Paper to be presented at the Ph.D.course: Intersectional analysis, Aalborg University, 18-21 jan. 2005 Stine Thidemann Faber, Ph.D.

(+45) 96358106 / stf@socsci.aau.dk

Towards an intersectional analysis of gender and class on the basis of Bourdieus sociology

Setting the scene The notion of intersectionality appears by now with increasing regularity within the academic discourse. But what is actually the novel aspect of the concept and why does it particularly gain ground exactly at this point in time? One of the explanations for the outgrowth and impact of the notion is reportedly that intersectional relations have grown in importance in contemporary societies. At least, that was one of the conclusions to be reached at the conference Intersectionality an useful concept within gender research? which arranged by the Swedish National Secretariat of Gender Research took place in Sweden last year; a point also emphasized by Johan Forns in an article presented in the special feature issue of Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift which the conference subsequent came to form the basis of (Forns 2005). Several tendencies do in fact support this line of thinking. In this paper I shall relate to what it implies when it time and again is claimed that e.g. gender and class reinforce, contrast and interact both with each other and with other kinds of categories that establish/produce inequality and disparity.

Focus in the paper will primarily be aimed at the intersections of gender and class. Above all, because these are the two kinds of social differentiations that Im mainly concerned with in my own research, but also because I believe that this very intersection paradoxically even in the research area of intersectionality tends to be neglected. The categories, which are usually discussed within the terminology of intersectionality, are at a minimum gender, class, race, ethnicity and sexuality. In the enumeration class enters as a matter of course; often mentioned sooner than late. Yet, class seems to continue to live in obscurity, which is why a reflection of a distant past comes to mind as the class category by various means has a history of marginalisation within the feminist agenda (Martinsson 2005). Even though, internationally, feminist research has begun to focus on the intersection between different categories that establish/produce inequality and disparity, it seems

-1-

that the attention directed towards class is still minimized: In the frequently incanted quartet of race, class, gender and sexual orientation, there is no doubt that class has been the least fashionable (Collini 1994, quoted in Millner 1999: 9). The same problematic nature also applies to the debate in Scandinavia. To the extent that the concept of intersectionality, whatsoever, has gained ground in Scandinavia, it has also, at this location, primarily been related to studies of gender and race/ethnicity (in Denmark see e.g. Stauns 2003 and Mrck 1998).

I find it questionable that the class perspective apparently continues to be marginalised. This, however, is not to say that we should return to pervious times where class tended to occupy a privileged position within sociology as a whole. Rather, my request is to try to contribute to the discussion surrounding how both gender and class in complicated ways come together and shape the lives of men and women. In addition the purpose of the paper is to discuss the notion of intersectionality on the basis of Bourdieus sociology. One of the points of criticism that has recently been advanced concerns the essentially atheoretical nature of the concept (Gimenez 2005). A substantial purpose of intersectionality research is to analyze and criticize existing systems of power and privilege. However, one of the characteristic concerning the concept of intersectionality is the fact that it actually does not offer any macro theoretical perspective in order to identify these underlying structures; the notion seems somehow to lack any apparent theoretical means of anchorage and this is why I find it interesting to relate the debate surrounding the concept of intersectionality to Bourdieu and vice versa.

Why intersectionality at this point in time? As time goes by, there seems to be an agreement in terms of research that major social transformations have occurred/are occurring. However, the scope of these transformations and how they are to be understood seems to be more ambiguous and contentious in reality how much have contemporary societies been transformed and in what direction? Can we speak of distinctly new tendencies or is it merely random noise in the development of history? (Ellingster 1995; Larsen, Lind & Mller 2000). Nonetheless, one thing is for certain; traditional paradigms and concepts within the sociological tradition have been challenged and an increasing theoretical pluralism applies to several areas. These developments also influence the theorizing of social differentiation and stratification, where the notion of class in particular has been much debated. Having formerly been one of the most central concepts within sociology, class today, is frequently perceived as a blurred, uncertain and old-fashioned category. Gender and ethnicity, on the contrary, are considered
-2-

to be two newer and more relevant dimensions of conflict. The deindustrialization has substantially reduced the above all embodied class, the industrial worker, and the position as the most oppressed group of people within the multi complex technology-, information- and service society seems, to a greater extent, to be assigned to i.a. low-paid women and group of immigrants (Elstad 1992). At least that was the conclusion for while. Just as the meaning of class has been and remains to be disputed within sociology, so has now the meaning of gender too:

The uncovering by feminists in the 1970s and 1980s of all sorts of inequalities between the sexes in modern society has rapidly been followed by proclamations that we now live in a post-feminist society, where gender inequality too is a thing of the past (Bradley 1996: 12). Whether one is of the opinion that gender still constitutes a significant category in establishing/producing inequality and disparity in contemporary society or not, other factors being equal, it is widely agreed that the many societal transformations during the last decade has been/are closely related to a number of positive changes in the relation between the sexes. Increased access to education, improvement in job opportunities (especially in the public labour market), enhancing public child caring, extending arrangements of childbirth and more flexible settlement of working hours are thus examples of some of the most important structural and institutional changes that have contributed to increased equality between women and men (Ellingster, Noack & Rnsen 1997). However, the need to enhance our understanding of the consequences of these major changes is requiring attention.

