Overview
Intersectionality, as a framework for analysis, has become significant among American scholars who study race and gender. That significance is not merely a function of a fad or an arbitrary preference. Rather, it seems to reflect a simple fact: that intersectionality is not merely the study of two or more different factors in the context of a given situation. It is a synergistic process whose whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts; it reveals a truer and broader picture of the type of power imbalance and marginalization that groups experience.
Europe has its own history of systemic racism. From the famous Dreyfus Affair of 1894 to erecting border walls to keep out Syrian and Afghan refugees today, Europe has also marginalized various distinct groups. However, the study of that marginalization does not appear to be intersectional in nature. Rather, it appears to be situated in a consistent and ‘singularized’ context. There is either a problem of ‘Roma’ (Gypsies) in Western European cities, or there is a problem of domestic violence. But there isn’t a problem of domestic violence against Roma women by Western European men.
The successive broadening of the European Union over the past two decades has meant an increase of opportunity for travel, work and migration between the former ‘Eastern bloc’ states and Western Europe. It has also meant, in virtually every instance, a discrimination and marginalization of Eastern Europeans as the new “other” in Western Europe.
Among the groups most frequently discriminated against are Eastern European women. They are among the most likely to be victims of human trafficking, to be exploited in prostitution and in manual labor jobs and to be unfairly treated in local Western European courts when it comes to their rights as Eastern Europeans, as Women and as mothers.
But these issues do not appear to be studied through the framework of intersectionality. It is my intention, in this study, to examine the research on one specific group: Eastern European mothers living in Western Europe who are victims of domestic violence. I would like to determine if there exists an intersectional approach to the study of this group.
Literature Review
According to Cho “Intersectionality is inextricably linked to an analysis of power, yet one challenge to intersectionality is its alleged emphasis on categories of identity versus structures of inequality.” (Cho, et al. 2013, p. 797). In the American context, this challenge seems fitting; however, in Europe, the manifestation of categories of identity vs. structures of inequality is quite different. And it may affect the way in which intersectionality is used. The reason, although seemingly insignificant, is, in fact, quite important. US citizenship is defined by being born on US soil. European citizenship is culturally linked to the identity of parents. One cannot, in the classic sense, become Italian or become German. (Yes, one can have the passport, but that is not the same thing as being perceived as culturally X.) One is simply born Italian or born German. However, one can become an American. American identity is fluid and dynamic. It is a literal act of becoming. European identity is static – and its static nature is being increasingly challenged by both the lived reality of immigrants and by the evolving nature of the European Union. To study the European context then, it appears that intersectionality must acknowledge that critical difference between being and becoming in the fundamental fact of one’s national identity. This distinction is very significant because it appears to indicate that, within the context of the nation-state as an ethnically-derived entity, there are, by default, two classes of people – subjects of that nation-state and the other. Indeed, if we look at the history of migration, immigration and the changing face of Western Europe, this is exactly the dynamic we see– immigrants are studied in the context of their “subject”-ness. Are they German enough? Are they French enough? To study Eastern European mothers in Western Europe is, therefore, not just a study of marginalization. It is a fundamental study of identity conceptualization within the Western European discourse.
At the same time, however, intersectionality is consistently spoken of as a universalist framework. According to Puar, “all subjects are intersectional whether or not they recognize themselves as such.” (Puar, 2012, p. 52) The tools of intersectional research should, by this reasoning, work equally well in analyzing Eastern European mothers as they do in analyzing the racism experienced by marginalized groups in the United States. “Racism distorts and lessens your own lives as white women, that racism affects your chances for survival too and that it is very definitely your issue.” (Smith, 1982, p. 48) In Europe that White/Black spectrum is shifted to one of member of national ethnic group vs. non-member of national ethnic group.
It is my intention, in this paper, to better understand the type of research being carried out in Europe in this specific population–a population where I believe intersectionality can serve well to better reveal the true depth and judicial deprivation of marginalized groups.
Hypothesis
My primary hypothesis is that European scholars investigating Eastern European mothers as Victims of Domestic Violence DO NOT use an intersectional approach to their analysis. My hypothesis is based on the premise that European identity is almost entirely constructed through a static model that does not permit evolutionary change– and, as a result, the primary dichotomy of ethnic/ not-ethnic serves as a singular lens for analysis. In other situations, I expect to find a similar approach to studying this specific problem–as representative of a problem where intersectional methods in the United States have proven helpful, over the past few decades, in revealing complex layers of power and oppression.
