, structural,
and disciplinary
○ Kimberle Crenshaw, a socio-legal theorist, is credited with coining the term
"intersectionality” → her work highlights the overlapping nature of discrimination,
particularly the ‘intersectional invisibility’ experienced by racialized women,
recognising the specificity of the discriminations experienced
Recent discussions on intersectionality vary:
● Some see it as the best way to understand the complex ways different social divisions and
identities interact
● Others think it’s just a popular term ("buzzword") and not a full theory
● Some criticise it for oversimplifying differences by treating them like a checklist, making
them all seem equal
1.2 Potential pitfalls associated with intersectionality
1. It often involves creating a "list" of differences (reduced to identities) that intersect
→ the "listing" problem: simply listing intersecting differences without analysing their
significance
2. The equivalence problem: treating all forms of difference as equivalent and neglecting the
unique dynamics of each
○ Acknowledge the unique historical and social contexts that shape each category
3. It can be hard to analyse the complexity of these differences effectively
4. There can be debates about which differences are most important or how many to include
, 5. It can result in endless combinations or groupings (eg "Black working-class, lesbian, young,
rural, disabled").
6. There’s a risk of focusing too much on individual differences, leading to questions like:
○ What differences matter?
○ When, where, and how do they matter?
7. Neglecting power and social structure: insufficient attention to the role of broader power
dynamics and political economy, particularly the role of class, in the creation of sections
(being considered a given rather than constructions)
○ Power dynamics are central to intersectional analysis → Anthias advocates for
situating social categories and divisions within a framework that explicitly considers
power, hierarchy, and both spatial and temporal contexts (ie sections are constructed
as part of the exercise of power within particular contexts and in relation to the state,
economic interests and practices)
8. Is intersectionality universally applicable or only applicable to marginalised groups?
Anthias stresses the need for greater analytical precision in intersectional analyses to avoid these
pitfalls. She calls for a focus on power, hierarchy, and spatial and temporal context when investigating
social categories and divisions.
● Consider the broader social landscape of power and hierarchy → examine how social
categories themselves function separately as well as understanding how they intertwine to
create concrete social relations
1.3 Different Levels of Analysis
1.3.1 First Level of Abstraction: Social Ontologies
At this level, gender, ethnicity, ‘race’ and class relate to social ontologies: ideas about how different
parts of the world are structured or organised
● Act as maps → shows where relationships exist and how they appear as categories or
real-world connections
Different realms of the world are organised into categories like gender, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality,
age, and disability
● These categories help define how people are grouped or placed but don’t describe individuals
themselves → that’s the role of social categories which act as sorting tools.
For instance,
● Ethnicity and race focus on collective identities and belonging
● Gender is tied to ideas about sex and reproduction
● Class relates to economic roles and systems
Social categories operate on two levels:
1. Abstract: general ideas and concepts about these categories
2. Concrete: how these ideas play out in real-life situations and social divisions
Note: the abstract level needs to be clearly separated from the more practical, real-world application
of these ideas
, 1.3.2 Second Level of Abstraction: Social Categories as Categories of Discursive Practice
in the Making of Boundaries and Hierarchies
Categories like gender, ethnicity, race, and class help group people based on certain criteria, but these
groups don’t always reflect how people see themselves or behave → placing people into categories
involves a sorting exercise that can be done in different ways
Eg Someone may identify as British but be categorised as part of an ethnic minority by the state
Conclusively, these categories shouldn’t be treated as fixed or universal; instead, we should explore
their similarities, differences, and how they create boundaries and hierarchies → they often simplify
diversity by creating binary distinctions and collective labels
● Categories function differently depending on time, place, and context
Eg policies and government systems categorise people based on political and social
needs at the time
Collins emphasised that categories like gender, race, and class are tools of power, influencing social
dynamics. Intersectionality needs to account for how these categories work both individually and
together.
