Call for proposals: “Applications of Intersectionality to Critical Social Issues”

“Applications of Intersectionality to Critical Social Issues”

Editors: Kim Case, Nicole Overstreet, Lisa Rosenthal

Download PDF file of this call for proposals here.

The Journal of Social Issues (JSI) and special issue editors seek proposals for a special issue on “Applications of Intersectionality to Critical Social Issues.” This collection will focus on intersectional theory as critical inquiry and critical praxis as outlined by Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge (2016). The contributing articles will apply intersectional theory to critical social issues, making complex connections to structural and institutional forces, the co-construction of various forms of oppression, lived experiences related to intersectional identities, social policies, and more.

Defining Intersectionality (from Case, 2017):

Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) argued that individuals occupy unique and specific social locations built upon a set of simultaneous and co-constructed identities (e.g., race, sexuality, nation, class, ability, and gender) that result in complex interactions in opposition to categorical generalizations. For example, limiting single-axis categorizations problematically treat race and gender as mutually exclusive, thereby erasing women of color. These additive and single-axis schemas reduce powerful structural forces to simplistic and inaccurate individual-level explanations for inequality. Collins’ (1990) matrix of domination offered a useful conceptual structure for unraveling situated social locations that include both disadvantaged and privileged identities.

Seeking Submissions:

Within this issue, the editors welcome a variety of interdisciplinary scholarly submissions and methodological approaches such as qualitative and quantitative studies, theoretical development pieces, etc. We invite empirical and conceptual pieces advancing understanding of intersectional theory and intersectional lived experiences, particularly with a focus on implications for and applications to social issues. We seek manuscripts that are rigorous and high quality while simultaneously presenting radical perspectives aiming to disrupt the status quo within our field and/or in society more broadly. This can include non-traditional methods such as counter- storytelling, personal narrative, community participatory action research, or case studies.

All articles are expected to integrate the revolutionary core of intersectionality and directly address applications to public policy, societal/institutional structures, and various social and cultural contexts (e.g., international contexts) within the implications section or throughout the article. We encourage diversity of study populations within articles as well as author/contributor diversity including socio-demographics, global location, career stage, and discipline.

We aim to include papers that address how intersectional theory offers applications to a range of critical social issues through many topics and lenses including but not limited to:

  • structural/systemic barriers and inequities;
  • making the invisible intersections visible;
  • activism and social movements;
  • privilege and ally behavior;
  • stereotypes and implicit bias;
  • subjugated knowledge;
  • centering the voices of the marginalized (e.g., counter storytelling);
  • challenging categorical understanding of identity;
  • social justice.

If you are interested in submitting a proposal, please note the following:

  • SUBMIT ABSTRACT– An abstract of 2 to 4 pages must be submitted to the editors by email by January 15, 2019. Abstracts/proposals should feature the working title of the proposed article, the author(s) responsible for it, together with the contact information of the author(s). Please describe what you intend to cover in your article so we can anticipate the contents and focus, as well as plan the special issue in terms of topics Issue editors and JSI editorial board will provide feedback on accepted abstracts to support development of       the manuscript.
  • The detailed abstracts should describe the theoretical underpinnings of the work, the methodological approach taken, and implications for social For empirical articles, the abstract should include descriptions of the sample, methods, and primary findings. For review articles, the abstract should include descriptions of the means by which the work reviewed was chosen (e.g., selective, supportive, exhaustive) and primary conclusions. Note that submissions must reflect on completed or nearly completed work. Proposals based on empirical research in progress (or based on future studies) would not be appropriate.
  • Send abstracts to all 3 special issue editors (please copy all of us): caseki[at]uhcl.edu; noverstreet[at]clarku.edu; lrosenthal[at]pace.edu
  • Manuscripts should be original works not previously
  • APA style- References, citations, and general style of abstracts should be prepared in accordance with the APA Publication Manual, 6th Cite in the text by author and date (Smith, 1983) and include an alphabetical list at the end. Number manuscript pages consecutively throughout the paper. Authors should also supply a shortened version of the title suitable for the running head, not exceeding 50 character spaces.
  • Although the timeline may change, we anticipate making selection decisions and sending abstract feedback within 2 months. Full-length manuscripts will be due on or after July 1, 2019. Manuscripts may be submitted early. Manuscripts submitted after this date may not be eligible for inclusion in the issue.

We do hope you will consider this invitation, and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely your special issue editor team,

Kim A. Case, Ph.D., University of Houston-Clear Lake

Nicole Overstreet, Ph.D. Clark University

Lisa Rosenthal, Ph.D. Pace University

My Teaching-Mentoring Journey: SPSSI Lessons in Supporting Social Justice

(this post is based on my 2017 Outstanding Teaching and Mentoring Award talk at the SPSSI Convention in Albuquerque, NM.)

When I joined SPSSI (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) in 1999, I honestly had no idea what a major life-changing action I had taken. The generous spirits of my senior mentors and peer mentors have made it easy to call SPSSI my home. I learned from this group of professionals to always invite people to the table, remember that there is enough room at the table, and ask “who is missing from the table and how do we get them here?” SPSSI also gave me permission to become the teacher-scholar working for social justice that I wanted to be. My SPSSI family taught me not to let anyone squash my social issues research passions. My first year in graduate school working on my Master’s thesis, my faculty chair told me that no one would be interested in research on white privilege, so I should not bother with that line of inquiry. In retrospect, if I had followed his advice, I would have 15 less publications, one less book, and one less Journal of Social Issues special issue on my CV (Case, 2012; Case, 2013). When I presented my study of white privilege awareness at SPSSI, I was met with encouraging words and support to keep pursuing this topic. Now, my main goal as a mentor focuses on my students’ passions for social justice and never discouraging them or deflating their enthusiasm.

As a first-generation college student unaware of the process, I almost did not get accepted to graduate school. From the beginning, I felt like an outsider and was even told directly by a male classmate that I was only accepted into my doctoral program because of affirmative action. SPSSI made it clear there is a space for me and my kind within psychology as a profession. SPSSI mentors taught me that our work is valid, recognized, and even important. This gave me permission to say, “Well, SPSSI supports science, so get outta my way!” I lean on my SPSSI crew for community and support to keep going when I ask the privileged to reflect on their actions and especially when bullies label me as difficult because I speak up for fairness, transparency, and justice.

In my teaching and mentoring, I try to channel what SPSSI has given me into supporting students on their own paths. In mentoring student activism, I worked with a transgender student to advocate for adding “gender identity” to our non-discrimination statement. Collaborating across structural hierarchy, we worked as equals on a team to create social change based on her passions (Case, Kanenberg, Erich, & Tittsworth, 2012). By bringing students into my own process of designing courses, assignments, syllabi, and the Applied Social Issues graduate concentration, I acknowledge and utilize the gifts students bring to teaching and learning (Case & Lewis, 2017; Case, Miller, & Jackson, 2012). My SPSSI idols taught me about feminist participatory action research, co-construction of knowledge, recognizing my privileged location, and centering the voices of the marginalized. Why not apply these tenants to what I call participatory action pedagogy? Our standard training often promotes teaching at students, but why not teach with students. To do this effectively, I had to admit to my students that I am still learning as an educator, rather than pretending that I know it all.

If we can begin to trust students and let go in the classroom, beautiful things will happen. By applying SPSSI research values to teaching, we benefit as faculty. Students bring their internal motivation for learning and the drive to serve future students to the drawing board for designing a new course, for example. When we co-designed the Psychology of Gender, Race, and Sexuality course, students benefited from learning about the pedagogical process, one-on-one mentoring from me, and networking with additional faculty to gather resources and relevant research. By allowing students space to create their own learning experiences, I gained skills for incorporating content, activities, and assignments that represented the students’ backgrounds and better served my own learning goals. Perhaps my greatest reward of all, three students that helped design the graduate concentration and two courses are now teaching their own courses in our undergraduate psychology program: Shaprie Jackson, Angela Miller, and Rachel Hensley. And let me be clear, they are impressive in the classroom!

A New Course: Intersectional Critical Liberation Psychology

Invited guest blog by Lisa Rosenthal, PhD; Psychology Department, Pace University

I have been slowly brainstorming about creating a new course in my area of expertise since I started teaching in graduate school. I’ve bounced around between several ideas of what it would focus on, but it has always had a clear social justice framing.

When I started my position at Pace University a few years ago, I learned that it was certainly possible to develop new undergraduate courses and felt encouraged to continue my brainstorming. I also learned about various types of courses Pace undergraduates need to take as part of core requirements and that my institution values faculty teaching, including learning communities.

A learning community at Pace involves two faculty members from different disciplines teaching the same set of students in a given semester about a particular theme or topic. This can be done either as a single integrated, team-taught course, or as two courses paired together. For the social justice-focused psychology course I was imagining, I thought a paired learning community could be perfect and pursued that option.

Many years after these ideas started brewing, I am excited that I am going to teach Intersectional Critical Liberation Psychology for the first time in Fall 2017. I will teach this course in a learning community paired with a section of Gender, Race, and Class (a Women’s and Gender Studies department course) taught by a wonderful colleague, Jason Whitesel, who is a sociologist by training. These courses paired together will hopefully provide a rich experience for students.

Why Intersectional Critical Liberation Psychology?

I believe many students want and need to learn about social justice frameworks for understanding the world. I think this has always been true, and increasingly so given the current political climate both within the U.S. and all around the globe. As an undergraduate psychology student, I learned about social justice frameworks in courses outside of but never within my own major, and I had to figure out on my own how those frameworks could be applied in psychology. I’ve always wanted to offer undergraduate students what I didn’t have.

Across my entire training and academic career, I have steadily increased my engagement with and use of intersectionality as a framework in my research and teaching, as well as in my broader understanding of the world. So I knew I wanted the course I developed to center intersectionality and how it is (and can be) applied within psychology.

I also knew I wanted to highlight traditions within psychology that have always been social justice-focused with roots outside of North America and Europe, which are very often omitted from standard undergraduate (as well as graduate) training in the field. This led me to incorporating critical psychology and liberation psychology into the framing of the course. The more I thought about it, the more I felt that intersectional, critical, and liberation perspectives were intricately linked and complemented each other in an ideal way for what I wanted to accomplish in this course. And, voila- Intersectional Critical Liberation Psychology it would be!

Developing the Course

After years of brainstorming, I had to put concrete ideas down on paper to propose the new course, which is always challenging! I worked on drafting a syllabus to propose, and found out in the middle of that process that my amazing friend and collaborator Nicole Overstreet was simultaneously developing an Intersectional Psychology graduate course (great minds think alike!?). Nicole shared her syllabus with me, and in particular her reading list helped me tremendously to finish up the draft of my syllabus.

I successfully proposed the course, and it was approved. But, I am still in the process of considering a range of options for how to teach it. I want to make sure students can understand the material and walk away with frameworks they know how to apply to the rest of their learning in psychology as well as other fields. I want student to learn things that they will apply to all realms of their lives and careers. Ultimately, I hope the course can help students to understand the world more clearly, find allies in social justice struggles, and engage in trying to make the world a better place.