Increased equality new differences Taken at face value it might seem odd to make a problem of the increased equal rights in contemporary society. However, the explanation results from the fact that the major changes are having far-reaching implications not only for gender relations but for social relations in society as a whole, including class relations (Walby 1997; further see Bradley 1996, Coward 1999, McCall 2005). One of the questions becoming progressively more relevant is thus whether the greater gender equality additionally entails increased differentiation and increased inequality among women and among men. The desirability of the increased equality is not the question as such; rather the concern is about the price to be paid for this process and who have to pay: The price to be paid

-3-

for a minority of women to achieve equality with men could be greater inequalities for those at the bottom at the ladder (Bradley 1996: 210).

I Gender transformations Sylvia Walby (1997) describes the fundamental transformations between the sexes proceeding as follows:

The systems of gender relations is changing, from one which was based on women being largely confined to the domestic sphere, to one in which women are present in the public sphere, but still frequently segregated into unequal positions. () The patterns of inequality between women and men have changed as a result, but in complex ways, not simply for better or for worse (Walby 1997: 1). Walby thus accedes to the fact that the changes between the sexes to a considerable extent must be characterized as contrasting, complex and not least ambiguous rather that clearly defined. One the one hand an increasing amount of women become well educated and achieves good jobs. On the other hand we can see an increase in problems of poverty among many especially older women. At the same time also an increasing amount of men are also experiencing marginalisation partly because the worse conditions and rights, that are attached to womens work, intensify the pressure on mens work too.

The postindustrial labour market is often considered as a female labour market. At times it is thus claimed that the labour market for men is being feminized; that is to say that men are increasingly being ruled out of the fordistic life cycle and assigned working patterns tantamount to that of women. McDowell (1991) is one of those researchers who has discussed gender differences in the postindustrial society and phrased this under the expressive heading Life without Father and Ford. According to McDowell life without father and Ford signifies a new look upon capitalism - mens position within the labour market has changed; not least because the former male worker, the industrial worker, is no longer in demand in the same way. The break from the old industrial order of society leads to a greater complexity and variation among men; especially according to age and education. However, in any case the labour market is still characterized by horizontal and vertical sex segregation with women and the feminine placed at the bottom. One of Walbys essential points, as regards to this, is that, although more women enters the labour market and more women become educated, this doesnt mean neither that all women get equal status nor that the feminine become

-4-

valorised. On the contrary it seems to create greater differences among women at the same time as the feminine are still being subordinated now this merely have marginalizing consequences for some men too (Walby 1997). By way of example we can see that men doing womens work, e.g. male nurses, attract disbelief and opposition and that these men as a result continuously develop strategies in order to absorb/counteract the fact that on a societal level, doing womens work are equivalent to devaluation (Bloksgaard & Faber 2004). Expressed in a bourdieusian vocabulary these men seem to construct a distinctive masculinity due to the possibilities and constraints assigned by their position in the social space.

When gender and class intersect In Sacred Cows. Is Feminism Relevant to the New Millennium Rosalind Coward (1992) presents a number of arguments that in several ways consists with Walbys reasoning as described above. However, Coward moves the debate further along by directing an acute criticism against the womens and gender studies which, in her point of view, is inclined to think about gender relations as a straightforward and unambiguous relation of power where men by definition are given the strongest position. This, she not only finds problematic but also decidedly unproductive. Coward does concede that women up till today are still worse off than men in many areas, but at the same time she finds it important to note that the scenario is no longer clearly defined: The picture at the moment is much more muddled and uneven. Men are still often the beneficiaries of how gender works in this society, but now women sometimes are as well (Coward 1999: 212). According to Coward equality among the sexes in contemporary society are even extremely improved and a high degree of this improvement have extensively occurred at the expense of working-class men:

The combination of feminism and changes in the economy have shattered the easy way in which men could assume that their masculinity entitled them to a superior position () Now we have to acknowledge that gender is only one among many divisions in a truly uneven and heterogeneous society. () Working-class men especially are the scapegoats of a society no longer at ease with masculinity (Coward 1999: 211- 212). More recent the Danish professor and gender researcher Henning Bech (2005) has also raised the issue that Coward put forward. Bech, too, questions the very basic feministic assumption that men (still) have power over women. Like Coward, Bech finds it problematic that the classic-feministic basic attitude to such an extent still continues to set up the horizon determining which issues to

-5-

appear and to become recognized as problems and what counts as valid and interesting research results. Bech, too, states in that context that we have witnessed a far greater equalizing within the gender power relationship than reflected in todays womens and gender studies.

With reference to the issues attached to formations of gender and class in contemporary society, I find the notion of intersectionality quite expressive and useful. In any case, if we are to take the arguments, as presented above, seriously, it seems that there is a need to increase the knowledge about, how the latest 20-30 years of massive transformations have effected not only the gender relations but also the relations between different social groups. The image/scenario that emerges appears to be mixed: one the one hand, you see tendencies pointing towards disappearance, neutralization and destruction of old hierarchies and dichotomies. On the other hand, you can find tendencies indicating that new differences are about to be constituted and/or that old differences are being reconstituted and presuming new modes (Bech 2005). In many ways, I find, that the concept of intersectionality captures this complexity effectively and I thus join Lykke (2003), when she argues in favour of the notion this way:

The notion can become a tool well suited to understand the condition of the subject in a society that among other factors are characterized by changing gender relations, migration, globalization, new life styles, forms of life and married life, changing relations between children and adults, young and old together with new professions. The notion relates itself to a society in which discursive categories such as gender, ethnicity, age, sexual preferences, class, profession, nationality () interact with each other in novel and a more fluid and fluctuant way than earlier (Lykke 2003: 52; my translation) One of the upsides concerning the notion of intersectionality is, in my point of view, that among other things it can intensify our attention to the fact that the break/division in class experiences have increased from the past and up till today. Indeed, a fact that applies to both sexes. In one way the development points towards greater class differences among women. Some women get markedly different and approved conditions of life due to education, other women are put in an increasingly unfortunate position in other words new differences (including differences in power) occurs (e.g. among the well educated mothers with young children and the employees in day care institutions) and intersectionality emerges as an essential notion to capture this development.

-6-

Also regarding men, the transformations in society are having far-reaching implications. The notion of intersectionality with respect to this seems especially suitable as it exactly underpins our attention towards the important fact that asymmetries of power not only co-operate but at times also eliminate each other. While the classic feminism regards women as oppressed by men, today, you see different examples clearly indicating that the intersection of gender and class also discharge into the opposite. As Coward (cf. earlier) emphasized working class men especially risk being humiliated; in different ways this group today faces cultural dissociation on account of the changes in the occupational structure and due to women entering the labour market (also see Fowler 2003). An empirical example featuring this emerges in a Norwegian study revealing clear elements of a class effect among men in relation to processes of family production. The study thus concludes that the increasing autonomy of women seems to have contributed to a stronger fine adjustment in the process of creating a family; applying to young men with no or little education rather than to educated men. The development quite simply seems to indicate that in contemporary society fewer men become fathers due to a higher degree of social selection. Instead an increasing amount of second-hand men seem to be in re-circulation for want of attractive partners, heterosexual well educated women with high expectations towards equality concerning provision, division of work and shared obligations towards parenting rather turn towards the second-hand market than to the less attractive men; in this context less attractive meaning less educated men with traditional patterns of gender roles and decreased abilities to provide for the family (Skrede 2004).

Lets not forget class So far gender and class has mostly been analysed separately, among other things due to an old and well-known discussion within sociology a debate that not only emanated from an ideological but also a professional discussion concerning which one of the two concepts, class or gender, has the most relevance: While the class analysts (both Marxian and Weberian) as part of this debate pointed out that class was more important than gender, the feminists persistently claimed the opposite (Birkelund 2003). Today the discussion no longer concerns which of the categories take precedence over the other, but rather how gender and class in complicated ways come together and shape the lives of men and women.; hence the notion of intersectionality. Even so, the old contest surrounding class still seem to have an impact; in any case several feminists (e.g. see Acker 2003, Gimenez 2005, Knapp 2005 and McCall 2005) today argue that the questions of class, all things considered, still assume a marginalised and unexamined position within the womens and gender studies: Feminist scholars in the U.S. now agree that gender, race and class domination are intrinsically
-7-

linked, but the class that enters the linkage is usually unexamined (Acker 2003: 49). Thus, even in the debate surrounding the concept of intersectionality (a concept otherwise to win praise from having re-established the focus towards class) you see a mainstream trend towards forgetting the class category. Despite the fact that the notion of intersectionality cannot be mentioned, much less explained, without referring to questions of class, still only a minority in actual fact focus attention on this aspect: There is much less attention to class than to race in the new literature on intersectionality (McCall 2003: 21). Also Gimenez (2005) emphasizes this unfortunate trend in the article Theory or mantra? A critical investigation of the intersectionality perspective. She reports:

I welcomed the emergence of the intersectionality perspective. I thought, it would contribute to raise awareness about the reality and the importance of class and the extent to which neither racial nor gender oppression can be understood in isolation from the realities of class exploitation. My expectations, however, were misplaced: the location of class in the race/gender/class-triology, at the end, replicates its relative significance within this approach; class is the weak link in the chain (Gimenez 2005: 59; my translation). I the following part of the paper, I shall briefly proceed with the old contest among the class analysists and the feminists in order to seek an explanations on this retreat from class. In this context I, however, want to stress that this is not the main purpose of the paper if I were to review all the meanings of the concept, it would require yet another paper; this summary therefore is far from comprehensive.

The problematic history of the class concept At the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, feminists argued that class theory either ignored women altogether or assumed that womens class positions are determined by those of the men to whom they are attached, thus ignoring womens own paid work as determinants of their class locations. Moreover, although class theories claimed to encompass major societal structures of inequality and exploitation, they failed to allow for the relative greater subordination and exploitation experienced by women as compared with men who share their own class location. Feminists thus persistently claimed that an understanding of class originally devised for a study of male patterns of social mobility and operationalized through occupational classifications, which cannot completely capture the gendered aspects of occupations and of the occupational structure, did not apply equally well to

-8-

women (Acker 2003, Birkelund 2002). I shall not be preoccupied with all the elements of the discussion from back then (to get a more detailed description of the debate see Crompton 1998); merely underline that the question of how to combine a class and gender perspective is known to have caused challenging debates within international womens and gender studies. To a great extent the discussion has revolved around whether to reach an encompassing theory in order to study gender and class simultaneous or whether to explore patriarchy and capitalism as two separate systems (Skillbrei 2003). The discussion was never quite unanimously brought to an end, and in reality the class analysis subsequently remained gender blind and the feminist studies partly class blind.

In the article The Continuing Necessity of Class in Feminist Thinking Acker (2005) notes that many feminist scholars in the late 1990s and up till today - continue to describe, discuss and refer to questions of class but without much attention to the genealogy of the term and without relating to earlier debates. Acker finds this questionable and argues that one of the reasons that the intersectional perspective apparently have problems dealing with the concept of class is, exactly, that the old discussion has remained unresolved, maybe even unremembered:

Attempts to re-conceptualise class to include women more adequately were not completely successful and interest in class theory among feminist declined. When scholars in the U.S. began to call for an understanding of the intersections between class, gender and race/ethnicity, only the reformulated idea of class were available (Acker 2003: 49)

Even though feminist theory by means of time hasnt completely forgotten class, only few have shown an interest towards re-thinking the concept and once again discuss how to analyze and conceptualize class within feminist theory and gender research. According to Acker the discussion surrounding intersectionality obviously need to rein in this complex of problems. At this item, she is joined by Knapp (2005), who under the leading Race, Class, Gender Reclaiming Baggage in Fast Travelling Theories likewise argues that feminist scholars before uncritically adapting the concept of intersectionality must look upon and relate to the baggage following the concept: More specifically reclaiming baggage would translate into: Lets work through the critical theoretical traditions again, but starting from present-day problematic and on the basis of insights gained from former controversies (Knapp 2005: 261). Knapp thus, like Acker, emphasizes the
-9-

need to develop new feminist ways of thinking and writing about class; in this process the intersectional research agenda face a challenge; not least in respect to re-articulate and integrate the concept of class.

The symbolic and the material Within most approaches to the study of social differentiation and stratification, gender and ethnicity are categories mostly seen to pertain to the symbolic or cultural sphere, while class are most often demarcated to more or less exclusively being about material inequality. Yet, both material and symbolic elements are to be found across all the social categories, Anthias (1991) argues. Thus, her main argument is that concrete effects of inequality are produced through a dynamic interplay between different social structures, which is also why questions surrounding social differentiation and stratification must be studied on the basis of the assumption of complex multiple causal relation; this is not to say, however, that these mechanisms, which establish/produce inequality and disparity, are impossible to separate on an abstract level. Anthias concedes that gender and class can indeed be broken up:

A significant difference between class and other categories, is that in the case of class, there is no natural reproduction posited, although individuals may be seen to inherit characteristics from their parents, which means that they may be regarded as fated to be members of a particular class. But movement is or out is seen as a product of individual capacities. In the case of race/ethnicity and gender, there can be no movement in and out in terms of capacity (Anthias 2001: 278). Yet, she believes that it is necessary to rethink a theory of differentiation away from the distinction between class as a material form of stratification and gender and ethnicity as symbolic forms of constructs. An intersectional approach can contribute to coping with the dualism between the symbolic and material and the spilling over of one onto the other without giving primacy to one over the other. Even though Anthias seems to be in favour of an intersectional way of thinking, she notes, however, the need to advance the concept with a certain precaution. Thus, lately she has recommended that the discussion about the applicability of the concept are resumed: It is useful to pause and ask the extent to which the matrix of gender, race and class continues to be useful and the extent to which the idea of intersectionality can yield the types of analysis, which can cover new forms of inequality in the global world (Anthias 2004: 33). If the concept of intersectionality is to be used as a fruitful analytical perspective, it is important, she claims, that the concept isnt used in
- 10 -

a mechanic and static way. In order to avoid this, Anthias recommends, that some caution is needed when intersectionality is discussed and further that there is a need to disentangle the notions of social position (that is the concrete position the individual is given by virtue of social resources; economic as well as cultural) and social positioning (that is the way the individual articulate, understand and interact with these positions, e.g. contesting, challenging, defining) (Anthias 2004). I support Anthias view at this. Within the intersectional approach, as it has recently been discussed, there is a mainstream trend towards conflating objective location in the intersection of structures of inequality and oppression with identities; i.e. individuals subjective understanding of who they really are (Gimenez 2005: 62; my translation).

One of the problems relating to the way in which intersectional researchers view gender, race/ethnicity and class as mutually reinforcing processes is the fact that the conceptualization of these categories has its roots in different levels of abstraction, or at different levels of social structure. This being said, we return to the issue, that I touched against in the preceding section, questioning the fact that the intersectionality perspective either completely ignores class or treats it as a neutral concept. There is no doubt that the conceptualization of gender, race/ethnicity and class on the same process and level of analysis simplicities the development of an integrated approach. However, the challenge being assigned to intersectional studies must be partly to resume the discussion of the ontological status of the categories, partly to develop an analytical frame that can capture the close relation between the material and the symbolic thereby enabling us to understand the intersections in peoples lives between gender and class in a much more nuanced way.

Rethinking class Internationally, several prominent feminist scholars have on repeated occasions tried to sharpen the attention to the blind spots of the womens and gender studies. In the article Rewriting Class, Race and Gender Acker (1999) thus agitates for a more complex and dynamic understanding of class, ethnicity and gender as social principles of inequality and subordination. According to Acker there is a danger of race, class and gender becoming taken for granted categories for social analysis. Further, she maintains that feminist research needs to recognize that class is shaped in and through the very processes that also creates and re-creates formations of gender and race/ethnicity. Acker thus calls for an understanding of class not only as an abstract structure in which people are

- 11 -

placed but also as a category that it is put into reality by means of active practices, that is through interaction during which social power relations and structures are constituted. She writes:

Feminist scholars recognized at least 30 years ago that to understand gender it was necessary to study the concrete activities of women and men, activities through which differences were created and inequalities maintained. Taking a similar view of class relations is strikingly dissimilar from the view that begins with an abstract, theoretical construction of class, assigns groups and individuals to positions within the construction and the hypothesizes correlations between class positions and e.g. political attitudes. If we see class as an ongoing and frequently changing outcome of concrete practices, we focus much more on the process than on the correlates of class (Acker 2003: 58). However, in order to make the concept of class suitable to feminist purposes, it must be broadened and embedded through a wider understanding of the economic than the one used mostly up till now (Acker 1999). A theoretical discussion surrounding an expanded class concept ought to set the foundation for improved studies of men and womens possibilities and constraints in contemporary society.

The lack of an apparent theoretical anchoring According to Mohanty (1991) one of the problems with a major part of feminist research has to do with the fact that it, during time, has considered women as an already constituted, coherent group with identical interest and desires regardless of class, ethnic or racial location or contradictions (Mohanty 1991: 55). A shared femininity involves a privileged position by which women can speak on behalf of all women. Initially, this understanding was used in order to recover the strategies of power hidden within the established and primarily male centred research. I next turn, however, the insight provided the setting for criticising the womens studies too. Black women, lesbian women, working class women and others couldnt recognize themselves in the pictures of reality drawn by the womens studies. Also this type of research clearly suffered from universalism. Thus, the shared femininity, that these studies reflected, was accused of exclusively reporting the stories of privileged white, western, middle-class, heterosexual women. In other words, the problem facing feminist research at that time was the claim it raised on behalf of the woman, and, at the same time excluding a number of ways of being a woman (Annfelt 2000, Weedon 1999). Today, no

- 12 -

feminist scholars would resist the necessity of considering differences not only between the sexes but also among men and among women. McCall (2005) summarises:

Since the earliest critiques of feminism for claiming to speak universally for all women, feminist researchers have been acutely aware of the limitations of gender as a single analytical category. In fact, feminists are perhaps alone in the academy in the extent to which they have embraced intersectionality (the relationship between multiple dimensions of social relations and social identities) as itself a central category of analysis. One could even say that intersectionality is the most important theoretical contribution of womens studies along with racial and ethnic studies so far (McCall 2005: 3)

However, even though feminist theory, so to speak, of its own accord instituted the intersectionality perspective due to an internal criticism and self-examination, it hasnt really to the full been able to develop a more encompassing theoretical framework. In any case, that is one of the point of criticism that has been taken up recently in relation to the concept (e.g. Gimenez 2005 and Knapp 2005). According to Gimenez (2005) the very explanation to the dark existence of the class category is to be found in the essentially atheoretical nature of the concept. Knapp (2005), too, finds it questionable that the concept of intersectionality lacks a clear theoretical anchoring:

