crenshaw demarginalizing

7/28/2019 Crenshaw Demarginalizing

1/24

4Demarginalizing the Intersection of Raceand Sex: A Black Feminist Critique ofAntidiscrimination Doctrine, FeministTheory, and Antiracist Politics [1989]

Kimberle Crenshaw

One of the very few Black womens studies books is entitled All the WomenAre White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave. I have chosenthis title as a point of departure in my efforts to develop a Black feministcriticism because it sets forth a problematic consequence of the tendency totreat race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis. I want to examine how this tendency is perpetuated by a single-axisframework that is dominant in antidiscrimination law and that is also reflectedin feminist theory and antiracist politics.

I will center Black women in this analysis In order to contrast the multidimenslonality of Black womens experience with the single-axis analysis thatdistorts these experiences. No t only will this juxtaposition reveal how Blackwomen are theoretically erased, it will also illustrate how this framework importsits own theoretical limitations that undermine efforts to broaden feminist andantiracist analyses. With Black women as the starting point, it becomes moreapparent how dominant conceptions of discrimination condition us to thinkabout subordination as disadvantage occurring along a single categorical axis.I want to suggest further that this single-axis framework erases Black womenIn the conceptualization, identification and remediation of race and sex discrimination by limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privilegedmembers of the group. In otherwords, in race discrimination cases, discriminationtends to be viewed in terms of sex- or class-privileged Blacks, In sex discriminationcases, the focus is on race- and class-privileged women.This focus on the most privileged group members marginalizes those whoare muLtiply-burdened and obscures claims that cannot be understood as resultingfrom discrete sources of discrimination. I suggest further that this focus onotherwise-privileged group members creates a distorted analysis of racism andsexism because the operative conceptions of race and sex become grounded in

57


2/24

58 Kimberle Crenshawexpe riences that actually represent only a subset of a much more complexphenomenon .After exam ining the doctrinal mani festations of this single-axis framework,I will discuss how it contributes to the marginalization of Black women infem inist theory and in antiraci st politics. I argue that Black women are sometimesexcluded from feminist theory and antiracist policy discourse because both arepredicated on a dis cret e set of experiences tha t often does not accu rately reflectthe interaction of race and gender. These problems of exclusion canno t besolved simply by inc lud ing Black women within an already established analyticalstructure. Because the int ers ectional experience is greater than the sum ofracism and sexism, any analysis tha t does not take intersectionality in to accountcanno t sufficiently address the particular manner In which Black women aresubord ina ted. Thus, for feminist theory and antiracist policy discourse to embracethe experiences and concerns of Black women, the entire framework that hasbeen used as a basis for translatin g womens experience or the Blackexpe rience into concre te policy demands must be retho ugh t and recast.As examples of theoret ica l and political developments that miss the markwith respec t to Black women because of their failure to consider int ersectionality,I will briefly discuss the feminist critique of rape and separate sphere s ideology,and the public policy debates concerning female-headed households within theBlack community.

I. The Antidiscrimination FrameworkA. The Ex per ience of Intersectionalityand the Doctrinal Response

One way to approach the prob lem of intersect ion ality is to examine howcourts frame and interpret the stor ies of Black women plaintiffs. While I cannotclaim to know the circumstance s underlying the cases that I will discuss, Ineverthe less believe that the way courts interp ret claims made by Black womenis Itself pa rt of Black womens exper ience and, consequently, a curso ry reviewof cases involving Black female plaintiffs is qu ite reveal ing. To illustra te thedifficulties inhe ren t in judicial treatment of intersectionality, I wil l con siderth ree Title VU cases: DeGraffenreid v General Motors, Moore v HughesHelicoprers6 and Payne v TravenoiI. DeGraffenreid v General Motors

In DeGraffenreid, five Black women brough t suit aga ins t General Motors,alleging that the employers seniority system perpetuated the effects of pastdisc rimination against Black women. Evidence adduced at trial revealed thatGenera l Motors simply did not hire Black women prior to 1964 and that allof the Black women hired after 1970 lost their jobs in a senior ity-based layoffduring a subsequent recession. The dis tric t cou rt gran ted summary Judgmentfor the defendant, rejecting the plaintiffs attempt to br ing a suit no t on behalf


3/24


4/24


5/24


6/24


7/24


8/24


9/24


10/24


11/24


12/24


13/24


14/24


15/24


16/24


17/24


18/24


19/24


20/24


21/24


22/24


23/24


24/24

80 Kimberle Crenshawstop having babie s at the drop of a hat and they all learn middle-class morality. Th estudent cited the Moye rs repo rt as her source.

71. Although the nearly exclusive focus on the racist aspects of the program posesboth theoret ica l and political problems it was entirely unders tandable given the racialnature of the sub seq uen t comments tha t were sympathetic to the Moyers view. As istypi cal in discus sions involving race, the dialogue regarding the Moyers program coveredmore than just the Issue of Black families; some commenta to rs took the opportunity toindict not only the Black underclass, bu t the Black civil rights leadership, the war onpoverty, affirmative action and other race -based remedies. See, for example, Will, VotingRights Wont Fix It at A23 (cited in note 70).72. The ir difficulties can also be link ed to the prevalence of an economic sys temand family policy that trea t the nuclear family as the norm and other family units asaberrant and unworthy of societal accommodation.73. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantag ed at 96 (cited In note 69).74 . Id at 154 (sugges tions include macroeconomic policies which promote balancedeconomic growth, a nationally-o riented labor marke t strategy, a child suppo rt assurance

program, a child care strategy, and a family allowances program which would be bothmean s tested and race specific).75. Nor does Wilson include an analysis of the Impact of gender on changes infamily pat terns. Consequently, little atten tion is paid to the confl ict that may resul twhen gender-based expecta tion s are frus trated by economic and demographic factors .This focus on demographic and structural explanations rep resent an effort to regain thehigh ground from the Moyer s/M oynlhan appro ach which is more psycho-social. Perhapsbecause psycho-social explanation s have come dangerously close to vic tim-blaming, theirprevalence is thought to thre ate n efforts to win policy directives tha t might effectivelysddreas dete riorating condit ions with in the workin g class and poor Black communities.See Kirnberle Crensh sw, A Comment on Gender, Difference, and Victim Ideology in theStudy of the Black Family, in The Decline of Marr iage Among African Amen cans: Causes,

Consequences and Policy Implications (fo rthcoming 1989).76. For Ins tance, Wilson only mention s In passing the need for day care and jobtrain ing for single mothe rs. Wilson at 153 (cited in nOte 69). No mention at all is madeof other practices and policies that are racist and sexist, and that con tribute to the poorconditions under which nearly half of all Black women must live.77. Pauli Murray observes that the operation of sexism is at least the partial causeof social problems affecting Black women. See Murray, The Liberation of flack Women,in Jo Freeman, ed Women: A Feminist Perspective 35162 (Mayfield Publishing Co, 1975>.

crenshaw demarginalizing

Documents