Methodology
I intend to use several databases (Google, Lexis -Nexis, etc…) to identify at least 40+ articles in sociology, law, economics, gender and other related topics that cover the issue of the marginalization of Eastern European mothers who are victims of domestic violence, while living in Western Europe. I then intend to categorize those articles according to a basic three-part schema: choosing scholars who 1) explicitly mention and use intersectional tools in their research, 2) use approaches that we would classify as intersectional but are not explicitly named as such, or 3) do not use intersectional approaches to analysis.
Data Analysis
I have reviewed almost 40 articles that are related to the topics of Eastern European female migration and domestic violence in Europe. There are some startling conclusions that I believe the data reveals. I have constructed, based on these articles, a categorization schema based on several recurring themes that I believe accurately analyze the modalities of research and provide insight into the question of whether or not European research on Eastern European women who experience domestic violence is, in fact, intersectional research.
Theme 1 – Intersectional Discourses in the EU and Limitations of the EU Model of Nation-States
Benedict Anderson’s famous work “Imagined Communities” posits that the nation is an artificially constructed identity. He writes:
I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion…. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined…. Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings. (Anderson, 2006, p. 5)
Anderson’s framework is critical to understanding the difference of how intersectionality is used as a research framework in the United States and in Europe.
Europe is a continent of nation-states that defines identity as primarily based on family and ethnic status. As such, Europe is a construction of imagined nations that are naturally (as opposed to artificially) distinct. One cannot become German. One cannot become French. One cannot become Italian. One is simply born X. On the other hand, in the United States, as a result of its distinct history, one can, in fact, become an American. As such, there can be many different Americans–of different ethnic, racial, religious backgrounds, etc…This is because American-ness is an act of becoming as opposed to an act of birth (such as European-ness), so the very concept of intersectionality operates differently. Within the United States, there can be a true intersectional analysis of race that does not conflict with American-ness. In other words, American social science researchers and feminist scholars can write and speak about differences in race within the United States without those differences having a meaning of non-American-ness. That is not true in the European social space. To speak of ethnic difference in Europe is to, implicitly, speak of a distinct type of non-belonging that CANNOT be an act of becoming. A Lithuanian immigrant to Italy can never become Italian. A Muslim migrant from Algeria to Denmark can never become Danish. Yes, they can have a passport. Yes, they can live as politically equal to other citizens. But they are never seen as ethnically X. And therefore, precisely because the notion of race/ethnicity is directly related to the question of belonging to a particular nation-state within the European social imagination, there simply cannot be a similar type of intersectionality in European social science research. Indeed, what we see is an intersectionality that is structural and technical.
The first point that I have observed is that intersectionality is used infrequently in studying gendered violence in Europe. It appears that the dominant paradigm of research inquiry, with regard to inequality, is to use a linear approach. “While the concept of intersectionality is increasingly used in gender studies, sociology, economics, political and policy practice in Europe have seldom referred to intersectionality when trying to deal with multiple inequalities.” (Verloo, 2006, p. 211) Verloo’s observation does not extend to the distinction that Anderson would make. However, it does point, by inadvertent use of her own terms, to the fact that a European intersectionality is about policy and practice. Crenshaw, in her original formulation, does not see intersectionality as a technical manifestation of multiple policies. Rather, she sees it as a core method of understanding power and violence. “[Crenshaw] distinguishes between structural intersectionality and political intersectionality(Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1245). Structural intersectionality occurs when inequalities and their intersections are directly relevant to the experiences of people in society.” (Verloo, 2006, p. 213) Verloo correctly points out Crenshaw’s intentions, but is unaware that Crenshaw’s fundamental reasoning cannot be equally applied to a European space that is, by the very definition of the European nation-state, an inherently ethnically and racially divided space.