The question that emerges is, whether feminist theory is really equipped to take up the debate on race/ethnicity, class, gender/sexuality and intersectionality? () If feminist theory does not supply all of the tools needed for moving within this complexity, one has to look for offers from other experts (Knapp 2005: 260) In the following part of the paper I shall briefly introduce the sociology of Bourdieu, given that I find his perspectives interesting with reference to an intersectional analysis of gender, culture and class. The idea that Bourdieu have the ability to contribute to an understanding of this intersection has also previously been stressed by e.g. Skeggs (1997) who, in her frequently quoted book Formations of Class and Gender. Becoming Respectable, speaks approvingly of his sociology, stating that Bourdieu provides the greatest explanatory power to understand the intersections of class and gender in subjective production (Skeggs 1997: 7).

- 13 -

Bourdieu about gender, culture and class towards a theoretical frame of reference Within recently a group of feminist scholars have begun exploring themes and issues within feminism on which Bourdieus theory of action advantageously claims to be applicable (e.g. see Moi 1994, McCall 1992, McNay 1999 & 2004, Skeggs 1997 & 2004, Fowler 1997 & 2003, McLeod 2005). From different quarters, critical investigations of his sociology has emerged, all trying to adapt his perspectives and use it for feminists purposes. In the following I, too, start from Bourdieus sociology in order to present a rough sketch of a theoretical framework as regards the relationship between gender and class. Even though not only class but also gender in parts has been recurring themes in Bourdieus writing, strictly speaking he hasnt at any time subjected the relationship between the two to any coherent discussion; with the possible exception of an article written in French in 1990 and later rewritten and extended to the book Masculine domination. This, however, mainly focus on the relation between the sexes and less so on how the gender hierarchy is related to the social hierarchy (Fowler 2003). Thus, when I, in what follows, pounce on illuminating how he considers the relationship between these two principles of inequality and difference, this is not an easy task, as he himself - during his comprehensive writing and further scattered across a number of works - has solely presented the contours of how a concurrent analysis of gender and class ought to take shape according to him. The introduction to Bourdieus sociology must for reasons of space remain limited. My presentation is thus marked by a fierce simplification; the intension is rather to point at his theoretical framework, as I believe this can be helpful in analysing intersectionality and understanding the mechanism that makes gender and class into leading principles of superiority and subordination.

The work of Bourdieu offers a way to understand class relations not limited solely to economic conditions. One of Bourdieus main purpose in Distinction (1979) is to show that social differentiation not only is about economy, but also about the distribution of other kind of capitals. The analytical perspective is also based upon dispositions and practice; that is to say the way in which the individual performs class (and gender) and the same time is classified (and gendered) also including the way in which relations get created. Thus, a central theme within Bourdieus writing is the question of how social power relations are constituted and reproduced along the way; i.e. how the dominant groups carry on their dominance above the less-powered group of people in society.

- 14 -

The concept of capital is central, if not most central, to Bourdieus constructions of the social space. According to Bourdieu the different kinds of capital marks out different dimensions in the socioeconomic field, within which dissimilarities regarding standard of living, life style, consumption, preferences and attitudes is created and maintained. Albeit conceptualising social differentiation and affiliation in terms of taste and lifestyle rather that production, Bourdieu does not displace class as a concept. In stead he shifts it from the arena of production to that of consumption on the grounds that class relations are increasingly constructed through patterns of consumption and their associated technologies of desire (Bourdieu 1979). Bourdieu operates with three forms of capitals (economic, cultural and social. The economic capital is about material conditions; wealth, income, financial inheritances and monetary assets. The other two forms of capital which can also be summarised as symbolic capital contain cultural information based resources that i.a. can be measured by educational certifications and social relations such as advantageous connections and a wellfunctioning network (Bourdieu 1979, Skeggs 1997). All capitals are connected specific. Thus people are distributed in the overall social space according to: the global volume of capital they possess; the composition of their capital, the relative weight in their overall capital of the various forms of capital and evolution of the volume and composition according to their trajectory in social space (Skeggs, 1997).

In his theory of social practice Bourdieu is especially engaged in the bodily manner of the capital (habitus), which is primarily constituted in the home and thus can be explained as a kind of reflected history. Habitus is a system of durable, transposable dispositions that mediates the individuals actions and the external conditions of production (McNay 1999: 99) and thus refers to embodied rituals of everydayness by which a given culture produces its own obviousness. Habitus reflects a more or less pre-reflexive practice and attitude preparedness, through which people react, think and are guided by within the social world. However, it is to be specified that it is not about a uniform and fixed way of being; rather a generative structure that is created in a dynamic relation to specific social fields (McLeod 2005). In a Bourdieusian approach to intersectionality, the concept of habitus is exclusively important. However, a question from feminist scholars relating to this is whether habitus can simply be transposed from one conceptual lexicon to another. Is habitus appropriate as a method to examine the practices of gender identity or other dimensions of identity such as sexuality, race/ethnicity, etc., too? Or to put it in other words: Is a method of analysis that was originally developed to account for forms of capital, patterns of class differentiation and hierarchies suitable for the task of theorizing other social relations and
- 15 -

