Pag 9 4 Critical Perspectives 463..497

470 POLITICS & GENDER, 9 (4) 2013

(Inter)disciplinary Trouble: Intersectionality, Narrative Analysis, and the Making of a New Political Science Nikol G. Alexander-Floyd, Rutgers University doi:10.1017/S1743923X13000317

Interdisciplinarity, like other words, such as neoliberalism or globalization, has wide but seemingly endlessly varied use. Indeed, it is often used indiscriminately to apply to everything from a change of focus that is outside the substantive content of a discipline to the radical reorientation of methods and methodology to the call to escape disciplinary confines altogether. As someone who had the good fortune to receive an interdisciplinary graduate education at Rutgers (Women and Politics, Public Law, and Africana Studies as subfields) and begin her career in an “interdisciplinary” unit (what eventually became, in fact, a Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), I am well acquainted with the many debates surrounding the much-touted, but also still too infrequent, trek of not only boundary crossers per se, but also those who live in borderland spaces that merge and, at times, blur disciplinary lines. As a radical Black feminist political scientist and lawyer, interdisciplinarity has been a vital necessity for both theory and practice. Rutgers provided an intellectual space in which interdisciplinary approaches were deemed critical to mapping a feminist political science. In this essay, I briefly share some of the possibilities opened up by interdisciplinary investigation and its central role in ushering in a new political science. As I have noted elsewhere (Alexander-Floyd 2004a), at its best, interdisciplinarity results in “(inter)disciplinary trouble,” in that it recognizes the reality of disciplinary boundaries — a disciplinary “matrix” (Butler 1990), if you will — and seeks to displace and disrupt traditional modes of knowledge production from within this context. While viewing a subject from the vantage point of several disciplines (multidisciplinarity) or borrowing concepts to apply within the logic of existing disciplines (cross-disciplinarity) has its place, interdisciplinarity merges knowledge formations from different disciplines such that it creates something altogether new, knowledge that exceeds the bounds of its original points of departure (Newell and Green 1982). With this in mind, my own pursuit of Black feminist (inter)disciplinary trouble — what I describe as a Critical Race Black Feminist approach or Black feminist frame of reference — has integrated critical race theory, political science, and Black and mainstream feminist theory, across disciplines.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 26 Sep 2021 at 10:58:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000317 CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 471

Indeed, as it relates to political science, a Critical Race Black Feminist approach allows a frame of reference that broadens and enriches existing lenses for interpreting gender and Black politics. Much of the research in Black politics and gender politics in political science proceeds with little or no coalescence. A Black feminist frame of reference foregrounds Black women as political subjects and seeks to understand the production of gender and its operation in Black communities, the broader U.S. society, and the Diaspora. It is grounded, as well, in a commitment to intersectionality, broadly defined. Intersectionality can be thought of as both an idea and an ideograph (Alexander-Floyd 2012). As an idea, intersectionality refers to critical race feminist Kimberle´ Crenshaw’s specific formulations about the necessity of studying both race and gender as it relates to Black women and women of color more generally; as an ideograph, intersectionality is best understood as the broad ideological project in which women of color scholars have engaged to grapple with the mutually constitutive forces that have affected their lives. Crenshaw’s work, in other words, must be set in relationship to a project that both predated, and in some ways exceeds, her specific contributions. My own work seeks to contribute to this ongoing project by assessing race, gender, class, and other aspects of identity, not as discrete or static entities that “link,” “interact,” or “intersect” per se, but as mutually constitutive and productive formations (Alexander-Floyd 2007). In addition to influencing the content of my work, a commitment to interdisciplinarity informs my choice of interpretive methodology and the method of narrative or frame analysis. As critical race theorists, as well as social scientists, have demonstrated, narratives and counter- narratives form the frameworks through which we conceive of and pursue politics, at both macro and micro levels of operation. Framing, I have argued (Alexander-Floyd 2007), whether it occurs through devices such as storylines, tropes, metanarratives, or rhetorical strategies, is a key mechanism through which politics takes shape, and a Black feminist frame of reference that utilizes narrative analysis — a method associated with interpretive methodology — is critical for assessing the ways in which narratives in their various guises establish the parameters of public discourse, promote or undermine policies, and/or galvanize political behavior and action. Importantly, narrative analysis participates in the redirection of knowledge toward historically specific, localized knowledge production that disrupts the Western notions of rationality

and scientificity that undergird positivist and neopositivist research paradigms. Two examples from my own research on Black nationalism serve to illustrate how narrative analysis gives a fuller, more complex rendering of the political and social world. Traditional political science research on nationalism deals with it in a simplistic framework, comparing it to liberal intergrationism, as if it were its binary opposite. In this framework, nationalism appears as a more radical tradition, set on critiquing U.S. notions of equality and challenging the idea that Blacks should move toward accommodation to a political system that is inherently flawed. Such assumptions, however, are unfounded, as they suggest a timeless character to Black nationalism and fail to see how it has, in fact, shifted its elaboration in relationship to larger currents in U.S. politics (Johnson 2007; Robinson 2001). Also, although feminists have long discussed the centrality of gender to nationalism, most work in political science on the subject fails to take gender centrally into account and/or deals with it within the important, but still limited, terms of public opinion (see, e.g., Brown and Shaw 2002; Price 2009; and Valls 2010). First, a Black feminist frame of reference allows us to see how gender politics forms the operating logic of nationalist politics, and that Black nationalism, far from being a consistently progressive political force, is, in fact, supportive of hegemonic, conservative understandings of Black life. Indeed, the current focus on Black cultural pathology, which redirects attention for problems ailing African Americans from racism and structural factors to their own putatively wayward lifestyles and values, is bolstered by Black nationalist and other ideological camps in Black communities. This focus on Black cultural pathology and the drive to build Black families and shore up patriarchal Black male leadership in the home serve as a shared ideological ground for Black cultural nationalists and a White nationalist project identified with the state. Indeed, the historic Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was driven by a conviction that family welfare recipients, particularly Black women, were leeching the public purse. Second, a Black feminist frame of reference, which utilizes narrative analysis, helps us to read events like the Million Man March and policies, such as welfare reform or faith-based initiatives, in terms of their connection to broader political currents. Although most political science analysis of survey data on the March mines it to discuss racial consciousness or Black leadership styles, utilizing the same data sets, I have demonstrated that a gendered racial consciousness undergirds the

Million Man March (Alexander-Floyd 2004b), a point that, despite the naming of the event, gets missed when we rely solely on traditional forms of quantitative analysis. Conversely, although most feminists do not link Black nationalism to the state, a political science orientation invites us to consider this relationship. Indeed, thinking through the narratives surrounding Black cultural pathology in a broad sense allows us to see its — and Black nationalism’s — relationship not only to welfare reform, but also to seemingly less and/or unconnected policies, such as fatherhood and faith-based initiatives. The latter, for instance, was promoted because religious institutions were seen as the best vehicle through which Black communities and families could be socially rehabilitated. A Black feminist frame of reference, therefore, demonstrates the relevance of interdisciplinarity, critical race feminism, and intersectionality to the production of a new political science. Political scientists have worked to reconfigure the discipline, making it more open demographically and methodologically and ultimately more politically relevant to people outside of academe and the formal corridors of power and industry. Producing this new political science cannot stop at merely making space for more people without challenging the methodological foundations of disciplinary knowledge. Key to this project is the formation of intellectual vehicles and spaces, such as the Women and Politics program at Rutgers, which invites and cultivates a fusion of what is best in the discipline of political science with theories, constructs, and questions from other fields. It allows us to converse with a broader community of scholars committed to studying politics and changing our world. In the end, multi- or cross-disciplinary approaches will alter, but not fundamentally transform, disciplines. Only (inter)disciplinary trouble, the deep integration of knowledge across disciplines, will allow us to generate a new scholarly praxis, and, hopefully, new political futures.

Nikol G. Alexander-Floyd is Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ: [email protected]

REFERENCES Alexander-Floyd, Nikol G. 2004a. “Making (Inter)Disciplinary Trouble: Africana Studies in White Academe.” In An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies, ed. Michael Herndon. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 40–52.

———. 2004b. “Interdisciplinarity, Black Politics, and the Million Man March: A Case Study.” In An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies, ed. Michael Herndon. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 90–110. ———. 2007. Gender, Race, and Nationalism in Contemporary Black Politics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. ———. 2012. “Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social Sciences in a Post-Black Feminist Era.” Feminist Formations 24 (1): 1–25. Brown, Robert A., and Todd C. Shaw. 2002. “Separate Nations: Two Attitudinal Dimensions of Black Nationalism.” Journal of Politics 64 (1): 22–44. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge. Johnson, Cedric. 2007. Revolutionaries to Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Newell, William, and William Green. 1982. “Defining and Teaching Interdisciplinary Studies.” Improving College and University Teaching 30 (1): 23–30. Price, Melanye T. 2009. Dreaming Blackness: Black Nationalism and African American Public Opinion. New York: New York University Press. Robinson, Dean. 2001. Black Nationalism in American Politics and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valls, Andrew. 2010. “A Liberal Defense of Black Nationalism.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 467–81.

How Studying Ideological Diversity among Women Transforms Political Knowledge Ronnee Schreiber, San Diego State University doi:10.1017/S1743923X13000329

In a recent text detailing the alleged wrongs of feminism, conservatives Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly pronounced,

It is our sincere hope that this book helps support Americans who don’t believe women in this country are oppressed, who know government is not the solution to women’s problems, who don’t believe marriage and motherhood are outdated institutions, who think men are as important as women, who think gender roles are good and exist for a reason, and who see the mainstream media for who they are (Venker and Schlafly 2011, 11).

While it may be tempting for feminists to dismiss these ideas as old- fashioned and even detrimental to women, doing so restricts how we comprehend the full range of women’s political participation. In my work on conservative women, I argue that we must take such comments, and their messengers, seriously. Failing to do so means that political science broadly, and the field of women and politics more specifically, is limited in what it can tell us about ideology, identity, and political practice.