I have been reading a lot to help me make various decisions about the course, including regarding readings, assignments, activities, etc. One of the first things I read was Kim Case’s book Intersectional Pedagogy: Complicating Social Justice and Identity (HUGE thank you to Kim and the other contributors for doing the work of putting this book together, it’s an incredibly helpful resource!!). I’ve also read Adrianne Aron and Shawn Corne’s edited compilation of translations of Ignacio Martín Baró’s work, Writings for a Liberation Psychology. I’m currently in the middle of Mary Watkins and Helene Shulman’s book Toward Psychologies of Liberation. And, next in the queue is Dennis Fox, Isaac Prilleltensky, and Stephanie Austin’s edited book Critical Psychology: An Introduction, Second Edition. I am thoroughly enjoying reading about all of these perspectives in psychology that I was not introduced to as a student!

I have a lot more work to do before I am ready to start teaching this course in Fall 2017. I am both nervous and excited to continue this journey, and I look forward to sharing updates about how it all goes!

Intersectionality Game- C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life

On Saturday, January 21st, millions of women around the world united to stand up for women and the causes they believe in, including (but not limited to) the end of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, and xenophobia, along with the protection of general human rights. The backlash against these marches was immediate. Several women and men turned to social media to argue that women in the United States and Canada were not unequal and needed to “quit blaming” others and “take responsibility” for their own successes and failures (see, for example, Brandi Atkinson’s meme “I am not a disgraced woman”). The sentiment was clear: if it’s not happening to me, it must not be happening.

But it is happening.

Gender inequalities happen every day, especially to women of color, women living in poverty, religious minorities, trans* individuals, lesbians, and women with disabilities. Intersectionality highlights the complexity of discrimination experienced by individuals with multiple oppressed identities. From an intersectionality perspective, it is not surprising that the anecdotes denying the existence of gender inequality focus primarily on the experiences of White, middle class, Christian, cisgender (non-trans individuals), able-bodied, heterosexual women.

As an instructor for more than 10 years, Kosha has witnessed similar dynamics occurring within her university classes. Students with multiple privileged identities often react to discussions of oppression with defensiveness and denial. In the face of this denial, students who have experienced oppression find themselves forced into a position to either fight back in anger or withdraw from the conversation all together. It is challenging to maintain a productive dialogue when the parties involved all start from different realities.

INTRODUCTION TO THE GAME OF LIFE

C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life is a simulation activity that is designed to give individuals an opportunity to experience aspects of privilege and oppression in a simulated context, so as to provide a common foundation to introduce discussions about inequality. The game, which is published in its entirety with the Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology, is facilitated via a Powerpoint Presentation. It is suitable for groups as small as 10 and as large as several hundred.

At the beginning of the game, players receive a character profile that describes the race/ethnicity, citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, and existing disabilities (or not) of a character, along with starting money and bonus credits (meant to represent socioeconomic status and social privilege, respectively). Using these existing resources, players navigate decisions about housing, education, social life, and occupational attainment to maximize their character’s wealth, well-being, and educational experiences.

Consistent with an intersectionality perspective, the factors that influence outcomes in the game are interactive, complex, and cumulative across the character’s life time. For example, early in the game, players use their starting resources to choose housing in different neighborhoods. The choice of neighborhood, along with the character’s social location, subsequently affects access to education and other resources. As the characters in the game face other academic, social, and legal situations, each character’s social identities serve to facilitate or constrain the choices and resources available to face those challenges.

Importantly, because our game focuses on several intersecting identities, it challenges people with differing social identities (privileged and oppressed) to reflect on the systems that maintain structural inequality. This in turn motivates discussion and self-reflection about one’s own privilege and oppression. Indeed, our research on the game, which is published with the journal Teaching of Psychology, finds that the game is associated with increased awareness about intersectionality, structural inequality, and privilege and oppression (Bramesfeld & Good, 2016). Anecdotally, the game has produced some of the best discussions about privilege and oppression that Kosha has ever experienced in a classroom context.

Certainly, a simulation game will not fix the numerous inequalities that exist within our society (nor is it designed to do so). However, before we can even begin to work together as a society to generate solutions to the very big problems that we face, people must be able to acknowledge that inequality is not a “one size fits all” issue. C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life is designed to provide an introduction to these realities.