patterns/intersections as well? (McLeod 2005). I should think so. In his earlier works, it is correct to say that Bourdieu mainly directed his attention towards class. However, at no point did he hide the fact that other kinds of social differentiations, e.g. gender and race/ethnicity, necessarily must be included in the assessment (Bourdieu 1979). Trying to prove this point Bourdieu, on a later date, began to focus more explicitly i.a. on gender questions. In principle this ought not to surprise us, Moi claims (1994), as Bourdieus concept of class is so indefinite that is can be applied to any social group in which the members share a certain amount of material and social conditions and as a consequence develop a shared habitus.

In relation to the debate about intersectionality, I find Bourdieu interesting of several reasons: First, social fields are seen to be differentiated on behalf of class as well as gender (and race/ethnicity) and habitus is shaped in the middle of this and is thus structured by these different power relations and identity positions and by unequal distribution of capital be that economic, cultural, social or symbolic. Secondly, subjective dispositions can be classed as well as gendered (and racialised). Thus, both class and gender (and race/ethnicity) is characterized as a kind of inherited and embodied way of being, which are created in interaction with social fields and thus constituting a range of orientations and dispositions. The advantage of Bourdieus notion of habitus in relation to intersectionality is that, habitus enables an analysis of social class as complex sociological and psychological processes that encompass far more than materiality and social location (Reay 1997: 227). Thus, the notion of habitus can be used in order to explore the dynamic relation between objective constraints and subjective forms of awareness with the aim of understanding how class is lived, performed and experienced by men and women on a daily basis.

Closing comments In this paper I have limited my discussion of intersectionality to encompass three angles: First, I have discussed some intersectional relations as they illustrated by the intersections of gender and class appear today. Then I have questioned, that even within the intersectional research agenda, class tends to posit a marginalized position and thus remains unexamined. Finally, I have touched upon the fact that the intersectionality perspective seems to lack an apparent theoretical anchoring which is why I introduced Bourdieu, as I find his sociology useful. As a closing comment, I would like to say, that I dont think one should underestimate the scope for application, which the notion of intersectionality potentially contains. However, as I find the notion useful, not least because it sharpens the attention towards the changing formations of gender and class in contemporary
- 16 -

society, I join the ones claiming that the concept needs to be further developed. The concept is not to become just another buzz-word, a mantra to be rattled off in any context. If the concept of intersectionality indeed gain ground merely as an all-embracing notion to signal an interest in more that just gender (Carbin and Thornhill 2004), it makes no difference. In relation to this the debate around intersectionality face a challenge; there is a danger of race, class and gender becoming taken for granted categories for social analysis, and the concept of class, especially, needs to be discussed further within feminist theory. Concerning this, Acker (2003), Gimenez (2005) and Knapp (2005) all emphasise the need to return to earlier discussions within this field in other words reclaim the baggage companying the concept. Knapp (2005) further states that the concept of intersectionality potentially risks hiding a business as usual-attitude. Deploying the concept seems to have several benefits; it is easy, almost non-binding, to favour the concept - mention difference and continue doing what youve always done! Much of the speeding up of race-class-gender-etc. has to do with its circulation as shorthand for the latest news in feminist theory, Knapp comments and proceeds:

Its reification into a formula merely to be mentioned, being largely stripped of the baggage of concretion, of context and history, has been a condition of possibility of its acceleration. (). The dual message it signals is: Im well informed and Im politically correct. By just mentioning other differences besides gender, the work to be done continues to be delegated to the respective others (Knapp 2005: 255).

Referencer Acker, Joan (1990): Rewriting class, race and gender. Problems in feminist thinking. I Feree, Myra Max et al. (red.): Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oakkes, California: Sage Publications. Acker, Joan (2003): The Continuing Necessity of Class in Feminist Thinking. I Gesellschaftstheorie und feministische kritik: Achsen der Differenz. Mnster: Westflischen Dampfboot. Annfelt, Trine (2002): Poststrukturalisme og forskning om kjnn noen perspektiver og problemer. I Sociologisk Tidsskrift, no. 1, 2000, 23-38 Anthias, Floya (2001): The material and the symbolic in theorizing social stratification: issues of gender, etnicity and class. I The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 52, no. 3, 2001. Anthias, Floya (2004): Social stratification and social inequality: Models of intersectionality and identity. I Devine, Fiona et al (2004): Rethinking Class. Culture, Identities & Lifestyle. Hampshire: Palcrave Macmillan.

