Solidarity Politics for Millennials

SOLIDARITY POLITICS FOR MILLENNIALS The Politics of Intersectionality Series Editors: Ange-Marie Hancock, University of Southern California Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London

Solidarity Politics for Millennials Ange-Marie Hancock Solidarity Politics for Millennials

A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics

Ange-Marie Hancock SOLIDARITY POLITICS FOR MILLENNIALS Copyright © Ange-Marie Hancock, 2011. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2011 978-0-230-10800-4 All rights reserved. First published in 2011 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-29087-1 ISBN 978-0-230-12013-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9780230120136 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hancock, Ange-Marie. Solidarity politics for millennials : a guide to ending the oppression olympics / Ange-Marie Hancock. p. cm.—(Politics of intersectionality) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Generation Y—United States—Attitudes. 2. Generation Y— Political activity—United States. I. Title. II. Series. HQ799.7.H345 2011 320.973084Ј2—dc22 2011007630 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: August 2011 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Transferred to Digital Printing in 2012 For Charles R. and Theresa M. Hancock C ONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables ix Series Introduction: The Politics of Intersectionality xi

1 Introduction: Why Geraldine Ferraro Needs to Meet Jay-Z 1 2 Intersectionality to the Rescue 33 3 From Public Service to Deep Political Solidarity 63 4 Solidarity in The Real World of Civil Rights, Marriage Equality, and Proposition 8 101 5 Viva Exploradora Dora: Intersectionality’s Contributions to Public Policy 149 Conclusion: A New Politics Manual for the Twenty-First Century 181

Bibliography 187 Acknowledgments 199 Index 205 F IGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

1.1 Oppression Olympics 4 2.1 Content Intersectionality 39 2.2 Dynamic Content Intersectionality 44 2.3 Paradigm Intersectionality 50 3.1 Exercise 92

TABLES

2.1 Standards of Category Selection 40 3.1 10 Acts of Deep Political Solidarity 71 5.1 Public Identity of the Bull’s Eye: Race of Subject and Profiling Experience 163 5.2 “Bull’s Eye” Racial Identity and Proposed Policy Response 165 SERIES INTRODUCTION: THE POLITICS OF INTERSECTIONALITY

The Politics of Intersectionality series builds on the longstanding insights of intersectionality theory from a vast variety of disciplinary perspectives. As a globally utilized analytical framework for understanding issues of social justice, Leslie McCall, Mary Hawkesworth, and others argue that intersectionality is arguably the most important theoretical contribution of women’s and gender studies to date.1 Indeed the imprint of intersectional analysis can be easily found on innovations in equality legislation, human rights, and development discourses. The history of what is now called “intersectional thinking” is long. In fact, prior to its mainstreaming, intersectionality analysis was carried for many years mainly by black and other racialized women who, from their situated gaze, perceived as absurd, not just misleading, any attempt by feminists and others to homoge- nize women’s situation, particularly in conceptualizing such situa- tions as analogous to that of racialized others. As Brah and Phoenix point out,2 many black feminists fulfilled significant roles in the development of intersectional analysis, such as the Combahee River Collective, the black lesbian feminist organization from Boston, who pointed out the need of developing an integrated analysis and prac- tice based upon the fact that major systems of oppression interlock rather than operate separately. However, the term “intersectionality” itself emerged nominally from the field of critical legal studies, where critical race feminist Kimberle Williams Crenshaw wrote two pathbreaking articles, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics”3 and “Mapping the Margins: xii Series Introduction

Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.”4 At nearly the same time, social theorist Patricia Hill Collins was preparing her landmark work, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment,5 which characterized intersections of race, class, and gender as mutually reinforcing sites of power relations. Both Crenshaw and Collins gave the name “intersectionality” to a far larger and more ethnically diverse trajectory of work, now global in nature, that speaks truth to power sited differentially rather than centralized in a single locus. What could also be called intersectional analysis was in fact developing at roughly the same time among European and postcolonial feminists, including, for example, Anthias & Yuval-Davis,6 Brah,7 Essed,8 Ifekwunigwe,9 Lutz,10 Meekosha,11 and Min-ha.12 Indeed, it seems that, in a manner parallel to that which Sandra Harding characterizes the evolution of standpoint theory,13 intersectionality was an idea whose time had come precisely because of the plethora of authors working independently across the globe making vastly similar sets of claims. Around the world, those interested in a more comprehensive and transformative approach to social justice—whether sociologists, legal scholars, feminist theorists, policy makers, or human rights advocates—have used the language and tenets of intersectionality to more effectively articulate injustice and advocate for positive social change. The books in this series represent an interrogation of intersectionality at various levels of analysis. They unabashedly foreground the politics of intersectionality in a way that is designed to both honor the legacy of earlier scholarship and activism as well as push the boundaries of intersectionality’s value to the academy and most importantly to the world. We interpret the series title, The Politics of Intersectionality, in two general ways: First, we emphasize the politics of intersectionality, broadly con- ceived; that is to say, we include debates among scholars regarding the proper conceptualization and application of the term “intersectionality” as part and parcel of the series’ intellectual project. Is intersectionality a paradigm?14 Is intersectionality a normative political (specifically feminist) project?15 Is it a method or epistemological approach? Is it (merely) a concept with limited applicability beyond multiply marginalized populations?16 Our own idiosyncratic answers to these questions are far less important than the open dialogue we seek by including them within the scholarly discourse generated by the series. Series Introduction xiii

What this means pragmatically is that rather than dictatorially de- note an extant definition of intersectionality and impose it on every author’s manuscript, as series editors our task has been to meaning- fully push each author to grapple with their own conceptualization of intersectionality and facilitate their interaction with an ever-growing body of global scholarship, policy, and advocacy work as they render such a conceptualization transparent to readers, reflexive as befits the best feminist work, and committed to rigorous standards of quality no matter the subject, the method, or the conclusions. As editors we have taken such an active role precisely because grappling with the politics of intersectionality demands our adherence to the normative standards of transparency, reflexivity, and speaking to multiple sites of power for which intersectionality is not only known but lauded as the gold standard. It is our honor to build this area of scholarship across false boundaries of theory and praxis; artificially distinct academic disciplines; and the semipermeable line between scholarship and activism. No less importantly, we emphasize politics to mean, well, politics, whether everyday senses of justice—so-called formal politics of social movements, campaigns, elections, policy, and government institutions—or personal politics of identity, community, and activism across a broad swath of the world. While this general conceptualization of politics lends itself to the social sciences, we define social sciences in a broad way that again seeks to unite theoretical concerns (whether normative or positive) with interpretive and em- pirical approaches across an array of topics far too numerous to list in their entirety. The second way we interpret the series title—simultaneously, as one might expect of intersectionality scholars—is with an emphasis on the word intersectionality. That is, the books in this series do not depend solely on 20-year-old articulations of intersectionality, nor do they adhere to one particular theoretical or methodological approach to study intersectionality; they are steeped in a rich liter- ature of both substantive and analytical depth that in the twenty- first century reaches around the world. This is not your professor’s “women of color” or “race-class-gender” series of the late twentieth century. Indeed an emphasis on up-to-date engagement with the best and brightest global thinking on intersectionality has been the single most exacting standard we have imposed on the editing pro- cess. As series editors, we seek to develop manuscripts that aspire to a level of sophistication about intersectionality as a body of research xiv Series Introduction that is in fact worthy of the intellectual, political, and personal risks taken by so many of its earliest interlocutors in voicing and naming this work. Currently, intersectionality scholarship lacks a meaningful clear- inghouse of work that speaks across (again false) boundaries of a particular identity community under study (e.g., Black lesbians, women of color environmental activists), academic disciplines, or the geo- graphical location from which the author writes (e.g., Europe, North America, Southeast Asia). For this reason, we expect that the bibliog- raphies of the manuscripts will be almost as helpful as the manuscripts themselves, particularly for senior professors who train graduate students and graduate students seeking to immerse themselves broadly and deeply in contemporary approaches to intersectionality. We are less sanguine, however, about the plethora of modifiers that have emerged to somehow modulate intersectionality—whether it be intersectional stigma,17 intersectional political consciousness,18 intersectional praxis,19 post-intersectionality,20 paradigm intersectionality,21 or even Crenshaw’s original modes of structural and political intersectionality.22 Our emphasis has been on building the subfield rather than consciously expanding the lexicon of modes and specialities for intersectionality.