Teaching Resources:

******************************************************

Blog Guest Author Bios:

Kosha Bramesfeld (kbramesfeld@gmail.com) has a PhD in Social Psychology from The Pennsylvania State University. She currently works as a Data Analyst for the Course Evaluations team at the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation (CTSI) at the University of Toronto. She has more than 10 years of experience teaching university courses in psychology and sociology within the US and Canada.

Arla Good recently received her PhD in Music Psychology from Ryerson University. Arla’s research focuses on the socio-cultural benefits of making music together. In particular, her work explores how singing in the classroom can be used as a strategy for promoting positive social relations within and across cultures.

Educators are People, Too: Reflecting on Social Location in the Classroom

How many of us think of our courses as intersectional? Yet, are we truly living up to the theory of intersectionality when it comes to pedagogical structure, design, implementation, and assessment? Are we honestly taking the time to consider how our very presence in the room might alter the environment?
Of course, making all of this a reality is not easy. Intersectional pedagogy requires continuous examination of instructor social location in terms of impact on learning, privilege, invisibility, bias, & assumptions. We must repeatedly ask:

  • What is invisible to me due to my privilege?
  • Who is missing?
  • How might I be performing my privilege in the classroom?
  • How might students respond to me based on me social identities and the interactions among those identities and power structures?
  • How is communication altered by my social location?
  • What needs to occur in the curriculum and in the classroom to account for my social location (if possible)?

circle privilegeI doubt anyone reading this wants to be Circle Teacher unaware of privilege, marginalizing students, maintaining invisibility of structures (literally a wall in this case) that result in disparities. We have to work at becoming aware of when the wall is cut to our form while others are scrambling to climb over or painfully squeeze through.

As an academic from a working-class background, I often struggle with the wall which is cut to the form of middle-class norms of communication, language, dress-code, and individualism. With a large percentage of my students being first-generation and/or working-class, this helps me understand many of their obstacles entering the academy and figuring out the landscape and where the landmines are located. Of course, being a woman at the front of the classroom also affects not only my approach, but how students view me and frame my presence.

At the same time, my whiteness, able-bodied status, and U.S. citizenship can often prevent me from recognizing the daily microaggressions that students of color, students with disabilities, or immigrant students face. My full mix of privileges and marginalized identities undoubtedly impact not only my pedagogical choices, but also how students experience me.

So what can educators do to at least attempt to correct for social location influence on teaching and learning? Some ideas:

  • Take the time to think about your own social location and intersections of identity;
  • Consider how your social location might affect your views of students and especially the areas where you might be less aware of their experiences;
  • Seek out and apply pedagogical resources that promote educator reflective practices;
  • For each course each semester, ask yourself how the assigned readings might represent your social location more than others. Adjust accordingly to bring in perspectives outside your own location;
  • Reflect on examples, videos, activities, assignments, etc. and what ways they can be adjusted to incorporate social locations beyond your own;
  • Speak openly with students directly about how instructor social location could impact how they interact with you, how you communicate with each other, and how awareness of these influences can help us overcome preconceived notions (in both directions); and
  • Expect to learn something new from students based on the rich knowledge they bring to class from their own social locations that can inform the community of learners more broadly.

And if that feels too overwhelming, as Doctor Who always advises, “hold on tight and pretend it’s a plan.”

Feminist Pedagogy is Bigger on the Inside: Intersectionality and Social Justice as Foundational

tardis-Portions of this blog borrowed from “Intersectional Pedagogy: Complicating Identity and Social Justice” (in print August 2016)

As a Doctor Who fan, I frequently integrate my academic thinking with Time Lord philosophy. One of the most famous lines from the show consistently follows when any new traveler enters the TARDIS, which is the doctor’s time and space travel machine disguised as a United Kingdom blue phone booth. Although the typical size of a phone booth on the outside, the TARDIS is “bigger on the inside” with a massive control room, expansive sections, a swimming pool, and much to explore.

