Putting Race and Gender Together: A New Approach to Intersectionality

I. Solanke
{"title":"Putting Race and Gender Together: A New Approach to Intersectionality","authors":"I. Solanke","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00765.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"European anti-discrimination legislation explicitly calls for member states to consider a legal response to multiple discrimination, either additive (arising from many grounds) or intersectional (a result of an interaction of grounds). In traditional Anglo-American anti-discrimination frameworks the structure of separate statutes forces complainants to choose one ground or another. In Britain, cases such as Nwoke v Government Legal Service indicate a judicial willingness to recognise additive discrimination, while cases such as Bahl highlight the difficulties of dealing with intersectionality. This article suggests that to overcome current difficulties with intersectional discrimination, first the qualitative difference of intersectional claims must be clarified; secondly, the logic of immutability underlying grounds must be replaced by one which accommodates intersectionality; and thirdly, a method is required which enables courts systematically to incorporate social context into judicial decision-making. With these three changes, the qualitative difference of intersectionality can be both understood and activated in the courts.","PeriodicalId":103361,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics (Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00765.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

European anti-discrimination legislation explicitly calls for member states to consider a legal response to multiple discrimination, either additive (arising from many grounds) or intersectional (a result of an interaction of grounds). In traditional Anglo-American anti-discrimination frameworks the structure of separate statutes forces complainants to choose one ground or another. In Britain, cases such as Nwoke v Government Legal Service indicate a judicial willingness to recognise additive discrimination, while cases such as Bahl highlight the difficulties of dealing with intersectionality. This article suggests that to overcome current difficulties with intersectional discrimination, first the qualitative difference of intersectional claims must be clarified; secondly, the logic of immutability underlying grounds must be replaced by one which accommodates intersectionality; and thirdly, a method is required which enables courts systematically to incorporate social context into judicial decision-making. With these three changes, the qualitative difference of intersectionality can be both understood and activated in the courts.
把种族和性别放在一起:研究交叉性的新方法
欧洲反歧视立法明确要求成员国考虑对多重歧视的法律回应,要么是累加的(由多种理由引起的),要么是交叉的(多种理由相互作用的结果)。在传统的英美反歧视框架中,独立法规的结构迫使投诉人选择一个或另一个理由。在英国,“nwake诉政府法律服务”(nwake v Government Legal Service)等案件表明,司法部门愿意承认累加性歧视,而Bahl等案件则突显了处理交叉性的困难。本文认为,要克服当前交叉歧视的困难,首先必须厘清交叉索赔的性质差异;其次,基于不变性的逻辑必须被适应交叉性的逻辑所取代;第三,需要一种方法,使法院能够系统地将社会背景纳入司法决策。有了这三个变化,就可以在法院中理解和激活交叉性的质的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信