INTERSECTIONALITY: Mapping the Movements of a Theory

Very few theories have generated the kind of interdisciplinary and global engagement that marks the intellectual history of intersectionality. Yet, there has been very little effort to reflect upon precisely how intersectionality has moved across time, disciplines, issues, and geographic and national boundaries. Our failure to attend to intersectionality’s movement has limited our ability to see the theory in places in which it is already doing work and to imagine other places to which the theory might be taken. Addressing these questions, this special issue reflects upon the genesis of intersectionality, engages some of the debates about its scope and theoretical capacity, marks some of its disciplinary and global travels, and explores the future trajectory of the theory. To do so, the volume includes academics from across the disciplines and from outside of the United States. Their respective contributions help us to understand how intersectionality has moved and to broaden our sense of where the theory might still go. Rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory, intersectionality is a method and a disposition, a heuristic and analytic tool. In the 1989 landmark essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced the term to address the marginalization of Black women within not only antidiscrimination law but also in feminist and antiracist theory and politics. Two years later, Crenshaw (1991) further elaborated the framework in “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” There, she employed intersectionality to highlight the ways in which social movement organization and advocacy around violence against women elided the vulnerabilities of women of color, particularly those from immigrant and socially disadvantaged communities

INTERSECTIONALITY: Mapping the Movements of a Theory

Very few theories have generated the kind of interdisciplinary and global engagement that marks the intellectual history of intersectionality. Yet, there has been very little effort to reflect upon precisely how intersectionality has moved across time, disciplines, issues, and geographic and national boundaries. Our failure to attend to intersectionality’s movement has limited our ability to see the theory in places in which it is already doing work and to imagine other places to which the theory might be taken. Addressing these questions, this special issue reflects upon the genesis of intersectionality, engages some of the debates about its scope and theoretical capacity, marks some of its disciplinary and global travels, and explores the future trajectory of the theory. To do so, the volume includes academics from across the disciplines and from outside of the United States. Their respective contributions help us to understand how intersectionality has moved and to broaden our sense of where the theory might still go. Rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory, intersectionality is a method and a disposition, a heuristic and analytic tool. In the 1989 landmark essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced the term to address the marginalization of Black women within not only antidiscrimination law but also in feminist and antiracist theory and politics. Two years later, Crenshaw (1991) further elaborated the framework in “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” There, she employed intersectionality to highlight the ways in which social movement organization and advocacy around violence against women elided the vulnerabilities of women of color, particularly those from immigrant and socially disadvantaged communities

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: we estimated the cost-effectiveness of a community falls prevention service compared with usual care from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective over the 12 month trial period. DESIGN: a cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial SETTING: community. Participants: people over 60 years of age living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. Interventions: referral to community fall prevention services or usual health and social care. MEASUREMENTS: incremental cost per fall prevented and incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) RESULTS: a total of 157 participants (82 interventions and 75 controls) were used to perform the economic evaluation. The mean difference in NHS and personal social service costs between the groups was £-1,551 per patient over 1 year (95% CI: £-5,932 to £2,829) comparing the intervention and control groups. The intervention patients experienced on average 5.34 fewer falls over 12 months (95% CI: -7.06 to -3.62). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.070 (95% CI: -0.010 to 0.150) in favour of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: the community falls prevention service was estimated to be cost-effective in this high-risk group. Current Controlled Trial