Intersectional Resistance and Law Reform More than - Dean Spade PDF
Preview Intersectional Resistance and Law Reform More than - Dean Spade
D ea n S p a d e Intersectional Resistance and Law Reform M orethan20yearsago, Kimberle´ Crenshaw coined the term “inter- sectionality” to describe a method of analysis that reveals the dy- namics of subjection hidden by what she called single-axis analysis and suggests avenues for intervention and resistance that are eclipsed by single-axisapproaches.Crenshawdemonstratedthatprojectsaimedatcon- ceptualizing and remedying racial or gender subordination through a sin- gle vector end up implicitly positing the subject of that subordination as universallymale,inthecaseof single-axisantiracistanalysis,orasuniversally white,inthecaseof single-axisfeministanalysis.Theexperiencesof women ofcolorbecomeuntellable Crenshaw1991 .Crenshaw’sarticulationof in- ð Þ tersectionalitybroughttolegaltheoryakeysetofinsightsfromwomen-of-color feminismandothercriticalintellectualtraditionsaboutthelimitsof“equal- ity”andaddedtheseunderstandingstotheinterrogationsofthediscrimina- tionprincipletakenupincriticalracetheory. Whatdoesintersectionalresistancelooklikeontheground,andwhatis itsrelationshiptolaw?Inthisessay,Iexaminesomeofthekeyconceptsand questions that contemporary anticolonial, antiracist, feminist resistance employsandarguethatthedemandsemergingfromitbringnotonlythe United States but the nation-state form itself into crisis. Understanding intersectional harm necessitates an analysis of population-level state vio- lence asopposedtoindividualdiscrimination thatresistancemovements ð Þ sometimesarticulatethroughtheconceptofpopulationcontrol.Socialmove- ments frequently splinter between those employing a single-axis analysis to demand civil rights and legal equality and those employing intersec- tional analysis to dismantlelegal and administrative systems that perpetrate racialized-genderedviolence.Thisessayseekstodrawconnectionsbetween someofthekeymethodologiesofresistanceutilizedbyintersectionalscholars andmovements.Iaminterestedinhowthesemethodologiesbringattention totheviolencesoflegalandadministrativesystemsthatarticulatethemselves asraceandgenderneutralbutareactuallysitesofthegenderedracialization processes that produce the nation-state. Intersectional resistance practices aimedatdismantlingpopulationcontroltakeastheirtargetssystemsof legal andadministrativegovernancesuchascriminalpunishment,immigrationen- forcement,environmentalregulation,childwelfare,andpublicbenefits.This resistanceseeksouttherootcausesofdespairandviolencefacingintersec- [Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety2013,vol.38,no.4] ©2013byTheUniversityofChicago.Allrightsreserved.0097-9740/2013/3804-00XX$10.00 2011266.proof.3d 1 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM 2 y Spade tionallytargetedpopulationsandindoingsoengageswiththelawdifferently than rights-seeking projects do. Critically analyzing the promises of legal recognition andinclusionfrom systems that theyunderstandas sources of stateviolenceandtechnologiesofpopulationcontrol,intersectionalresist- ers are demanding the abolition of criminal punishment, immigration en- forcement,andotherfunctionsandinstitutionsthatarecentraltothenation- state form.Suchdemandsareprofoundlyperplexingtomanyscholars,even scholarsinterestedinintersectionality.Thisessayexamineshowintersectional analysisleadstotheproductionofsuchdemandsanddiscusseshowlawre- formtacticsshift,butdonotdisappear,whensuchdemandsemerge. Inthefirstsectionofthisessay,Ibrieflyreviewsomeofthekeycritiques oflegalequalityofferedbycriticalscholars,especiallycriticalracetheorists. Next, I introduce the concept of population control and highlight the importance of attention to population-level conditions and interventions inintersectionalscholarshipandactivism.Thereproductivejusticemove- ment illustrates how an intersectional critique of single-axis politics and itsdemandsforlegalrightsleadstoafocusonpopulation-levelsystemsthat distributeharmandviolencethroughgenderedracializationprocesses.The reproductivejusticemovement’scritiquesofwhitereproductiverightsframe- works—particularly the assertion that reproductive justice for women of colorrequiresinterventionsintocriminalization,childwelfare,environmen- tal regulation, immigration, and other arenas of administrative violence— illustratehowintersectionalcritiqueandactivismmoveawayfromindividual rightsandtowardafocusonpopulationcontrol. Third, I take up the assertion from many critical traditions that legal equality or rights strategies not only fail to address the harms facing in- tersectionally targeted populations but also often