Other authors writing about domestic violence and intersectionality in Europe provide a similar framework. In a cross-EU study on gender-based violence, Lombardo & Agustin state, “By analysing a selection of EU policy documents on gender-based violence in the period 2000–2014, we attend to the question of what intersectionality can bring to policy-making in terms of strengthening inclusiveness and address the methodological question of applying an intersectional approach to policy analysis.” (Lombardo & Agustin, 2016, p. 364) Their framework is similar. Intersectionality can only be about policy. It can’t be about race or ethnicity because to make it about race and ethnicity would be to undermine the very idea of the European nation-state. The nation-state is based on the fundamental concept of ethnic difference – that there is a natural (read: biological) distinction between nationals of different European nations. “The frame analysis of EU gender equality policy documents shows that intersectional dimensions are increasingly present but they are treated implicitly and from a separate perspective, and the inclusion of a wide range of inequalities often implies a degendering of the policy content.” (Lombardo & Agustin, 2012, p. 482) Precisely because identity cannot be a factor in intersectionality without revealing the Achilles’ heel of EU liberalism, it is dependent on artificially-constructed ideas of ethnic difference as being a natural phenomenon.
Other European researchers operate within the same limitation. For example, one article states:
“This article builds on the rich, diverse feminist traditions of theorizing on intersectionality, including tensions between these traditions, to examine key gender concerns, namely violence against women, and state policy thereon. Translating such theoretical complexity into policy and practice is a major challenge. Here specifically we interrogate the relations of gender and intersectionality, conceptualized as gendered intersectionalities, by examining and comparing how multiple inequalities are made visible and invisible in state policy and debates in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.” (Hearn, et al. 2016, p. 551)
The key phrase here, and the primary difference between Crenshaw’s conceptualization and that of European researchers, is multiple inequalities. In other words, intersectional research in the European construct cannot be a research of ethnicity and gender. It can only be a research of multiple factors that affect gender. This difference is very significant, not only because it again reinforces Anderson’s primary construct, but because it shows the difference between an additive and a synergistic research modality. Hearn and other European scholars use intersectionality as an additive framework. They add policy issues together to analyze how policies interact with each other. Crenshaw, on the other hand, always intended the model of intersectionality to be synergistic–to be greater than the sum of its parts by providing insights that link together race, ethnicity and gender into a complex and dynamic set of emergent behaviors. Another study by Ramon (2015) illustrates how this additive approach works in a European context. Ramon writes, “The article highlights the traumatic impact of intimate partner domestic violence (IPDV) on women, the complexity of their responses to it, its impact on their identities, and their resulting social position in Europe. An exploration of the intersectionalities between IPDV and mental distress within the context of negative social attitudes toward IPDV victims follows, highlighting the psychosocial significance of experiencing IPDV for the internalized social exclusion of victims of this type of violence.” (Ramon, 2015, p. 76) and not the absence of an ethnic/ synergistic construct in the analysis. Intersectionality is additive: let us study A + B. And, in addition, none of the author’s distinct modalities are about race/ethnicity. The reason is simple: imagine the opposite–that we could speak of, for example, a Polish mother who migrated to Spain and insists on being seen as a Spanish citizen. While it might happen, the social construction of identity in Europe largely presumes that other Spanish citizens would not acknowledge her as being equally Spanish–and, as a result, we cannot have a synergistic construction of intersectionality.