McCall identified three approaches to studying categories:
1. Anti-categorical: rejects fixed categories and focuses on individual experiences
2. Intracategorical: explores how differences like race and class interact within a single category,
such as gender
3. Intercategorical: examines relationships between categories, like comparing gender and
ethnicity in the workforce
Categories: part of the social landscape as forms of discourse and practice and enter into the social
field as primary units of social representation and organisation
Note: it’s important to recognize that categories like race or class cannot be reduced to one another;
they’re distinct but interconnected → their meaning comes from how they intersect and interact with
other social factors in real-life situations
1.3.3 Third Level of Abstraction: Concrete Social Relations
→ embodies social relations of hierarchy and inequality
Categories like gender, ethnicity, race, and class create boundaries that influence social hierarchies
and inequalities → shapes how people see themselves and others, but they don’t automatically define
groups
● Groups are formed through interactions and social processes, not just by being labelled as part
of a category
Eg being in an ethnic category doesn’t necessarily mean belonging to an ethnic group; group
formation involves other factors like gender and class
Categories Groups
Labels or classifications created to sort and Actual communities or collectives formed
Anthias F. (2013)
Anthias (2013) argues for a more rigorous and nuanced approach to intersectionality, highlighting
the need to consider different levels of analysis and to go beyond a simplistic "listing" of
intersecting categories.
Intersectionality: presented as a corrective to essentialist views of identity that “homogenise social
categories” like gender, ethnicity, and class
● Note: Anthias cautions against its uncritical application → can lead to a reductionist
understanding of social divisions
● She argues that intersectionality is not a unified theory but a collection of perspectives that
helps us understand the boundaries and hierarchies shaping social life
● ‘Heuristic device’: an invaluable conceptual tool that aids in the exploration, explanation, and
understanding of social phenomena → offers a lens for understanding the complex
interrelationships between social divisions and hierarchies
● Anthias explores the “societal arenas of investigation”, arguing for an intersectionality
approach that focuses on ‘interactions between inequality-creating social structures (ie of
power relations), symbolic representations and identity constructions that are context-specific,
topic-oriented and inextricably linked to social praxis’ (Winker and Degele, 2011)
1.1 Origins of Intersectionality
● Anthias acknowledges that the concept of interconnected social divisions isn't entirely new,
drawing parallels with classical sociological theories
○ The interactionist perspective: argues meaning to be produced through the
interactions of individuals → the social interaction is a face-to-face process consisting
of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between two or more individuals, with
the goal of communicating with others (Mead, 1934)
○ The conflict perspective: describes the inequalities that exist in all societies globally,
and considers aspects of society as ways for those with power and status to maintain
control over scarce resources (Giddens, 1987, 1997)
○ The functionalist perspective: sees society as a complex system whose parts work
together to promote solidarity and stability (Turner, 1979)
, ● Broadly, intersectionality: posits that social divisions interrelate in terms of the production of
social relations and in terms of people's lives
Eg gender is influenced by other social divisions like ‘race’ and class, and they are seen
as mutually fundamental → highlights division amongst ‘women’ by pointing
towards process of racialisation and class, and the disadvantages that follow
Big 3 of intersectionality:
1. Gender,
2. Ethnicity/race, and
3. Class
Note: other categories can also be implemented → sexuality, age, disability, faith…
● Anthias highlights the contributions of Black feminist scholars (eg Patricia Hill Collins and
Kimberle Crenshaw) in formally articulating intersectionality
○ Patricia Hill Collins' work focuses on gender, race, and class as ‘ideological or
discursive practices’ within power dynamics → concept of a interlocking oppression
organised through a "matrix of domination" underscores the interconnectedness of
these social divisions across various domains of power
→ matrix of domination: a sociological paradigm that explains issues of oppression
that deal with race, class, and gender, which, though recognized as different social
classifications, are all interconnected
○ 4 domains of power as highlighted by Collins: interpersonal, hegemonic, structural,
and disciplinary
○ Kimberle Crenshaw, a socio-legal theorist, is credited with coining the term
"intersectionality” → her work highlights the overlapping nature of discrimination,
particularly the ‘intersectional invisibility’ experienced by racialized women,
recognising the specificity of the discriminations experienced
Recent discussions on intersectionality vary:
● Some see it as the best way to understand the complex ways different social divisions and
identities interact
● Others think it’s just a popular term ("buzzword") and not a full theory
● Some criticise it for oversimplifying differences by treating them like a checklist, making
them all seem equal
1.2 Potential pitfalls associated with intersectionality
1. It often involves creating a "list" of differences (reduced to identities) that intersect
→ the "listing" problem: simply listing intersecting differences without analysing their
significance
2. The equivalence problem: treating all forms of difference as equivalent and neglecting the
unique dynamics of each
○ Acknowledge the unique historical and social contexts that shape each category
3. It can be hard to analyse the complexity of these differences effectively
4. There can be debates about which differences are most important or how many to include
, 5. It can result in endless combinations or groupings (eg "Black working-class, lesbian, young,
rural, disabled").