shore up and expand systemsofviolenceandcontrol.Theydothisinatleastthreeways:bymo- bilizing narratives of deservingness and undeservingness, by participating inthelogicsandstructuresthatundergirdrelationsofdomination,andby becomingsitesfortheexpansionofharmfulsystemsandinstitutions.Activ- istsand scholarshave argued that the use of criminalizationtocombat do- mestic violence andhumantrafficking constitutes a co-optationof feminist resistancethatexpandscriminalenforcementsystemsthattargetandendan- ger women and queers of color. This analysis illustrates the danger that legalreformscanexpandviolentsystemsbymobilizingtherhetoricofsav- ing women combined with frameworks of deservingness that reify racist, ableist, antipoor, and colonial relations. I further argue that equality and legalrightsstrategiescanbedivisivetosocialmovements.Iusethreeexam- ples of movement splits to illustrate this: the divide between reproductive rightsandreproductivejustice,thedividebetweendisabilityrightsanddis- 2011266.proof.3d 2 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM S I G N S Summer2013 y 3 abilityjustice,andthedividebetweenthegayandlesbianrightsframework andtheracialandeconomicjustice–centeredqueerandtransresistancefor- mationsthathavecritiqueditandcreatedalternatives.Foreachoftheseex- amples,Itracehowrightsstrategiesmobilizesingle-axisanalysesthat,their criticsargue,bothfailtomeettheneedsofconstituentsfacingintersectional harmandreifyharmfuldynamicsandsystems. Fourth, I observe that these critical traditions strategically reject narra- tivesthatdeclarethattheUSlegalsystemhasbrokenfromthefoundingvio- lences of slavery, genocide, and heteropatriarchy. Critics refute the notion that such founding violences have been eradicated by legal equality. They insteadtracethegenealogiesofpurportedlyneutralcontemporarylegaland administrativesystemstothesefoundations,arguingthatthestate-making, racializing,andgenderingfunctionsoffoundingviolenceslikeenslavement andsettlercolonialismcontinueinnewforms.Thisanalyticalmoveexposes the fact that declarations of legal equality do not resolvesuch violence and generatesdemandslikeprisonabolitionandanendtoimmigrationenforce- mentthatthrowtheUSlegalsystemandthenation-stateformintocrisis. Finally,Iexaminehowsuchintersectionalresistanceengageswithlawre- formdemands.Isuggestthatrejectinglegalequalityandusingapopulation- controlframingleadstoastrategyfocusedondismantlingtheviolentca- pacitiesofracialized-gendered systemsthatoperateunderthepretenseof neutrality. I take as examples the involvement of gender- and sexuality- focused organizations in recent campaigns to stop gang injunctions in Oakland,California,andtostoplocaljurisdictionsfromparticipatinginthe SecureCommunitiesimmigrationenforcementprogram.Thesecampaigns have law reform targets yet resist many of the traps of legal equality argu- ments because theycenter on the material concerns ofthose who are per- petually cast as undeserving, because their demands aim to produce mate- rial change in terms of life chances rather than symbolic declarations of equality,andbecausetheyconceptualizegenderandsexualjusticeandfree- dom through the experiences of those who are intersectionally targeted bypurportedlyrace-and gender-neutral systems. Throughthese examples and arguments,Iaimbothtodrawconnectionsbetweenkeyintersectional methods and to illustrate what forms intersectional resistance is taking in contemporarypolitics,whattargetsitidentifies,andwhatdemandsitmakes. Thelimitsoflegalequality Critical racetheorybroughtto legal scholarship acritiqueofformal legal equality and the discrimination principle, recognizing the failures of civil rightslegislationtoalleviatethesystemicracializedmaldistributionof wealth 2011266.proof.3d 3 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM 4 y Spade and life chances. The concept of formal legal equality articulates an impor- tantdisjuncturebetweentheracialneutralitydeclaredbylawandthemate- rialrealitiesofwhitesupremacy.Thisdisjuncturestems,atleastinpart,from the inadequacyofthe discriminationprincipleforconceptualizingthecon- ditionsofwhitesupremacy.Thediscriminationprincipleunderstandsracist harminsuchalimitedwayastomakeitexceptionallydifficulttoprovethat a violation of discrimination law has occurred and to make the conditions produced by racism unreachable through discrimination doctrine. Racism is understood through the paradigm of individual discriminators who take raceintoaccountwhenmakingdecisions about activitieslikehiring,firing, leasing,selling,orserving Freeman1996 .Intheabsenceofexplicit,inten- ð Þ tional exclusion, courts rarely find a violation of discrimination law. Prov- ing that harm