Interestingly, the only case in which intersectionality, as a framework for analysis, is applied in the way in which Crenshaw intended, is in the case of Romani women in Europe. In autumn 2012, Signs devoted a special issue to Romani feminism in which Nicoleta Biţu explained that she learned from African–American feminists, like bell hooks and Crenshaw, how to recognize and name racism among
European feminists (Biţu and Vincze, 2012 p. 46). “Oprea (2012, p. 18) attributes the high prevalence of domestic violence against women in Romania to racism and misogyny, calling out white feminists for ignoring “anti-Romani racism to their own detriment” (Erickson, 2017, p. 4). Angéla Kóczé, a prominent Romani scholar, points out the fundamental nature of the problem and, by extension, why intersectionality uniquely works in the Romani community (That it works is itself problematic – the fact that Romani community members are analyzed intersectionaly is only possible because they are seen as not belonging to a European nation-state.):
Romni scholar and activist Angéla Kóczé (2009) provides a valuable overview of different ways in which Romani across Europe have conceptualized intersectionality and the gains they have made despite their marginalization from both Roma and mainstream women’s movements (see also Jovanović, Kóczé, and Balogh 2015). Kóczé argues, “intersectional methodologies are contextual and should respond to the specific social and cultural contexts of Romnia’s lives” (Erickson, 2017, p. 4)
The marginalization of Roma women across Europe is a very polite way of saying what is really happening. The Roma, as a group, are largely treated, across all of Europe, as not entitled to the rights of citizens of the nation-state. The Roma are seen as neither a nation nor a state. They are a deeply marginalized group that crosses national border lines throughout Europe. The Roma are not just marginalized, however. They represent the deepest structural threat possible to the current order of Europe as a continent of nation-states. But, it is for precisely this reason that Crenshaw’s model of intersectionality is effective in understanding the way in which Roma are acted upon and the way in which they react. Schultz describes this work in great detail (2012). She writes, “As I said at the 2003 Roma Women’s Forum, “I believe Roma women are the ones who will lead the way to deep and lasting transformations in European society by challenging racism, sexism, poverty, and exclusion simultaneously.” (Schultz, 2012, p. 39) That simultaneity is critical, because it is the one thing that ethnic identity linked to a nation-state model excludes in the current model of Europe. Since one can’t “become” German or Italian, the racism of migration can never be completely erased. However, since the Roma aren’t considered a part of any European nation-state, their status means that they are both acted upon and can act together through an intersectional framework.
Theme 2 – Eastern Europe as a Subject of Epistemological Violence
One of the more surprising findings in my research was that there was almost NO intersectional research done about Eastern European women who migrated to Western Europe. In addition, not only was intersectionality NOT a framework for this type of research, but the research that was done about Eastern European women and domestic violence was, to a very high degree, a type of epistemological violence against Eastern Europe itself. This was performed by Western European scholars and/or by Eastern European Scholars actuating their research through Western European/American journals/ languages/ practices.
I need to be very clear about this point, because it represents a hidden deviation from my original search. Yet it is, I believe, central to understanding my primary hypothesis. Not only are Eastern European women discriminated against in Western Europe; Western Europe exercises an epistemological violence over Eastern Europe by presenting itself as the standard against which domestic violence in Eastern Europe needs to be improved.
Fabian (2010) writes about domestic violence in precisely this way: “Domestic violence only recently entered the lexicon in Eastern Europe, despite its long history there. Domestic violence has emerged as one of the most powerful examples of the changing division between public and private spheres.” (p. 54) At the heart of the matter is the broader global question of the relationship between human rights and the state, and when the state has the right and obligation to intervene and protect those rights. To a large extent, the current model draws on a Western idea of state permissiveness that sees protection of rights to extend far into the home. “Western NGOs and feminist writers introduced the term, presented its legal definition, and offered policies related to domestic violence to local women’s groups in post-communist Europe.” (Fabian, 2010, p. 54). Note the specific way in which Fabian expresses the transfer of the term. Western NGOs introduced the term domestic violence to Eastern Europe. In other words, if not for the wisdom of Western Europe, Eastern European women would never even know their own subjugation; would never even know what domestic violence is. Another article by Kriszan & Popa (2009) expresses this same type of epistemological unidirectionality. The article traces the development of domestic violence policies in five Central and Eastern European countries and identifies three mechanisms of influence in the field: EU conditionality, financial incentives and discursive mechanisms used by internal actors to strategically frame the role of the EU. While the Europeanization of policies is not unidirectional, as the authors point out, the imposition of Western epistemology is; ie, it is Eastern Europe that must learn from Western Europe about norm construction and civil society.