6. There’s a risk of focusing too much on individual differences, leading to questions like:
○ What differences matter?
○ When, where, and how do they matter?
7. Neglecting power and social structure: insufficient attention to the role of broader power
dynamics and political economy, particularly the role of class, in the creation of sections
(being considered a given rather than constructions)
○ Power dynamics are central to intersectional analysis → Anthias advocates for
situating social categories and divisions within a framework that explicitly considers
power, hierarchy, and both spatial and temporal contexts (ie sections are constructed
as part of the exercise of power within particular contexts and in relation to the state,
economic interests and practices)
8. Is intersectionality universally applicable or only applicable to marginalised groups?
Anthias stresses the need for greater analytical precision in intersectional analyses to avoid these
pitfalls. She calls for a focus on power, hierarchy, and spatial and temporal context when investigating
social categories and divisions.
● Consider the broader social landscape of power and hierarchy → examine how social
categories themselves function separately as well as understanding how they intertwine to
create concrete social relations
1.3 Different Levels of Analysis
1.3.1 First Level of Abstraction: Social Ontologies
At this level, gender, ethnicity, ‘race’ and class relate to social ontologies: ideas about how different
parts of the world are structured or organised
● Act as maps → shows where relationships exist and how they appear as categories or
real-world connections
Different realms of the world are organised into categories like gender, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality,
age, and disability
● These categories help define how people are grouped or placed but don’t describe individuals
themselves → that’s the role of social categories which act as sorting tools.
For instance,
● Ethnicity and race focus on collective identities and belonging
● Gender is tied to ideas about sex and reproduction
● Class relates to economic roles and systems
Social categories operate on two levels:
1. Abstract: general ideas and concepts about these categories
2. Concrete: how these ideas play out in real-life situations and social divisions
Note: the abstract level needs to be clearly separated from the more practical, real-world application
of these ideas
, 1.3.2 Second Level of Abstraction: Social Categories as Categories of Discursive Practice
in the Making of Boundaries and Hierarchies
Categories like gender, ethnicity, race, and class help group people based on certain criteria, but these
groups don’t always reflect how people see themselves or behave → placing people into categories
involves a sorting exercise that can be done in different ways
Eg Someone may identify as British but be categorised as part of an ethnic minority by the state
Conclusively, these categories shouldn’t be treated as fixed or universal; instead, we should explore
their similarities, differences, and how they create boundaries and hierarchies → they often simplify
diversity by creating binary distinctions and collective labels
● Categories function differently depending on time, place, and context
Eg policies and government systems categorise people based on political and social
needs at the time
Collins emphasised that categories like gender, race, and class are tools of power, influencing social
dynamics. Intersectionality needs to account for how these categories work both individually and
together.
McCall identified three approaches to studying categories:
1. Anti-categorical: rejects fixed categories and focuses on individual experiences
2. Intracategorical: explores how differences like race and class interact within a single category,
such as gender
3. Intercategorical: examines relationships between categories, like comparing gender and
ethnicity in the workforce
Categories: part of the social landscape as forms of discourse and practice and enter into the social
field as primary units of social representation and organisation
Note: it’s important to recognize that categories like race or class cannot be reduced to one another;
they’re distinct but interconnected → their meaning comes from how they intersect and interact with
other social factors in real-life situations
1.3.3 Third Level of Abstraction: Concrete Social Relations
→ embodies social relations of hierarchy and inequality
Categories like gender, ethnicity, race, and class create boundaries that influence social hierarchies
and inequalities → shapes how people see themselves and others, but they don’t automatically define
groups
● Groups are formed through interactions and social processes, not just by being labelled as part
of a category
Eg being in an ethnic category doesn’t necessarily mean belonging to an ethnic group; group
formation involves other factors like gender and class
Categories Groups
Labels or classifications created to sort and Actual communities or collectives formed