was intentional and based on race can be exceptionally dif- ficult, especially when multiple vectors of subjection exist for the affected personorpeople Crenshaw2008 .Moreover,thediscriminationprinciple ð Þ regardsintentionalexclusionsorpreferencesbasedonraceasequallyharm- ful whether they harm or benefit people of color. Color blindness is the rationale for this approach. It dehistoricizes racial exclusion and suggests that any individual’s experience of exclusion or preference based on race is equally harmful. It assumes a level playing field in which race conscious- ness, not white supremacy,is the problem the law must seek to eliminate.1 Thesefeaturesofthediscriminationprinciplehaveproducedtroubling results. Programs aimed at remedying racial disparity have been declared illegallydiscriminatory;meanwhile,antidiscriminationlawshaveprovento belargelyineffectiveinaddressingeventhenarrowestversionofindividual racediscrimination. Most people of color who have been denied a jobor anapartmentcannotproducetherequiredevidenceofintent,nottomen- tion that the people for whom such losses will produce the worst conse- quenceslikelycannotaffordanattorney LegalServicesCorporation2009 . ð Þ Thesepeople—poorpeople,peoplewithdisabilities,women,queerandtrans people, immigrants—are also unlikely to have the kind of single-axis dis- crimination case that courts and lawyers most easily understand. They are morelikelytobefacingmultiplevectorsofexclusionandtobeinteractingin less formal conditions, such as low-wage contingent labor, which further decreases the chances that there will be a paper trail proving that their ex- periencewastheresultofdiscrimination RuckelshausandGoldstein2002 . ð Þ The most severe conditions produced by white supremacy cannot be addressed or even imagined by antidiscrimination law. Those conditions 1SeeFreeman 1996,Gotanda 1996,Harris 1996,Peller 1996,andCrooms 1999. ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ 2011266.proof.3d 4 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM S I G N S Summer2013 y 5 that do not result from the misdeeds of a perpetrating individual or or- ganization—thebroadconditionsofmaldistributionvisibleintheUnited States’s racial wealth divide; extreme racial disparity in access to housing, employment, education, food, and health care; the ongoing occupation and expropriation of native lands; and targeting in criminal punishment, environmentalharm,andimmigrationenforcement—arecastasneutralby the discrimination principle Gilmore 1998–99; United for a Fair Econ- ð omy 2006 . When racist harm is framed as a problem of aberrant indi- Þ viduals who discriminate and when intention must be proved to find a violation of law, the central conditions of white supremacy are implicitly declared neutral. In the United States, this has been accompanied by a robust discourse that blames people of color for poverty and criminaliza- tion,alogicalleaprequiredwhencolorblindnesshasbeendeclaredthelaw of the land and racism has been defined so narrowly as to exclude it from blame in the most widespread adverse conditions facing people of color. Critical race theorists have supplied the concept of “preservation-through- transformation” to describe the neat trick that civil rights law performed inthis dynamic Siegel1997, 1119; Harris 2006. In the face of significant ð resistance to conditions of subjection, law reform tends to provide just enoughtransformationtostabilize andpreservestatusquoconditions.In the case of widespread rebellion against white supremacy in the United States, civil rights law and color-blind constitutionalism have operated as formal reforms that mask the perpetuation of the white supremacist sta- tus quo. Explicit exclusionary policies and practices became officially for- bidden, yet the racialized-gendered maldistribution of life chances in the United States remained the same or worsened with the increasing con- centration of wealth and the simultaneous dismantling of social welfare systems Harris2006,1554–61;UnitedforaFairEconomy2006 . ð Þ Populationcontrol Women-of-color feminism and other critical traditions have drawn atten- tiontotheseconditions,highlightingtheoperationsof systemsthatobscure the maintenance of white supremacy and heteropatriarchy by applying the discrimination principle. These critics have drawn attention to welfare pol- icy, criminal punishment, child welfare, and other systems where race- and gender-targetedharmisproducedundertheguiseofneutrality.Useofthe term“populationcontrol”removesthefocusfromdiscreteincidentsorin- dividualsandallowsforananalysisofmultiplesystemsthatoperatesimulta- neously to produce harms directed not at individuals but at entire popula- 2011266.proof.3d 5 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM 6 y Spade tions Neubeck and Cazenave 2001; Ross 2006 . Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s ð Þ widely cited definition of racism as “group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death” demonstrates this approach 2007, 28 . Gilmore’s defi- ð Þ nition attends to conditions rather than individuals and intentions, reject- ingtheframing offered by the discrimination principle that has thoroughly saturatedUSdiscoursesonrace. Thereproductivejusticemovementhasemployedtheterm“population control” to reframe questions about the politics of reproduction in ways that resist the narrow confinesofrights discourse. Reproductive justice ad- vocates have argued that the reproductive rights movement has engaged inasingle-axisanalysisofthepoliticsofreproduction,centeringontheex- periencesofwhitewomenandfailingtoformulatedemandsthataddressthe needsofwomenofcolor.IntheUnitedStates,whitewomenhaveprimarily experienced the impacts of pronatal policies, including policies preventing accesstocontraceptionandabortion Roberts1993b;Ross2006 .Mean- ð Þ while,conditionsofreproductionforUSwomenofcolorhavebeenshaped by antinatal policies: sterilization, child welfare systems that take children awayfrommothersofcolor,andforcedassimilationprogramsliketheBu- reauofIndianAffairsboardingschools Roberts1993b;Smith2005;Ross ð 2006 .Whileitis truethat itisnot just white women who needaccess to Þ safecontraceptionandabortionoptions,thesedemandsarefarfromexhaus- tiveoftheinterventionsneededforwomenofcolorandindigenouswomen toremedyreproductiveinjustice. Conceptualizing thepolitics ofreproduction through population con- trolallowsthereproductivejusticemovementtoarguethatanarrayofphe- nomenamustbeanalyzedtogethertounderstandthecomplexforcesaffect- ingwhocanaccesswhatreproductivepossibilitiesandunderwhatconditions. These phenomena include but are not limited to welfare policies aimed at pushingpoorwomen,especiallywomenofcolor,intomarriageanddiscour- aging them from having children; expansion of criminal punishment sys- temsthattargetwomenofcolorforimprisonmentandterminateprisoners’ parental rights; policies that expose poor pregnant women to drug testing and prosecution; immigration regimes that divide families and deny health care to detained women; and environmental policy that poisons people of color.2Thearticulationofreproductivejusticeasconcernedwithpopulation control turns away from the individual-rights narrative that centers on the questionofwhetherthegovernmentisaffirmativelyandexplicitlyblocking agivenwomanfromaccessingabortionorcontraception.Instead,itargues 2SeeRoberts 1993a,1996 ,Barry 2006 ,Ross 2006 ,andArkles 2008 . ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ 2011266.proof.3d 6 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM S I G N S Summer2013 y 7 thatalloftheconditionsthatdeterminereproductivepossibilities—subjection tocriminalization,displacement,immigrationenforcement,orenvironmental destruction;theunequaldistributionofwealthandaccesstohealthcare;and more—aretheterrainofcontestationaboutthepoliticsofreproduction.This shifttowardconceptualizingharmatthepopulationlevelgeneratesananalysis oftherelationshipbetweenmultiplevectorsofharmandofhowsystemsof meaning and control like sexism, racism, and ableism might interact in particular ways to affect the various populations managed through their articulation. The particular targeting of women of color for interventions rationalized through purportedly race- and gender-neutral systems that are actually mobilized entirely in order to control the population according to racialized-genderednormsbecomestellablethroughsuchaframework. Legalequalitystrategieslegitimizeandexpandviolentsystems Criticalintellectualtraditionshavealsomadeanimportantargumentthat equality and rights advocacy not only fails to address the conditions that affect vulnerable people but often actually shores up, legitimizes, or ex- pands harm. This occurs when advocates mobilize discourses of deserv- ingnessthatdivideconstituencies,whenadvocacyparticipatesinlogicsand structures that undergird the relations of domination that are being op- posed,andwhenadvocacyactuallyresultsinexpandingrelationsandstruc- turesofdomination. Afewexamplesareusefultoillustrate.Significantcontroversyhasemerged in the past few decades in feminist, queer, and trans movements about whetherkeyformsofviolencethatthesemovementshavebroughtatten- tionto—bias-motivated,sexual,andintimatepartnerviolence—shouldbe addressed through demands for a law-enforcement response. The most visible,well-funded,andwhitestrainsofthesemovementshavesupported increased criminal penalties for the perpetrators of these forms of vio- lence and have often partnered with police and prosecutors to expand crim- inallawenforcement Mogul,Ritchie,andWhitlock2011,121–40 .Popula- ð Þ tions targeted by policing who are also working to end these forms of violence, such as communities of color, immigrants, people with disabil- ities, poor people, and indigenous people, have argued that enhancing criminal penalties will not reduce violence or increase safety Incite! 