When I think about feminist pedagogy, and many other forms of critical pedagogy (e.g., critical race, queer, liberatory), I view them much like Doctor Who’s TARDIS. Feminist pedagogy is simply bigger on the inside, with intersectionality and social justice as co-conspirators that we easily forget and neglect if we are not vigilant. As feminist scholars, we must challenge ourselves to theorize and practice intersectionality to achieve feminist pedagogy.

Perhaps we typically think about these three pedagogical philosophies of (feminist, intersectionality, social justice) as overlapping like a Venn diagram. However, perhaps the overlap is stronger than we imagine. Even more controversial, what if these three frameworks are all part of the same circle?

Without intersectional theory, which also includes a social justice focus, we simply are not fulfilling the promise of feminist pedagogy. In other words, intersectionality and social justice are basic requirements of feminist pedagogy. Therefore, it is time to put our energy into transforming feminist pedagogy with intersectional theory as foundationally present at all points and turns, rather than as an optional “add-on” package. Claiming feminist pedagogy without intersectionality and social justice also sends a clear values message to those at the margins.

Rather than trying to create a course from a feminist pedagogical standpoint and then fix the gaps with patches of “others” (which is an act of being “othered” for people with those add-on identities), now is the time to completely reframe what it means to claim feminist pedagogy. I realize some feminist teachers already do this, but psychology has a long way to go before we meet this goal. Our collective curriculum requires intersectionality from the ground up rather than trying to force it in after the fact. Make no mistake that I am advocating for a values shift… or at least a behavioral shift to reflect our stated values.

In an earlier blog post, I wrote about a student who raised an objection to the whiteness of the textbook. When she spoke up, she made salient the values statement we sent by choosing that text. By expressing her own marginalization due to the course readings, she made a distinct impression on me as an educator who feels professionally and ethically responsible for making sure students from a broad range of backgrounds feel represented in the course materials and get the message that their identities are worthy of academic study.

In other words, intersectional theory translated into pedagogical practice is my professional and ethical responsibility. If we deny intersectionality and social justice as part of our teaching, then we risk making a values statement that gender analysis is of value, but other types of analyses do not deserve our time. We must make the time or else cease claiming that intersectionality is valued and central to our work. What will you do in your next course to infuse intersectionality?
In my next post, I will explore instructor social identity and its impact on application of intersectional pedagogy in the classroom.

Trying is Not Enough: Toward Intersectional Feminist Pedagogy

-This blog is a portion of my talk at the 2016 Institute for Academic Feminist Psychologists in Pittsburgh, PA.
———————————————————————————————————
Reading through your Institute participant survey responses, I was inspired by your pedagogical values, learning goals, and visions for intersectionality and social justice.

  • “…awakening students’ feminist identities and activism”
  • “…techniques for integrating feminist activism”
  • “…how to weave a feminist lens and perspective more wholly into teaching practices”
  • “…discuss issues of sexual orientation or gender identity in breadth classes”
  • “…teaching psych of human sexuality from intersectional perspective”
  • “…effective ways to use privilege as academics to live out social justice values”
  • “…incorporating community into research through a feminist, social justice lens”
  • “…integrating feminist theory, critical race theory, and queer theory into psychology”
  • “…applying intersectional theory”

Of course, we are quite often trying our best to accomplish these goals in hostile climates on campus and beyond. Just to name a few:

  • lower student evaluations,
  • alum threats to pull funding,
  • colleagues and admin tell us to be quiet,
  • stud disrespect such as being called Miss/Mrs.,
  • challenge you as authority figure and qualified professional in class,
  • microaggressions from all sides,
  • backlash against higher education, anti-intellectualism, rage against critical thinking,
  • being labeled as radical, bitchy, having an agenda, rude, unfair, and difficult by students ( and women of color get this at higher rates)
  • guns in our classrooms and in our offices
  • two-worlds dilemma: often feeling we don’t fit in Psychology or Women’s Studies

