University Press of Kentucky, Summary In Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the Progressive Era, twelve scholars in separate essays examine the role of gender in Progressive era reform. More specifically, these scholars attempt to explain how gender was defined, used for reform efforts, and complicated and augmented by race and class during the Progressive era. In the view of the essays presented here, the key to gender during this period is the communities of women that organized around a particular set of issues to enact intentionally far-reaching reform.
Received Sep 21; Accepted Jan This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Intersectionality theory, a way of understanding social inequalities by race, gender, class, and sexuality that emphasizes their mutually constitutive natures, possesses potential to uncover and explicate previously unknown health inequalities.
In this paper, the intersectionality principles of "directionality," "simultaneity," "multiplicativity," and "multiple jeopardy" are applied to inequalities in self-rated health by race, gender, class, and sexual orientation in a Canadian sample.
The additive stage involved regressing self-rated health on race, gender, class, and sexual orientation singly and then as a set. The intersectional stage involved consideration of two-way and three-way interaction terms between the inequality variables added to the full additive model created in the previous stage.
Results From an additive perspective, poor self-rated health outcomes were reported by respondents claiming Aboriginal, Asian, or South Asian affiliations, lower class respondents, and bisexual respondents.
However, each axis of inequality interacted significantly with at least one other: I conclude that an intersectionality theory well suited for explicating health inequalities in Canada should be capable of accommodating axis intersections of multiple kinds and qualities.
Background Sizeable health inequalities by race [ 12 ], gender [ 34 ] and class [ 5 ] have been recorded in Canada. Consistent with traditional sociological understandings of social inequality, these axes of inequality have for the most part been considered individually, with researchers only considering potential interconnectedness when investigating whether class mediates associations between race and health or gender and health.
Whether class influences health differently for visible minority Canadians and White Canadians or race influences health differently for men and women, for example, has not yet been investigated. When statistical interactions such as these have received analytical attention - for example, whether class influences health differently for Canadian men and women [ 3 ] - they have not been adequately theorized.
Intersectionality theory, an influential theoretical tradition inspired by the feminist and antiracist traditions, demands that inequalities by race, gender, and class and sexuality as well be considered in tandem rather than distinctly.
This is because these fundamental axes of inequality in contemporary societies are considered to be intrinsically entwined; they mutually constitute and reinforce one another and as such cannot be disentangled from one another.
Intersectionality theory presents a new way of understanding social inequalities that possesses potential to uncover and explicate previously unknown health inequalities. The remainder of this background section describes some of the central principles of this theoretical tradition followed by a description of the analytical strategy used to apply these principles in an empirical investigation of inequalities in self-rated health in Canada.
Intersectionality theory In the forward to a recent book on new theories and methods for studying race, class, and gender, Lynn Weber [ 6 ] describes how American women of color in the s and early s, many from working class backgrounds, came to critique the patriarchy tradition within gender studies for privileging gender over race and class and subsequently critiqued the stratification tradition for privileging class over gender and race, etc.
They argued that these axes of inequality are in fact analytically inseparable, and that "the multidimensionality and interconnected nature of race, class, and gender hierarchies were especially visible to those who faced oppression along more than one dimension of inequality" [6: These scholars envisioned axes of inequality pertaining to gender, race, and class that intersect with one another, i.
Power relationships along the lines of gender, race, and class were thought to be mutually defining and mutually reinforcing rather than analytically distinct systems of oppression, together forming a "matrix of domination" [ 8 ].
By the mids, lesbians of color had bridged the gap between gay and lesbian studies and the growing body of race, gender, and class research that had to that point ignored heterosexism [ 6 ], and axes of inequality pertaining to national origin, citizenship status, religion, disability, and age also received some attention.
The contributions of these various scholars gave rise to what is now known as "intersectionality theory. Founded upon analyses of relations of power in general and inspired by theories of racism, patriarchy, classism, and heterosexism in particular, in American intersectionality discourse the disadvantaged groups along the inequality axes of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation are assumed to be visible minorities from various backgrounds especially African Americanswomen, members of the lower and working classes, and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.
These comprise implicit intersectionality assumptions of "directionality. The principle of "simultaneity" maintains that all of the axes and their corresponding identities should be incorporated into social analyses. This recognition that one category may have salience over another for a given time and place does not minimize the theoretical importance of assuming that race, class and gender as categories of analysis structure all relationships" [7: That is, while some axes and identities may be more pertinent to a specific social context or outcome than are others, simultaneity implies that a social researcher should never discard an axis of inequality before investigating its potential relevance for the problem at hand.
Intersections between axes are thought to create complex social locations that are more central to the nature of social experiences than are any of the axes of inequality considered singly.
For example, people of the same race will experience race differently depending upon their location in the class structure as working class, professional managerial class or unemployed; in the gender structure as female or male; and in structures of sexuality as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual" [ Thus "multiplicativity" should supplant additivity [ 10 ].
A lower-class Black lesbian is necessarily all of these things, and their mutual manifestation represents a unique state of being and a unique set of social experiences and structural constraints.
The matrix of domination seeks to account for the multiple ways that women experience themselves as gendered, raced, classed and sexualized" [ Experiences of gender are racialized, sexualized, and classed; experiences of class are gendered, racialized, and sexualized, etc. From the abovementioned principles of directionality, simultaneity, and multiplicativity arise new versions of double jeopardy and triple jeopardy, renamed "multiple jeopardy" by Deborah King [ 11 ], wherein disadvantaged identities experienced in tandem are seen to result in inordinate, i.
Thus complex social locations comprised of disadvantaged identities held in tandem are thought to lead to multiplicative disadvantage; that is, combinations of these identities are thought to have an aggravating rather than a simply cumulative or mitigating effect.
In addition, because of the relational nature of intersectional theories, some complex locations, such as the one inhabited by wealthy heterosexual White men, in turn experience multiplicative advantage.
Despite the immense popularity of intersectionality theory in humanities and social sciences circles and the large and growing body of intersectionality research that includes applications of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, very little quantitative research has explicitly applied intersectionality theory to health outcomes.By taking class, race, and gender into their accounts, both studies demonstrate that there is no particular “class” experience, or “race” experience, or “gender” experience, but rather a repertoire of class, race, and gender experiences that have emerged in the context of social groupings or various combinations of two or more of these inseparable .
From the mid-twentieth century to the present, there has been an increasing tendency among academic historians to focus their studies upon issues of race, class and gender.
Race, Sex & Class × Close Overlay A title history is the publication history of a journal and includes a listing of the family of related journals. The most common relationship is to a previous and/or continuing title, where a journal continues publishing with .
Race, class and gender interacted in 17th Century Virginia in several important ways which include the English changing the slave system that was not based on race into one that was, population of free blacks were also strictly controlled which resulted in their slave status as being inevitable and they created the perception that masculinity and femininity only existed among white men and women.
It allows race and gender discourse, but not class discourse. Needless to say, African Americans and women are divided by class. The objective of the “billionaire class” is to co-opt African Americans and women into the system so they are closer and more aligned to the dominant class.
Publication of the journal Race, Sex & Class (changed afterwards to Race, Gender & Class), in , signaled the convergence of those political and intellectual interests into a new social science perspective that soon acquired enormous visibility, as demonstrated by the proliferation of journal articles and books with race, gender and class in their titles.