2006; ð Chen, Dulani, and Piepzna-Samarasinha 2011 . In fact, they have argued Þ that increasing criminalization increases violence. These critics assert that punishment-based solutions have no preventative impact and are often in- accessibletovictimsofviolence,whomaybeafraidtocallthepolicebecause 2011266.proof.3d 7 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM 8 y Spade they, their family, or their community are more likely to be harmed by the police than helped. Critics contend that the mainstream antiviolence movement’sfocusonpunishmenthasmadefeministandqueerexposureof theseformsofviolencejustanothersiteforexpandingcriminalpunishment Incite!2006 . ð Þ In the context of immigration law, these reforms have played out in a particularly visible way to create a narrative of deserving and undeserving immigrants. For example, the U visa has been made available for immi- grants who are victims of crimes US Citizenship and Immigration Ser- ð vices2011 .InorderforasurvivortobecomeeligibleforaUvisa,policeand Þ prosecutorsmust decide thatthesurvivorhassufficientlysupportedthein- vestigation,prosecution,and,insomecases,deportationofthepersonwho harmedher.ThelegalframeworkandculturalnarrativesurroundingUvisas castcrimevictimsasdeservingimmigrantsandcriminalsasthosewhomust bepunishedandpermanentlyexiled.Thisframingmirrorsotherimportant logicsthathavesupportedtherapidexpansionofcriminalizationandimmi- grationenforcementoverthepastfourdecades.Particularimagesofmenof colorandimmigrantshavebeenkeymobilizingtoolsforlegalchangesthat have drastically increased criminal penalties, made minor criminal offenses justifications for deportation, and used women-saving rationales to justify militaryconquest—imagesofmenofcolorasviolentandcriminal,ofimmi- grantsasbringingcriminalactivityintotheUnitedStates,andofmenofcolor and men in poorer countries as more sexist and more violent toward their familiesthanwhitemen.3Moreover,theactualabilityofimmigrantsurvivors of violence to avail themselves of immigration relief through these punish- ment- anddeportation-focused interventions is limited because policeand prosecutors often refuse to support their applications and because of the emotional and practical reasons that survivors might not want their family memberand/orcoparentdeported Munshi2010 .4 ð Þ Another site where critics have raised concerns about the risk of pur- portedly prowomen interventions is in the recent campaigns to combat human trafficking. Critics argue that the newlegislationintensifying crim- inalization of traffickers is actually often used to further endanger excep- tionally vulnerable low-income people, especially women and queer and transpeopleofcolorwhoworkinthesextrade.Becausethelowest-paidsex workers are also those who are most likely to be exposed to policing and 3SeeNaber,Desouky,andBaroudi 2006,Incite! 2006,Puar 2007,andMunshi 2010. ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ 4Ange´licaCha´zaro,interviewwiththeauthor,June11,2011.Notesareonfilewiththe author. 2011266.proof.3d 8 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM S I G N S Summer2013 y 9 violence—sincetheyworkoutsideandhavefewwaystoscreenclients—they are also the most criminalized. Many create networks to support one an- other’s survival, acting as lookouts, providing access to spaces to work, or connecting one another with opportunities to make money. All of these activities,undernewtraffickinglaws,makethesepeoplevulnerabletobeing prosecutedastraffickers.Criticsarguethat,onceagain,increasedcriminali- zation utterly fails to increase safety and instead results in greater vulnera- bilityforthosefacingthemostviolence Chacon2006;Mogul,Ritchie,and ð Whitlock2011;Grant2012 .5 Þ In responses to domestic violence and human trafficking that are fo- cusedonlawenforcement,theideaofprotecting women especially pro- ð tectingwomenofcolorfrommenofcolor isusedtojustifypoliciesthat Þ both fail to provide relief from gender violence and create sites of expan- sion for systems that perpetrate racialized gender violence. Although these logicsrelyontheideaofindividualculpabilitythatjustifiescriminalandim- migrationenforcement,therealityoftheadministrationofprograms