- 17 -

Bech, Henning (2005):Kvinder og mnd. Kbenhavn: hans Reitzels Forlag Bloksgaard, Lotte & Stine Brock Faber (2004): Kn p arbejde en kvalitativ undersgelse af mandlige sygeplejerskers og kvindelige politibetjentes arbejdsliv. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Bradley, Harriet (1996): Gender: Rethinking patriarchy. In Fractured identities: changing patterns of inequality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1979): Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge. Carbin Maria & Sofie Tornhill (2004): Intersektionalitet ett oanvndbart begrepp?. I Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift, vol. 3, 2004. Coward, Rosalind (1999): Sacred Cows. Is Feminism Relevant to the New Millennium. London: HarperCollins Publishers. Crompton, Rosemary (1998): Class and Stratification. An Introduction to current debates. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ellingster, Anne Lise (1995): Ulikhet i det postindustrielle samfunnet: Klasse, kjnn og generation. I Sociologisk Tidskrift 1995, no. 4: 263-284. Ellingster, Anne Lise, Noack, Turid & Marit Rnsen (1997): Social ulikhet blant kvinner: polarisering, utjevning eller status quo? I Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, nr. 1, 1997. Elstad, Jon Ivar (1992): Et klassebegrep for 90-rene?. I Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, nr. 1, 1992. Forns, Johan (2005): Rster som gjorde skillnad. Korsande identifikationer i folkhemmets populrmusik. I Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidsskrift, no. 2-3, 2005 Fowler, Bridget (1997): Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural theory. Critical Investigations. London: SAGE Publications. Fowler, Bridget (2003): Reading Pierre Bourdieus Masculine Domination: notes toward an intersectional analysis of gender, culture and class. In Cultural Studies, vol. 17, no. 3/4, London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. Gimenez (2005): Teori eller mantra? En kritisk granskning av intersektionalitetsperspektivet. I Socialistisk Debatt, no. 1, 2005. Knapp (2005): Race, Class, Gender Reclaiming Baggage in Fast Travelling Theories. I European Journal of Womens Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, 2005. London: SAGE Publications Larsen, Jrgen Elm, Lind, Jens & Iver Hornemann Mller (red.) (2000): Kontinuitet og forandring. Kbenhavn: Samfundslitteratur. Lykke, Nina (2003): Intersektionalitet ett anvndbart begrep fr genusforskningen?. I Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidsskrift, no. 1, 2003.

- 18 -

Martinsson, Lena (2005): r klass en kategori bland andra?. I de los Reyes, paulina & Lena Martinsson (red.) (2005): Olikhetens paradigm intersektionella perspektiv p o(jm)likhetsskapande. Gteborg: Studentlitteratur. McDowell, Linda (1991): Life without Father and Ford: The New Gender Order of Post-Fordism. I Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New series, vol. 16, no. 4 McCall, Leslie (1992): Does gender fit? Bourdieu, Feminism and Conceptions of Social Order. I Theory and Society, vol. 21, no. 6, 1992. McCall, Leslie (2005): Managing the complexity of intersectionality. I Signs: Journal of Women in culture and Society, vol. 30, no. 3, 2005. London: SAGE Publications McLeod, Julie (2005): Feminist re-reading Bourdieu. Old debates and new questions about gender habitus and gender change. In Theory and research in education (2005), vol. 3, no. 1. London: SAGE Publications. McNay, Lois (1999): Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. I Theory, Culture and Society, 16:1. McNay, Lois (2004): Agency and Experience: Gender as a Lived Relation. I The Sociological Review, vol. 52, no. 2, 2004. Milner, Andrew (1999): Class Core Cultural Concepts. London: SAGE Publications. Mohanty, Chandra (1991): Under Western eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. I Third world women and the politics of feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Moi, Toril (1994): Att ervre Bourdieu. I Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidsskrift, no. 1, 1994. Mrck, Yvonne (1998): Bindestregsdanskere : fortllinger om kn, generationer og etnicitet. Kbenhavn: Forlaget Sociologi. Reay, Diane (1997): Feminist theory, habitus and social class: disrupting notions of classlessness. I Womens studies International Forum, vol. 20, no. 20, 1997. Skeggs, Beverley (1997): Formations of Class and Gender. Becoming Respectable. London: SAGE Publications. Skeggs, Beverley (2004): Context and Background: Pierre Bourdieus analysis of class, gender and sexuality. I The Sociological Review, vol. 52, no. 2, 2004. Skilbrei, May-Len (2003): Dette er jo bare et husmorjobb. Ufaglrte kvinner i arbeidslivet. Rapport 17/03. Oslo: NOVA Skrede, Kari (2004): Familiepolitikkens grense ved likestilling light?. I Ellingster, Anne Lise & Arnlaug Leira (red.) (2004): Velferdsstaten og familien. Utfordringer og dilemmaer. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Akademisk A/S. Stauns, Dorthe (2004): Kn, etnicitet og skoleliv. Kbenhavn: Samfundslitteratur Walby, Sylvia (1997): Gender Transformations. London: Routhledge. Weedon, Chris (1999): Feminism, Theory and the politics of difference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

- 19 -