Content area
Full Text
The field of violence against women in politics (VAWIP) is so new, it seems unfair to discuss its “gaps”; rather, the study of VAWIP is defined by its uncharted territory. The bulk of existing literature, compiled by scholars as well as practitioners, emphasizes theoretical conceptualization, empirical forms of violence, and the tracking of incidents across regions (Krook 2017; Krook and Restrepo Sanín 2016). Researchers have stressed the gendered motivations and implications of VAWIP. In short, women are targets of violence because they are women and because they are in politics.
However, from intersectionality theory, we know that women do not have a single identity. Instead, they are impacted by intersecting structures of oppression that include, but are not limited to, sexism. Identities are multifaceted and intertwined; accordingly, structures of oppression and privilege interact. I apply an intersectional lens to VAWIP through three questions: How is VAWIP intersectional? What methods can we utilize to conduct an intersectional analysis? Finally, what can an intersectional approach add to our understanding of VAWIP theoretically and empirically?
VAWIP AND INTERSECTIONALITY
I define VAWIP as acts or threats of violence resulting in physical, psychological, or symbolic harm or suffering to women involved in, or associated with, politics (Kuperberg 2017). Violence against women in politics differs from other forms of violence in that it (1) emphasizes the political arena; (2) centers targets and survivors of violence, in this case women in politics, rather than politicians accused of violence; and (3) has implications for global democracy and gender equality.
Intersectionality theory, born out of black feminism in the United States, argues that multiple forms of discrimination are not “purely additive” but instead function as simultaneous oppressions with a multiplicative effect (King 1988, 46). The term is attributed to Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), but the intersections she conceptualizes were articulated previously by Deborah King, the Combahee River Collective, Sojourner Truth, and others, including activists outside the United States (Tormos 2017, 708). Many have voiced concerns over intersectionality traveling beyond its roots in black American feminism (Yuval-Davis 2006). However, once we understand intersectionality as historically articulated in global activism and a concept now enshrined in international law, the question is no longer whether intersectionality should