of po- licing,punishment,andimmigrationcontrolisthattheysubjectentiresub- populationstosurveillanceandharm. Dividingconstituencies Because equality- and rights-seeking arguments often reproduce deserv- ingnessframeworks,participateinlogicsandstructuresthatundergirdrela- tions of domination, and become sites for expansion of harmful systems andinstitutions,theyoftendivideconstituenciesseekingchange Crenshaw ð 2004 . Thepurportedlyuniversalsubjectof rightsisactuallyaveryspecific Þ and narrow category of persons. The ability to avail oneself of supposedly universalrightsinfactoftenrequireswhiteness,wealth,citizenship,thesta- tus of being a settler rather than indigenous, and/or conformity to body, health,gender, sexuality,andfamilynorms.Demandsforequalrightsoften becomedivisive for constituencies organizing to oppose certain systems of meaningandcontrol,andthosedividescanbeseeninthemovementforma- tionsthatemerge.6Threeexamplesareinstructive:thereproductiverights/ 5AndreaRitchie,interviewwiththeauthor,June2,2011.Notesareonfilewiththeauthor. 6Ironically,thosewhopointoutthelimitationsoftherightsframeworkandstandup against single-axis politics are often called divisive. Single-axis advocates often argue that broaderdemandstoaddressintersectionalharmareidealisticandthatthenarrowerdemands forinclusioninexistinginstitutionsandlogicsarewinnablevictoriesthatshouldbepriori- tized.Sometimesthisisarguedsimplybysayingthatcriticsarebringinginthingsthatare irrelevant e.g.,“welfarerightshavenothingtodowithgaypolitics”or“we’retalkingabout ð 2011266.proof.3d 9 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM 10 y Spade reproductive justice divide already mentioned, the disability rights/disabil- ityjusticedivide,andthefracturesbetweenthelesbianandgayrightsframe- work and the critical queer and trans resistance formations that have opposed it. The articulation of reproductive justice has been a direct response to thenarrownessofthereproductiverightsframeworkanditsfailuretoprop- erlytheorizetheconditionsaffectingthereproductivepossibilitiesforpeo- ple of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, indigenous people, poor people,andqueerandtranspeople,aswellastheresultingfailuretoadvo- cate for changes that would actually address the conditions affecting those people Ross2006 .Reproductivejusticehasarticulatedabroaderconcep- ð Þ tualization of forces of population control that determine who can have andraisechildrenandunderwhatconditions,forcesthatincludetheover- lappingandinterlockingoperationsofimmigrationenforcement,criminal- ization,settlercolonialism,whitesupremacy,ableism,homophobia,capital- ism, gender binarism, and environmental destruction. Reproductive justice activistshavearticulateddemandsliketheendofimmigrationenforcement, prisonabolition,thedismantlingofsettlercolonialism,andfreequalityhealth careforall includingmarginalizedhealthcarelikeprenatalcare,mentalhealth ð care, abortion, contraception, and gender-confirming health care for trans people ascentraltothereproductivejusticetheyseek.Reproductivejustice Þ politicsrejectsthenarrowreproductiverightsframingbothbecauseofwho it leavesout and because it participatesin reproducing logics and narratives thatareharmfultothewell-beingofthoseleftout.7 Disabilityjusticehasmadesimilarinterventionswithrespecttothedis- abilityrightsframework.Advocatesofdisabilityjusticearguethattherights- based approach has failed to adequately conceptualize or resist the condi- tions of ableism facing the most vulnerable people with disabilities. They propose an alternative to single-axis understandings of ableism. Disability justice has been articulated as a politics that goes beyond the focus on ac- sexismhere,notdisabilityissues”.Atothertimes,theargumentisthatitismostpragmaticto Þ takeupthenarrowercampaignnowand,oncethatiswon,comebacklatertotheissuesof multiply-marginalizedconstituents.Thisargumentfailstocomprehendthatequalitypolitics is not just leaving people out, it is also reproducing violent logics and expanding violent systems. 7AsLorettaRosswrites,“Womenofcolorreproductivejusticeactivistsopposeallpo- liticalrationales,socialtheories,andgeneticjustificationsforreproductiveoppressionagainst communitiesofcolor, whetherthroughblatantpoliciesofsterilizationabuseorthroughthe coerciveuseofdangerouscontraceptives....Reproductivejusticegoesfarbeyondthedemand toeliminateracialdisparitiesinreproductivehealthservices,andbeyondtheright-to-privacy- basedclaimstolegalabortionmadebythepro-choicemovement” 2006,53. ð Þ 2011266.proof.3d 10 AchornInternational 02/23/2013 2:14AM
Description:The list of books you might like