A WORD ABOUT SOLIDARITY POLITICS FOR MILLENNIALS As a coeditor with Ange-Marie Hancock of this book series on the Politics of Intersectionality, I’m especially pleased that her book is launching our series. In her book, Hancock not only deepens our understanding of what intersectionality is as an analytical tool but also develops an alternative approach to identity politics (distinct from regressive notions, which she calls the “Oppression Olympics”) preferring a politics of solidarity that is not reductionist or dichot- omous, and is concerned with intragroup as well as intergroup relations of power. This beautifully written, vivid book is specifically aimed at young “Millennial” activists but should appeal to “Millennials” of all ages. I join the author in her hope that the global wave of the call for freedom, which is spreading in spite of many attempts at repressing it, would be able to benefit from an encompassing and empathetic intersectional approach to politics of solidarity as well as in her warning that there is no “end to politics” (as well as to history) and that new constellations of power will emerge, requiring new struggles or reviving old ones just when it seems things are finally getting better. Series Introduction xv

It is thus with pleasure and pride that we invite you to join a global intellectual endeavor—that of The Politics of Intersectionality Series. We welcome your engagement, submissions, and constructive com- ments as we move forward. We thank Palgrave Macmillan, our editor Farideh Koohi-Kamali and her staff, and the global community of intersectionality scholar-practitioners for this opportunity to broaden the world’s conversation in the direction of social justice.

NIRA-YUVAL DAVIS University of East London, U.K.

NOTES 1. McCall, Leslie. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: A Journal of Women and Culture in Society (2005): 1771; Hawkesworth, Mary. Feminist Inquiry: From Political Conviction to Methodological Innovation. 2006. 2. Brah, Avtar and Ann Phoenix. “Ain’t I a Woman? Revisiting Intersectionality,” Journal of International Women’s Studies 5.3 (2004): 80. 3. University of Chicago Legal Forum 139 (1989). 4. 43 Stanford Law Review (1991). 5. New York: Routledge, 1990. 6. Anthias, F. and N. Yuval-Davis.”Contextualising Feminism: Gender, Ethnic & Class Divisions.” Feminist Review 15 (November 1983): 62–75; Anthias, F. and N. Yuval-Davis. Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and The Anti-Racist Struggle. London: Routledge, 1992. 7. Brah, Avtar. Cartographies of Diaspora. London: Routledge, 1996. 8. Essed, Philomena. Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991. 9. Ifekwunigwe, J. Scattered Belongings. London: Sage, 1999. 10. Lutz, H. Migrant women of “Islamic background.” Amsterdam Middle East Research Associates (1991). 11. Meekosha, H. and L. Dowse. “Enabling Citizenship: Gender, Disability and Citizenship in Australia.” Feminist Review 57 (1997): 49–72. 12. Minh-ha, Trinh T. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcolonialism and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. 13. Harding, Sandra. “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and Method: Feminism Standpoint Theory Revisited’: Whose Standpoint Needs Regimes of Truth and Reality?” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22.2 [1997]: 382–91; p. 389. 14. Hancock, A-M. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5.1 (2007): 63–79. xvi Series Introduction

15. Yuval-Davis. “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13.3 (2006): 193–209. 16. Jordan-Zachery. “Am I a Black Woman or a Woman Who Is Black? A Few Thoughts on the Meaning of Intersectionality.” Politics and Gender 3.3 (2007): 254–263. 17. Strolovitch, Dara. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. 18. Greenwood, Ronni Michelle. “Intersectional Political Consciousness: Appreciation for Intragroup Differences and Solidarity across Diverse Groups.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 32.1 (2008): 36–47. 19. Townsend-Bell, Erica. “What Is Relevance? Defining Intersectional Praxis in Uruguay.” Political Research Quarterly 64.1 (2011): 187–199. 20. Kwan, Peter. “Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Sexual Orientation: Jeffrey Dahmer and the Cosynthesis of Categories.” 48 Hastings Law Journal (1997). 21. Hancock, A-M. Solidarity Politics for Millennials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011. 22. Crenshaw, K. W. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 139 (1989).