The intersectional turn in feminist theory: A response to Carbin and Edenheim (2013)

The authors of this response constitute a small, informal reading group of academics and doctoral students interested in engaging with intersectionality. Doctoral students were being urged to tackle intersectionality in their theoretical development, while academics recognised that their earlier feminist theoretical roots were rapidly becoming overwritten. A reading group met our need for sharing articles, ideas and critical analysis. After reading some 10 articles, our group faced an impasse. Those of us with a background in poststructuralist feminism became increasingly mystified about the ontological heart of intersectionality particularly in relation to conceptions of power and subjectivity. There appeared to be a lacuna in the discussion. What kind of subject did intersectionality assume, and how did this subject relate to power? Our group pondered the fact that much of intersectionality seemed to draw upon a structuralist approach to subjectivity as informed by various systems of oppression relating to race, class, gender and sexuality. However, the literature appeared to slip regularly between this structuralist approach to subjectivity and a more poststructuralist approach to subjectivity whereby the subject is an effect of discourse. The group became curious about this slippage, and returned to reading a number of poststructuralist feminist papers on power, subjectivity and sexual difference to refresh its knowledge base and query the supposed slippage.