Article Critique of Intersectionality, Race-Gender Subordination, and Education

 Angela Harris and Zeus Leonardo’s qualitative study on intersectionality deftly covers two major areas: the legal field and the field of education (Harris & Leonardo, 2018). Each researcher draws on their respective field of study to examine the theoretical framework of intersectionality in terms of its genealogy and general social conceptualizations before analyzing both legal intersectionality and educational intersectionality. Ultimately, Harris and Leonardo claim that intersectionality’s strength is creating space for new frameworks like Critical Race Theory (CRT) along intersecting points of race and gender in legal and educational systems that will replace outdated models like multiculturalism.  The authors used qualitative data analysis to search and evaluate the presence of intersectionality as a theoretical framework in multiple databases and resources for both legal scholarship and educational publications (Harris & Leonardo, 2018, p. 2). They synthesized their findings into the above categories. This concept of only examining sources that used intersectionality as a theoretical framework is as important as the definition for the term coming from Bowleg (2012), which states:

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework for understanding how multiple social identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, SES [socioeconomic status], and disability intersect at the micro level of individual experience to reflect interlocking systems of privilege and oppression (i.e., racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism) at the macro social-structural level (Bowleg, 2012, p. 1267).

Regarding the genealogy and background of intersectionality, the authors present findings that even though Kimberle Crenshaw unified the concept of intersectionality, the beginnings of the framework existed first in the writings and experiences of “scholar activists working in liberation-focused social movements” from the 1960s and ‘70s (Harris & Leonardo, 2018, p. 3). The authors reinforce the reality that systemic oppression disproportionately affected marginalized groups long before Crenshaw formalized the term (and has now become such a facet of the liberal academic lexicon). Through the legal scholarship of Crenshaw, the scholars could carry this umbrella concept into their respective areas of focus.

Interestingly, the authors acknowledge that this quest for justice through intersectionality can be viewed as a “receding horizon” in that when activists attempt to uplift groups marginalized at one intersecting point of identity, another area is neglected or overshadowed (Harris & Leonardo, 2018, p. 6). The authors use this and several other metaphors to describe both the concept of intersectionality and its complexities and the problematic nature of using metaphors in the first place. Along with the metaphors, intersectional work is always unfinished – but if scholars and practitioners allow the term to become a series of checkboxes (as seen with how judges are interpreting the framework), intersectionality loses dimensionality.

In terms of educational praxis, the authors claim that schools constantly subordinate students through the intersections of race and gender and seek to name schools as intersectional “meeting points” and not “melting pots” (Harris & Leonardo, 2018, p. 19). The authors accuse Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) of centering whiteness in their early work with CRT in schools. Harris and Leandro call for an end to the multicultural framework, allowing only a myopic view of identity.  When educators view oppression and microaggressions along a single axis of identity only, they fail to grasp not only their students, but the compounding “double jeopardy” caused by multi-tiered systems of oppression functioning at a “macro social-structural level” known as the education system.

 

References

Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality---an important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1267-1273.

 

Harris, A., & Leonardo, Z. (2018). Intersectionality, Race-Gender Subordination, and Education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18759071

 

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD, 97(1), 47-68.