With all of these negative climate issues presenting serious obstacles to our learning goals for students, how do we let our feminist flags fly?
In constructing this talk, I looked back at some older talks and previous writing. What I discovered is that I typically open with some pedagogical failure of my own. And if the use of the word “failure” seems too judgmental, feel free to think about this moment in my life as a pedagogical mishap, letdown, or disappointment (though I don’t believe those words as strong enough).
So why do I tend to repeat this pattern of putting my failures out there for public consumption? That seems like a fair question to ask. Perhaps I’m subconsciously issuing a warning that you should not listen to anything I have to say. And if you do, this approach allows me to relinquish all responsibility because you were thoroughly warned. On the other hand, my hope is that I tend to do this as an act that counters the overwhelming pressure in the academy to pretend we have it all figured out, were teaching experts from birth, and have nothing new to learn. I share these pedagogical displays of privilege because we must out ourselves as lifelong learners of the profession of teaching, which is unsuccessful at times, freely admit we do not have all the answers, & normalize that process of striving for better. So here goes for today:

Excerpt from my book Intersectional Pedagogy (2016):

“The first time I taught Psychology of Women as a graduate student, the textbook was extremely narrow in focus, lacking any hint of inclusion outside normative and privileged identities within the vastly diverse group called women. Due to this shortcoming, I created a supplemental packet with readings to address race, sexual diversity, poverty, and non-western women’s experiences. This “solution” felt like a legitimate approach at the time to correct for the main book’s reinforcement of defining women via only white, heterosexual middle-class perspectives. On the first day of class, a brave student raised her hand to point out that the textbook did not represent her as an African-American woman and seemed focused exclusively on White women. She was right. My co-instructor immediately defended the text saying “no one book can cover everything.” I then agreed with the student and pointed to the packet as one way to include diverse viewpoints and avoid the idea that all women are White, middle-class, heterosexual, U.S. citizens.

Almost 15 years later, I view our supplemental packet and our response to the student as an insufficient, dismissive, and insulting Band-Aid that essentially perpetuated the marginalization of women outside the mythical norm, as described by Audre Lorde (1984). Just as Lisa Bowleg (2008) critiqued her previous research as additive in nature and lacking intersectionality, my original approach to teaching gender from a multicultural perspective served as a lesson in what not to do. At the same time, adding the packet allowed us to pat ourselves on the back as two White women instructors who believed we were acting as exceptional anti-racist allies. Not only was the packet an add-on afterthought residing outside the centralized text (in other words: important and legitimate textbook), but it also treated various social identity categories and their associated structural oppressions as separate considerations.”

So why do I label this a pedagogical failure? First, it wasn’t enough. Despite my good feminist intentions, despite my attempt to diversify the readings; despite my anti-racist and anti-heterosexist efforts, it just was not enough to prevent marginalizing students of color, poor and working class students, students with disabilities, and I could go on and on.
Excerpt from Intersectional Pedagogies (2016):

“Jones and Wijeyesinghe (2011) encouraged consideration of how teaching might be altered when instructors infuse intersectional theory. Without intersectional theory applied in the feminist classroom, educational spaces serve to both perpetuate invisible privilege by focusing on personal oppression and construct only mythical norms as worthy of earning valuable real estate within course materials and broader curricular designs. Valid pedagogies must stop pretending, for example, that White women possess no race, Latino men are genderless, or Black and Asian women embody mutually exclusive gendered and racial social locations. Even though some privileged women in my gender courses insist race and sexuality are irrelevant to the study of women while men of color often resist the deconstruction of gender and gender identity in courses addressing race and racism, intersectional theory demands attention to the mutually constitutive nature of these interacting and intra-connected systems.”

Therefore, I argue that feminist pedagogy deserves a more complicated and challenging application than we tend to enact in psychology. My next blog will address how we can go about moving toward intersectional feminist psychology pedagogy.