Some authors are even more blatant in the way they characterize the East as a backwards other. Corrin (2005) writes, “The overt and shocking human rights abuses apparent in the traffic in women stem to a large extent from the degraded status of women within these societies.” (Corrin, 2005, p. 543) Corrin never mentions that it is also the desire for inexpensive prostitutes and human trafficking in Western Europe that is driving many of the problems. Nor does Corrin provide any evidence of that degraded status. The assumption many authors make is an assumption that many American and Western European social scientists also make–that higher economic output is also a form of moral superiority. Here is another example:
“The selection of the two case studies was motivated by the underlying similarities between the two nations: both are signatories of the relevant UN documents as well as EU-initiated statements on women’s rights. At the same time, important differences between the two countries exist, most importantly in their political cultures; Hungary is a democratizing post-socialist country with a young democratic culture, whereas the United Kingdom is considered a classical liberal state.” (Kakucs & Sata, 2007, p. 57)
The purpose of the Kakucs & Sata study was clear–to demonstrate the struggles of a young democratic culture in protecting women by comparing it to mature Western European culture. Finally, in a majority of cases EU expansion, much like the conquering of the American frontier in the 19th century, is seen as some sort of manifest destiny– that all of Eastern Europe (and beyond) will eventually become more European and will accept the epistemological superiority of Western Europe practices and discourses. Roth, for example, makes exactly the same categorical mistake – that the purpose of Eastern European ‘integration’ into the EU is to make ‘Eastern Europe’ more ‘Western.’ He writes, “My assessment of the impact of EU enlargement focuses on pre- and post-accession experiences and draws particularly on developments in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia, which are among the most economically developed new EU member states.” (Roth, 2007, p. 462) Roth assumes that somehow economic development is the equalizer, or at least a necessary condition for comparison; ie, a poor country cannot possibly treat its women equally. Even when the articles appear to frame research on domestic violence in explicit non-economic terms, the framing carries a particular Western bias. Here is another example:
This article sets out to understand the outcome of the mobilization of women’s advocates to translate international human rights norms on violence against women into their national legislation and policies in five Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. The article focuses on just one form of violence against women, domestic violence—the issue that dominated policy debates in the field in these countries. (Krizsan & Popa, 2014, p. 759)
The phrase “international human rights norms” is of particular interest here–because it posits a standard against which the five Central Eastern European countries are judged. There is another type of Orientalism (to use Said’s term) that occurs in European domestic violence research. The studies above demonstrate a consistent perception of an epistemological high ground when it comes to how Western Europe perceives Eastern Europe. It is also true for how European scholarship on domestic violence treats non-Europeans in Europe, specifically Muslims and migrants from Africa and the Middle East. A search in google scholar or in Lexus-nexus of the terms “europe + domestic violence + muslims” yields hundreds of results. and it appears that all of the studies contain the same type of epistemological high-ground. One such example can be found:
The aims of this exploratory study are: 1) to understand the phenomenon of domestic violence amongst Libyans living in Manchester United Kingdom from the viewpoint of a sample of women and men from different social backgrounds. 2) To explore the attitudes and perceptions of Libyan people about domestic violence. 3) To investigate how social demographic factors influence the perception of domestic violence. The current study explores the perception and attitudes of the kinds of behavior considered DVAW amongst Libyans living in Manchester. (El Abani & Pourmehdi, 2017, p. 2076)
This study appears to be neutral in its language, but its very construction implies the perception by scholars that somehow this is a bigger problem from a “less-developed”/migrant community.
Having reviewed the methods of many studies on domestic violence in Europe, it appears that there is a consistent pattern of epistemological violence–the West knows better and is the only agent capable of objectively assessing what the East or South are doing. What is particularly interesting is the absence of the opposite, which, I believe, proves the point. There are NO articles or studies done by Eastern European scholars and published in Eastern European journals about domestic violence in Western Europe or about domestic violence within ex-pat communities of Western Europeans living in Eastern Europe. And, there are no articles within Middle Eastern scholarship about domestic violence in Europe. The analysis, and the right to analyze only flows from West to East.
Theme 3 Structural attempts at Intersectional Process
Despite the limitations analyzed in Theme 1, there are several attempts by European institutions to frame their work on domestic violence through an intersectional lens. However, as we will see below, those attempts are broadly limited to structural/institutional attempts at a type of a process acknowledgment versus a true type of intersectional methodology in research. An article about female migrants in the UK (Rydzik, et al., 2012) is a good example of this type of approach, claiming:
“This article reports the findings of an arts-based participatory action research project on the experiences of Central and Eastern European female migrants working in the hospitality sector in the United Kingdom. It critically explores the participants’ negotiations of their multiple, intersecting mobilities and immobilities,and reveals how their employment in hospitality both encourages and restricts these mobilities. The article is situated within the unfolding hopeful tourism scholarship perspective, and argues that its inclusive and participatory approach provides considerable insight into these migrant workers’ complex and often under-appreciated trajectories.” (p. 137)
The authors discuss intersecting mobilities and immobilities. They are incorporating some of the ideas of intersectionality without stating it explicitly. However, it should be noted that they are not doing a race/class/gender integrated model, rather, it’s about socio-economic opportunities and restrictions.
A particularly famous example in Europe of the limits of this approach is evident in the famous case of BS v. Spain. According to the Strousburg Observer:
“B.S., a female sex worker of Nigerian origin legally resident in Spain, alleged that the Spanish police mistreated her physically and verbally on the basis of her race, gender and profession. The claim was that, unlike other sex workers of European origin, she was subject to repeated police checks and victim of racist and sexist insults (“black whore”). […] Though the Court’s reasoning is short and does not use the term “intersectionality,” it contains a clear intersectional approach. The Court says: A la lumière des éléments de preuve fournis en l’espèce, la Cour estime que les décisions rendues en l’espèce par les juridictions internes n’ont pas pris en considération la vulnérabilité spécifique de la requérante, inhérente à sa qualité de femme africaine exerçant la prostitution (paragraph 71, emphasis added).” (Peroni, 2012)
(Translation: In the light of the evidence provided in this case, the Court considers that the decisions rendered in the case by the domestic courts did not take into account the specific vulnerability of the applicant, inherent in her status as an African woman and as a working prostitute.)
Yoshida (2013) and La Barbera, M., & Cruells Lopez, M. (2019) analyze the same case and use it as a validation of an intersectional approach to domestic violence. However, this attempt and others all follow a similar pattern: intersectionality is not seen as a synergistic issue of both race/gender/etc.. Rather, it is seen as a procedural method for considering multiple perspectives in the context of a specific individual’s plight. There is a big difference between the two. In the former, the approach popularized by Crenshaw, there is an implicit acknowledgment that race/ethnicity issues need to be addressed at a fundamental level of the society. whereas, in the European context, they are merely left as issues to be dealt with in “administration.” As mentioned in Theme 1, to go further would be to undermine the very idea of the European nation-state as representative of a natural ethnic nation.
Conclusion
I had hoped to be able to determine the extent to which the intersectional framework has diffused in European scholarship and to be able to provide some evidence for its usage, or non-usage, in a context well suited to its analytic tools–that of Eastern European mothers who are victims of domestic violence while living in Western Europe. I could not find any articles about Eastern European mothers, as victims of domestic violence in Western Europe, being studied through an intersectional lens. Instead, I discovered two trends that are particular to attempts at intersectional research in Europe. In the first case, intersectional research is limited by certain fundamental structures of the European nation-state and, when it is practiced, it is primarily practiced as an exercise in technical/administrative processes that are intended to be ‘more complex’. There does not appear to be a true intersectional research framework in European domestic violence research and discourse. It also makes me wonder if such a framework exists in broader European feminist scholarship and if it considers the question of the ethnic nation-state as a limiting factor in using intersectionality within Europe gender research. In the second case, it appears that much of the literature on domestic violence in Europe is a one-way street that signifies a broader and problematic epistemological violence against the East and the South.
I view this study as preliminary and hope to have the chance to dig more deeply into both themes, as I consider them to each be significant and need further study.
References
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso books.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 38(4), 785-810.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams (1994) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, pp.93–118 in Martha Albertson Fineman and Rixanne Mykitiuk (eds) The Public Nature of Private Violence. New York: Routledge.
Puar, J. K. (2012). “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess”: Becoming-intersectional in assemblage theory. PhiloSOPHIA, 2(1), 49-66.
Smith, B. (1982). Racism and women’s studies. All the women are white, all the Blacks are men, but some of us are brave: Black women’s studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 48-51.
Data Set Bibliography
Alhabib, S., Nur, U., & Jones, R. (2010). Domestic violence against women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. Journal of family violence, 25(4), 369-382.
Leah Bassel, Leah & Khan, Kamran Khan (2021) Migrant women becoming British citizens: care and coloniality, Citizenship Studies, 25:4, 583-601, DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2021.1926075
Bucci, L. (2012). An overview of the legal and cultural issues for migrant Muslim women of the European union: A focus on domestic violence and Italy. Crime, law and social change, 58(1), 75-92.
Bustelo, M. (2009). Spain: Intersectionality faces the strong gender norm. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 530-546.
Campani, G. (2000). Immigrant women in Southern Europe: social exclusion, domestic work and prostitution in Italy. In Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe (pp. 147-169). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Cela, E., Fokkema, T., & Ambrosetti, E. (2013). Variation in transnationalism among Eastern European migrants in Italy: The role of duration of residence and integration. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 13(2), 195-209.
Corrin, C. (2005). Transitional road for traffic: Analyzing trafficking in women from and through Central and Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 57(4), 543-560.
Cvajner, M. (2012). The presentation of self in emigration: Eastern European women in Italy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 642(1), 186-199.
El Abani, S., & Pourmehdi, M. (2017). Perception of domestic violence against women amongst Libyan migrants in Manchester. Journal of Sociology and Social Work, 5(2), 128-138.
Ehrkamp, P. (2010). The limits of multicultural tolerance? Liberal democracy and media portrayals of Muslim migrant women in Germany. Space and Polity, 14(1), 13-32.
Erickson, J. (2017). Intersectionality theory and Bosnian Roma: Understanding violence and displacement. Romani Studies, 27(1), 1-28.
Harvey, J. (2002). Re-Theorizing emancipation: Remembering and rethinking gender equality in Eastern European womanist thought. Anthropology of East Europe Review, 20(1), 27-39.
Fábián, K. (2010, January). Mores and gains: The EU’s influence on domestic violence policies among its new post-communist member states. In Women’s Studies International Forum 33(1), 54-67.
Fábián, K. (2010). Reframing domestic violence: Global networks and local activism in postcommunist Central and Eastern Europe. Beyond NGO-ization, The Development of Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, Chapter 8, p. 221-260. Indiana University Press.
Fábián, K. (2014). Naming rights: Nation, family, and women’s rights in the debates on domestic violence in contemporary Hungary. Hungarian Studies Review, 41(1-2), 153-182.
Hearn, J., Strid, S., Husu, L., & Verloo, M. (2016). Interrogating violence against women and state violence policy: Gendered intersectionalities and the quality of policy in The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Current Sociology, 64(4), 551-567.
Husso, M., Virkki, T., & Hirvonen, H. (2016). A spatial-temporal, intersectional and institutional approach to interpersonal violence. In Interpersonal Violence (pp. 21-34). Routledge.
Kachynska, M. (2018). Gender-based violence issues in Ukraine. Journal of Eastern European Law, No. 55
Kakucs, N., & Sata, R. (2007). Violence against women in European societies: East and West. Movements, Migrants, Marginalisation: Challenges of Societal and Political Participation in Eastern Europe and the Enlarged EU. (2012). Germany: ibidem.
Krizsan, A., & Popa, R. (2009). Stretching EU conditionality: Mechanisms of Europeanization in making domestic violence policies in Central and Eastern Europe. European Integration Online Papers, Issue 13( Vol. 2).
Krizsan, A., & Popa, R. M. (2014). Frames in contestation: Gendering domestic violence policies in five Central and Eastern European countries. Violence against women, 20(7), 758-782.
Krizsán, A., & Popa, R. M. (2018). Contesting gender equality in domestic-violence policy debates: Comparing three countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In Varieties of Opposition to Gender Equality in Europe (pp. 98-116). Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781315625744-6
Kofman, E., & Sales, R. (1998). Migrant women and exclusion in Europe. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 5(3-4), 381-398.
La Barbera, M., & Cruells Lopez, M. (2019). Toward the implementation of intersectionality in the European multilevel legal praxis: BS v. Spain. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 1167-1201.
Lister, R., Williams, F., Anttonen, A., Gerhard, U., & Bussemaker, J. (2007). Gendering citizenship in Western Europe: New challenges for citizenship research in a cross-national context. Policy Press.
Lombardo, E., & Rolandsen Agustín, L. (2012). Framing gender intersections in the European Union: What implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?. Social Politics, 19(4), 482-512.
Lombardo, E., & Rolandsen Agustín, L. (2016). Intersectionality in European Union policy making: The case of gender-based violence. Politics, 36(4), 364-373.
Malomvölgyi, C. (2017). The dream of a common European asylum and migration policy from the perspective of women’s rights in East-Central Europe. The Future of the European Union. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Budapest.
Marcus, I. (2002). Dark numbers: Domestic violence in Eastern Europe. Gender Studies, Volume (01, 2002), 124-140.
