Power, privilege and disadvantage: Intersectionality theory and political representation
| Date | 01 November 2016 |
| Published date | 01 November 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716630987 |
| Subject Matter | Special Section: Intersectionality and Political Science ResearchGuest Edited by Silvia Erzeel (Université catholique de Louvain; University of Antwerp) and Liza Mügge (University of Amsterdam) |
research-article2016
Special Section Article
Politics
2016, Vol. 36(4) 346 –354
Power, privilege and
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
disadvantage: Intersectionality
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716630987
pol.sagepub.com
theory and political
representation
Eline Severs
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Karen Celis
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Silvia Erzeel
Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract
This article critically reviews the extant literature on social group representation and clarifies
the advantages of intersectionality theory for studying political representation. It argues that the
merit of intersectionality theory can be found in its ontology of power. Intersectionality theory
is founded on a relational conception of political power that locates the constitution of power
relations within social interactions, such as political representation. As such, intersectionality
theory pushes scholarship beyond studying representation inequalities – that are linked to
presumably stable societal positions – to also consider the ways in which political representation
(re)creates positions of privilege and disadvantage.
Keywords
intersectionality, political representation, power, privilege, social categories
Received: 16th February 2015; Revised version received: 30th September 2015; Accepted: 19th October 2015
Introduction
The emergence of intersectionality as a major research paradigm (Hancock, 2007: 63) has
had a profound effect on studies of social group representation. The understanding that
systems of domination, such as patriarchy, heteronormativity, colonialism, racism, and
ageism are interdependent sensitised scholars to the limitations of studying single
Corresponding author:
Eline Severs, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 5, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Email: Eline.Severs@vub.ac.be
Severs et al.
347
markers of inequality (McCall, 2005: 1771). The notion that racism affects minority
and white women differently revealed the need to treat women as a heterogeneous
group and to consider the power relations between privileged and disadvantaged mem-
bers of this group. The additional insight that women of colour are discriminated against
as ‘women of colour’ and not merely as ‘women’, or ‘people of colour’, challenged
additive approaches to inequality that argue that each system of domination has an
independent effect on individuals’ status (King, 1988: 47). Instead, intersectionality
promotes approaches that consider how systems of domination interact and impact
individuals’ identity and subject formation in ways that exceed the mere simultaneity of
systems of domination.
This article discusses the implications of intersectionality theory for studying politi-
cal representation. It draws attention to the ontology of power of intersectionality theory
and argues that this ontology calls for a critical reconsideration of the ways in which we
study political representation and conceptualise its relation to political power. To date,
studies on social group representation have predominantly invoked intersectionality
theory as a means to include previously overlooked sub-groups, such as ethnic minority
women, into their analyses (Hughes, 2011; Strolovitch, 2006). These studies are mainly
concerned with the outcomes of political representation (such as the number of seats
obtained in parliament or the types of groups and interests represented) and predomi-
nantly explain these intersectionally unequal outcomes by making reference to prevail-
ing power structures. Because of this particular focus on representation outcomes, the
relation between political representation and power is conceived in terms of mimesis:
political representation is believed to reflect positions of privilege and disadvantage
within society.
Intersectionality theory, by contrast, conceptualises the relation between political rep-
resentation and power in terms of constitution and draws attention to the part of represen-
tation in (re)shaping positions of privilege and disadvantage. In a manner resemblant of
Foucault’s (1978) treatment of power, intersectionality theory rejects possessional
accounts that reduce political power to the exercise of oppression and that exclusively
locate power in (privileged) social locations or institutions. The observation from inter-
sectionality theorists that ‘we dominate and are dominated’ (hooks, 1989: 20 in Lloyd,
2013: 123) dissolves rigid distinctions between the so-called powerful and powerless
(Squires, 1999: 36) and draws attention to the productive aspects of power, namely, the
ways in which the exertion of power also produces possibilities for resistance.
Intersectionality theorists’ emphasis on the coextensive character of oppression and
resistance (Baca Zinn and Dill, 1996; Dhamoon, 2011; hooks, 1989) warrants attention to
the unstable character of power relations and the ways in which positions of privilege and
disadvantage are reproduced through forms of social interaction.
The ontological stance of intersectionality theory has important implications for the
study of political representation. More specifically, it demonstrates the epistemological
limitations of treating representational inequalities as outcomes of societal power strug-
gles, and reveals the need for considering the ways in which political representation is
implied in broader sequences of social interaction that (re)create the meaning and charac-
ter of positions of privilege and disadvantage. Because of their public character, represen-
tations invariably engage themselves in broader sequences of social interaction1: they
invoke audiences and, in turn, elicit reactions from them. As a consequence, the ways in
which political representations depict the political world may promote change just as
much as they may reinforce prevailing power relations.
348
Politics 36(4)
Our approach to political representation as a dynamic process in which power is per-
formed and social positions of privilege and disadvantage are (re)constituted invites
scholars to consider the causal autonomy of structure and agency when studying political
representation. Because of its analytic dualism that considers the sequential impact of
agency and structure (Archer, 1995), this approach has the capacity to enhance our under-
standing of how and why particular intersections of power systems become salient and
generate inequalities. Closer attention to representation’s constitutive force may prove
particularly helpful to uncovering (changes in) discursive repertoires on inequality and
difference.
Our argument continues over three sections. First, we review the extant literature on
social group representation. Next, we offer a critical reading of intersectionality theory
and explain its ontology of power. Following that, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial