Abstract
One of the central characteristics of the process of globalization is the increase of migration. The high quantity of transnational movements of people, however, does not lead to a ‘global village’; instead we witness changes in classification and demarcation processes within the reconfiguration and production of social positions and boundaries. This article claims that an intersectional perspective is an appropriate tool to investigate the complex and multiplied inequality patterns and the power structures within globalization. Intersectional approaches assume that social inequality is (re)produced through the constructions of difference, in which various socially relevant dimensions of inequality, such as ethnicity, race, gender, body, class, etc. interact. Thus to analyze inequalities in a globalizing world, this paper argues that one has to focus on the context specific intertwining of deviance constructions and difference markers that underlay inequalities (Sect. 2). This will be illustrated in a case study that displays the classification and categorization strategies of female migrants from different Latin American countries in Germany (Sect. 4). Although from a theoretical point of view there are no fixed hierarchical relations between the categories of difference, the empirical data show that there are specific patterns of intersection which are highly significant within the (experienced) constructions of difference: The interrelatedness of the categories of (1) gender and race/ethnicity and (2) class, ethnicity/race and nationality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Depending on the nationality, people move across national borders with significant restrictions.
- 2.
With this concept, Crenshaw answered black feminists’ criticism in the 1970s of white western middleclass feminism, which was ignoring different dimensions of inequality among women and thus separating gender from other dimensions of inequality (Christensen and Jensen 2012: 109f; Crenshaw 1991; Collins 1993).
- 3.
There have been several attempts to classify different intersectional approaches: Mc Call (2005) differentiates between (a) anti-categorical approaches referring to deconstructionist and post-structuralist theories, (b) intra-categorical approaches with the focus on differences within one category and (c) intercategorical approaches, in which the relations between categories are in the focus of the studies. Choo and Ferree (2010) distinguish between process-centered, system-centered and group-centered approaches.
- 4.
To grasp dimensions of inequality, various intersectional approaches work with categories (Lutz 2007: 223). Therefore it is important to emphasize that these categories have been developed as analytical tools to avoid reifications.
- 5.
West’s and Fenstermaker’s notion of “doing difference” – meaning the generation of inequalities through interaction – also emphasizes the interplay of interactions and structures. Structures are conceived as aggregated interactions. That is, the aggregated results of previous actions (West and Fenstermaker 2002).
- 6.
Due to the limited scope within this article the empirical references to structures and symbolic representations are held on a rather general level in the following interview study. Nevertheless, this article takes into account the interconnectedness of categories of inequality and constructions of differences across different levels as proposed by Degele and Winker (2011).
- 7.
Although these new forms of transnational embeddedness need to be taken into account to grasp the realities of migrants, it is at the same time important to emphasize the significance of the nation states, as does Anthias: “nation states are still the determinants of juridica, social and cultural citizenship and the ethno-national project remains central.” (Anthias 2012: 103)
- 8.
- 9.
From the 1990s, for instance in the European Union, ethnic and nationalist movements and populist parties, which are stirring up fear against the loss of privileges and identities within a globalizing world, have gained importance (Eriksen 2014: 158). The role of ethnicity in identity politics is emphasized in accordance with separatist claims or with demands for the acknowledgment of cultural differences and exclusive rights as well as to prevent minority groups from gaining access to national resources, therefore taking place within state policies as well as from below (Eriksen 2014). Ronald Niezen (2003) differentiates between Ethnonationalism with the claim for an autonomous state (as demanded by the ETA) and Indigenismo. With Indiginismo, Niezen (2003) describes an international movement seeking to protect the rights of indigenous peoples through the institutional acknowledgment of a special status. On an institutional level, the term indigenous and the acknowledgment of indigenous belongings go in line with a set of rights bestowed to indigenous peoples since the 169th International Labor Organization (ILO) convention in the 1990s.
- 10.
To understand the importance of symbolic representations for the study of inequality, the power-knowledge-relation has to be taken into consideration (Foucault 1979). Knowledge claims are closely related to power, especially the power to define. The production of hierarchies through knowledge constructions, respectively through the power dimension of these constructions, can well be illustrated for example by the phenomenon of racism (Räthzel 2008: 277). The construction of races and differences – on the basis of either cultural or biological criteria – are always linked to power interests and are manifest in societal structures. For instance, the colonial powers ‘created’ inferior people, which they had to civilize and educate (ebd. 2008: 277).
- 11.
The study was carried out in 2009–2010. I have conducted 13 qualitative interviews with a narrative biographical stimulus in Germany. This approach meets the requirements to analyze the realities of peoples’ life under the conditions and changes of globalization with an agent-centered perspective (Treibel 2008: 147; Schlehe 2007: 249). The sample comprised two contrasting cases: adult female migrants from Latin America in the first generation (a) with high education and (b) with low education. Data analysis was based on Mayring’s (2002b) content analysis (first step) and reconstructive empirical social research in order to inductively identify the difference categories and the intersections (step 2). For an overview on the empirical research methodology see Mayring 2002a, b; Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2010; Bohnsack 2008; Glaser and Strauss 1967.
- 12.
The term migrant refers to a highly heterogeneous group of people with different causes to migrate, different residence status and different rights, different educational background, etc. The perceived construction of otherness and alterity applies to a very heterogeneous group of people independent from their legal status, because it is usually based on their outward appearance.
- 13.
In the original study, the categories of difference appearing in the interviews (identity constructions on the micro level), were used as the point of reference for further analysis on the structural level and the level of symbolic representations (see Winker and Degele 2011). Within the scope of this article, the intersections of inequality-categories across those three different levels are considered in a more general way.
- 14.
As a relevant structural frame for understanding the individual experiences of the interviewees, one has to take into account that German policy has practically denied the reality of Germany being an immigration country until as late as in the 1990s (Bade 2001: 42). The ‘guestworkers’ who came as foreign laborforce through bi-national labor agreements were conceptualized as ‘guests’, not immigrants (Bade 2001). Even today, the policy towards migrants is far from adequately recognizing this reality (Pries 2013: 55ff.; Bade 1993: 398).
- 15.
In regard to the following empirical data: All quotations have been carefully translated into English and slightly modified in order to make them more comprehensible while retaining the original meaning.
- 16.
What was here ascribed to the interviewees turns out to be similar to globally circulating symbolic representations of Jezebel as a promiscuous woman. Jezebel and Mammy are two central images of women with dark skin since colonial times. Whereas Jezebel represents the promiscuous woman, Mammy refers to the loyal housemaid who cut all the connections to the black community. Schäfer-Wünsche and Schröder note: “Jezebel appears to be mainly the construction of a sexualized and sexualizing white male glance” (Schäfer-Wünsche and Schröder 2007: 117, translation CJ).
- 17.
Behind the folklorization and glorification of past-indigenous elements stands the notion to create through mestizaje a culturally homogenized national society (Deruyterre 1997: 46f.).
- 18.
The ethno-national construction of Germany, based on the idea of a community of blood, is for instance reflected in institutional laws as the ius sanguinis, i.e., the law governing the acquisition of citizenship. This institutional law has just recently, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, been supplemented by the ius soli – the territorial principle – but it has not been completely replaced (Oltmer 2007: 150f.).
- 19.
Already in the 1970s an ‘orientalization’ of female migrants was witnessed. The discussion about foreigners and migrants changed into discussions about Turks (Lutz and Huth-Hildebrandt 1998: 165). The tendency to report on people from Islamic countries and Muslims increased globally after the 11th of September. Additionally, in Germany there is a special situation, because of the history of guest workers that started in the 1960s. Due to the shortage of skilled workers in 1960s and the labor migration from Turkey one third of all migrants and people with migration background have Turkish ‘origins’ (Steinbach 2004: 107). People with Turkish migration background are perceived as the group with the highest cultural distance (ebd.). Central themes within the discourses are the propensity towards violence and the oppression of women (Treibel 2008: 162).
- 20.
“but here sometimes I think that for sure they have mistaken me with for a Turk or a Gypsie”; “often there are Turkish women, who resemble us in appearance” (Interview 13)
- 21.
Choosing certain symbolic characters and metaphors from the dominant discourse and re-signifying them entails to establish a counter-discourse. Baumann (1999: 298) here speaks about a demotic discourse (minority discourse). Based on Baumann’s distinction between the hegemonic dominant discourse and the counter demotic discourse, it is appropriate to rather talk about plural discursive competence within counter discourses than about dual discursive competence as Baumann does. The empirical data illustrate that there is not just one uniform counter discourse but a plurality of counter discourses.
References
Acker, Joan. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations. Gender & Society 20(4): 441–464.
Alonso, José Antonio. 2011. International migration and development: A review in light of the crisis. CDP Background paper series 11, December 2011. New York: UN Development Policy and Analysis Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. www.un.org/en/develpoment/desa/policy/cdp/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2011_11e.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014.
Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. 1991. Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Rev. and extended ed. London/New York: Verso.
Anthias, Floya. 2012. Transnational mobilities, migration research and intersectionality. Towards a translocational frame. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 2(2): 102–110.
Anthias, Floya, and Nira Yuval Davis. 1992. Racialised boundaries: Race, nation, gender, colour and class and the anti-racist struggle. London: Routledge.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bade, Klaus J. 1993. Paradoxon Bundesrepublik: Einwanderungssituation ohne Einwanderungsland. Einheimische Ausländer: Gastarbeiter’ – Dauergäste – Einwanderer. In Deutsche im Ausland – Fremde in Deutschland. Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Klaus J. Bade, 393–464. München: C.H. Beck.
Bade, Klaus. 2001. Immigration, naturalization, and ethno-national traditions in Germany: From the citizenship Law of 1913 to the Law of 1999. In Crossing boundaries. The exclusion and inclusion of minorities in Germany and the United States, ed. Larry Eugene Jones, 29–49. New York: Berghahn Books.
Barber, Benjamin R. 1995. Jihad vs McWorld. New York: Times Books.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Bergen: Univ Forl.
Baumann, Gerd. 1999. The multicultural riddle: Rethinking national, ethnic, and religious identities. New York: Routledge.
Bohnsack, Ralf. 2008. Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden. Opladen: Budrich.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London/New York: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bürkner, Hans-Joachim. 2012. Intersectionality: How gender studies might inspire the analysis of social inequality among migrants. Population, Space and Place 18(2): 181–195.
Choo, Hae Yeon, and Myra Marx Ferree. 2010. Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusion and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory 28(2): 129–149.
Christensen, Ann-Dorte, and Sune Qvotrup Jensen. 2012. Doing intersectional analysis: Methodological implications for qualitative research. Nordic Journal for Feminist and Gender Research 20(2): 109–129.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1993. Toward a new vision: Race, class and gender as categories of analysis and connection. Race, Sex & Class 1(1): 25–46.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.
Davis, Kathy. 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory 9(1): 67–85.
Degele, Nina. 2008. Gender/queer studies. Eine Einführung. Paderborn: Fink.
Denis, Ann. 2008. Intersectional analysis. A contribution of feminism to sociology. International Sociology 23(5): 677–694.
Deruyterre, Anne. 1997. Indigene Völker und nationale Entwicklung. In Indigene Völker in Lateinamerika. Konfliktfaktor oder Entwicklungspotential? ed. Utta von Gleich, 46–52. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 1992. Rassismus heute: Der Diskurs der Elite und seine Funktion für die Reproduktion des Rassismus. In Rassismus und Migration in Europa. Beiträge des Kongresses “Migration und Rassismus in Europa”, Hamburg, 26, eds. Annita Kalpaka, Nora Räthzel, 289–313. bis 30. September 1990. Hamburg: Argument.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 2005. Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2014. Globalization. The key concepts. London: Bloomsberry.
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison, 170–228. New York: Vintage Books.
Giddens, Anthony. 1985. The constitution of society. Outline of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine (Observations).
Glick-Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1995. From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly 68(1): 48–63.
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2003. Soziale Ungleichheit, Subjektivität und Arbeit – Zur Dreiecksbeziehung von Migration, Geschlecht und Gouvernementalität. In Migration, Biographie und Geschlechterverhältnisse, ed. Ursula Apitzsch and Mechtild M. Jansen, 81–94. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2008. Postkolonialismus: Subjektivität, Rassismus und Geschlecht. In Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. Theorie, Methoden, Empirie. 2., erw. und aktualisierte Aufl, ed. Aufl Ruth Becker and Becker-Kortendiek, 267–275. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Hall, Stuart. 1996. Who needs ‘identity’? In Questions of cultural identity, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul Du. Gay, 1–17. London: Sage.
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. When multiplications doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives in Politics 5(1): 63–79.
Harvey, David. 1989. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Kallenberg, Vera, Johanna M. Müller, and Jennifer Meyer. 2013. Introduction: Intersectionality as a critical perspective for the humanities. In Intersectionality und Kritik. Neue Perspektiven für alte Fragen, ed. Vera Kallenberg, Jennifer Meyer, and Johanna M. Müller. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Kaschuba, Wolfgang. 1995. Kulturalismus: Vom Verschwinden des Sozialen im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs. In Kulturen – Identitäten – Diskurse. Perspektiven europäischer Ethnologie, ed. Kaschuba Wolfgang, 11–30. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli. 2005. Race, class, gender: Reclaiming baggage in fast travelling theories. European Journal of Women’s Studies 12(3): 249–266.
Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli. 2008. “Intersectionality” – ein neues Paradigma in der Geschlechterforschung. In Was kommt nach der Genderforschung. Zur Zukunft der feministischen Theoriebildung, ed. Rita Casale and Barbara Rendtorff, 33–53. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Koopmans, Ruud, Paul Statham, Marco Giugni, and Florence Passy. 2005. Contested citizenship. Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Levitt, Peggy, and Ninna Nyberg-Sorensen. 2004. The transnational turn in migration studies. Global Migration Perspectives 6: 1–13.
Lutz, Helma. 2007. ‘Die 24-Stunden-Polin’. Eine intersektionelle Analyse transnationaler Dienstleistungen. In Achsen der Ungleichheit. Zum Verhältnis von Klasse, Geschlecht und Ethnizität, ed. Cornelia Klinger and Gudrun-Axeli Knapp, 210–234. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Lutz, Helma, and Christine Huth-Hildebrandt. 1998. Geschlecht im Migrationsdiskurs. Neue Gedanken über ein altes Thema. In Das Argument. Schwerpunktthema “Grenzen” Nr. 224, 40(2): 159–173.
Mayring, Philipp. 2002a. Qualitative content analysis – Research instrument or mode of interpretation? In The role of the researcher in qualitative psychology, ed. Mechthild Kiegelmann, 139–148. Tübingen: Ingeborg Huber.
Mayring, Philipp. 2002b. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. Beltz: Weinheim.
McCall, Leslie. 2001. Complex inequality: Gender, class and race in the new economy. New York: Routledge.
McCall, Leslie. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1802.
Mc Dowell, Linda. 2008. Thinking through work: Complex inequalities, constructions of difference and trans-national migrants. Progress in Human Geography 3(4): 491–507.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding media. The extensions of man. London: Routledge & Paul.
McLuhan, Marshal, and Bruce R. Powers. 1989. The global village. Transformations in world life and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Niezen, Ronald. 2003. The origins of indigenism. Human rights and the politics of identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oberndörfer, Dieter. 2000. Schlußwort: Zuwanderungsdebatte in Deutschland. In Migrationsreport 2000. Fakten – Analysen – Perspektiven, ed. Klaus J. Bade and Rainer Münz, 205–222. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Oltmer, Jochen. 2007. Staat, Nation und Migration. Zur politischen Konstruktion von Minderheiten in der deutschen Geschichte. In Ethnizität und Migration. Einführung in Wissenschaft und Arbeitsfelder, ed. Brigitta Schmidt-Lauber, 135–156. Berlin: Reimer.
Piper, Nicola. 1998. Racism, nationalism and citizenship. Ethnic minorities in Britain and Germany. Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate.
Pries, Ludger. 1999. Migration and transnational social spaces. Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate.
Pries, Ludger. 2001. New transnational social spaces: International migration and transnational companies in the early twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Pries, Ludger. 2013. Changing categories and the bumpy road to recognition in Germany. In Shifting boundaries of belonging and new migration dynamics in Europe and China, ed. Ludger Pries. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Przyborski, Aglaja, and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr. 2010. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch. 3., korrigierte Auflage. München: Oldenbourg.
Purkayastha, Bandana. 2010. Interrogating intersectionality: Contemporary globalisation and racialised gendering in the lives of highly educated south Asian Americans and their children. Journal of Intercultural Studies 31(1): 29–47.
Räthzel, Nora. 2008. Rassismustheorien: Geschlechterverhältnisse und Feminismus. In Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. Theorie, Methoden, Empirie, ed. Ruth Becker, Barbara Budrich, and Becker-Kortendiek, 276–284. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Ritzer, George. 1993. The McDonalization of society. An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Newbury Park: Pine Forge.
Sarrazin, Thilo. 2011. Deutschland schafft sich ab- Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. München: DVA.
Schäfer-Wünsche, Elisabeth, and Nicole Schröder. 2007. Gender – Race – Kultur in den U.S.A.: Grenzen und Verflechtungen. In Transkulturelle Genderforschung. Ein Studienbuch zum Verhältnis von Kultur und Geschlecht, ed. Michiko Mae and Britta Saal, 111–142.
Schlehe, Judith. 2007. Kultureller Austausch und Globalisierung. In Handbuch interkulturelle Kommunikation und Kompetenz. Grundbegriffe – Theorien – Anwendungsfelder; mit Tabellen, ed. Jürgen Straub, 453–462. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Shields, Stephanie. 2008. Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles 59(5–6): 301–311.
Singer, Mona. 1997. Fremd. Bestimmung. Zur kulturellen Verortung von Identität. Tübingen: Ed. diskord.
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Sökefeld, Martin. 2007. Problematische Begriffe: “Ethnizität”, “Rasse”, “Kultur”, “Minderheit”. In Ethnizität und Migration. Einführung in Wissenschaft und Arbeitsfelder, ed. Brigitta Schmidt-Lauber, 31–50. Berlin: Reimer.
Steinbach, Anja. 2004. Soziale Distanz. Ethnische Grenzziehung und die Eingliederung von Zuwanderern in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Telles, Edward, and Dénia Garcia. 2013. Mestizaje and public opinion in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 48(3): 130–152.
Tharsen, Laura. 2005. Ethnic nationalism in Germany. Philosophia Africana 8(2): 117–142.
Tibi, Bassam. 2001. Leitkultur als Wertekonsens – Bilanz einer missglückten deutschen Debatte. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte: Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament 1–2: 23–26.
Treibel, Annette. 2008. Von der exotischen Person zur gesellschaftlichen Normalität: Migrantinnen in der soziologischen Forschung und Lehre. In Migrations- und Integrationsforschung in der Diskussion. Biografie, Sprache und Bildung als zentrale Bezugspunkte, ed. Gudrun Hentges, Volker Hinnenkamp, and Almut Zwengel, 141–169. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). 2013. Trends in international migrant stock: The 2013 revision. http://esa.un.org/unmigration/wallchart2013.htm. Accessed 26 June 2014.
West, Candace, and Sarah Fenstermaker. 2002. Doing gender, doing difference. Social inequality, power and resistance. New York/London: Routledge.
Winker, Gabriele, and Nina Degele. 2011. Intersectionality as multi-level-analysis dealing with social inequality. European Journal of Womens’ Studies 18(1): 51–66.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(3): 193–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janz, C. (2015). Ongoing Demarcations: The Intersections of Inequalities in a Globalized World. In: Lenger, A., Schumacher, F. (eds) Understanding the Dynamics of Global Inequality. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44766-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44766-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44765-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44766-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)