Montoya, C., & Rolandsen Agustín, L. (2013). The othering of domestic violence: The EU and cultural framings of violence against women. Social Politics, 20(4), 534-557.
Mostowska, M., & Dębska, K. (2020). An ambiguous hierarchy of inequalities. The political intersectionality of older women’s homelessness in Poland. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(4), 443-456.
Ocenasova, Z., & Smitkova, H. (2017). Mother–child relationship in the context of intimate partner violence. Responding to Domestic Violence: Emerging Challenges for Policy, Practice and Research in Europe, p. 61-76.
Oprea, A. (2009). Intersectionality backlash: A romani feminist’s response. Roma Rights Quarterly, (2), 21-23.
Owczarzak, J. (2009). Introduction: Postcolonial studies and postsocialism in Eastern Europe.Focaal—European Journal of Anthropology 53 (2009): 3–19 doi:10.3167/fcl.2009.530101
Pack, M. (2017). Catholicism/orthodoxy and domestic violence in Eastern Europe. Northeastern Illinois University.
Parvulescu, A. (2014). The traffic in women’s work: East European migration and the making of Europe. University of Chicago Press.
Permanyer, I., & Gomez-Casillas, A. (2020). Is the “Nordic Paradox”an illusion? Measuring intimate partner violence against women in Europe. International Journal of Public Health, 65(7), 1169-1179.
Peroni, Lourdes. (2012) “Racial Discrimination in Strasbourg (Part II): Intersectionality and Context”. Strasbourg Observers. Retrieved from: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/10/17/racial-discrimination-in-strasbourg-part-ii-intersectionality-and-context/
Ramon, S. (2015). Intersectionalities: Intimate partner domestic violence and mental health within the European context. Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research, Polity, and Practice, 4(2), 76-100
Römkens, R., & Lahlah, E. (2011). Particularly Violent? The Construction of Muslim Culture as a Risk Factor for Domestic Violence. In R. K. Thiara, S. A. Condon, & M. Schröttle (Eds.), Violence against Women and Ethnicity: Commonalities and Differences across Europe (pp. 79-96). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-63392-5
Roth, S. (2007). Sisterhood and solidarity? Women’s organizations in the expanded European Union. Social Politics, 14(4), 460-487.
Razack, S. H. (2004). Imperiled Muslim women, dangerous Muslim men and civilized Europeans: Legal and social responses to forced marriages. Feminist Legal Studies, 12(2), 129-174.
Rydzik, A., Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Sedgley, D. (2012). Mobility, migration and hospitality employment: Voices of Central and Eastern European women. Hospitality & Society, 2(2), 137-157.
Sanz-Barbero, B., Corradi, C., Otero-García, L., Ayala, A., & Vives-Cases, C. (2018). The effect of macrosocial policies on violence against women: a multilevel study in 28 European countries. International Journal of Public Health, 63(8), 901-911.
Savickaitė, G. (2021). The “shadow pandemic” of domestic violence: The role of women and gender relations in Lithuania in light of Soviet occupation (Master’s thesis). Utrecht University
Schultz, D. L. (2012). Translating intersectionality theory into practice: A tale of Romani-Gadže feminist alliance. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(1), 37-43.
Spehar, A. (2012). Women’s movements as agents of change: The politics of policymaking and the reform of domestic violence laws in Croatia and Slovenia, 1991–2004. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 33(3), 205-238.
Straus, M., Limanskaya, K., Lysova, A., Antal, I., Saklakova, S., & Shestakov, D. (2007). The relation of criminality and dominance to physical assaults and injury of dating partners by university students in four eastern European nations. In Criminology Club of St. Petersburg University conference on “Family criminology: Domestic violence, criminological legislation.”
Strid, S., Walby, S., & Armstrong, J. (2013). Intersectionality and multiple inequalities: Visibility in British policy on violence against women. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20(4), 558-581.
Weber, B. M. (2009). Freedom from violence, freedom to make the world: Muslim women’s memoirs, gendered violence, and voices for change in Germany. Women in German Yearbook, Vol. 25 (2009), pp. 199-222 (24 pages). University of Nebraska Press.
Weber, B. (2013). Violence and gender in the “New” Europe: Islam in German culture. Springer.
Weber, B. M. (2015). Gender, race, religion, faith? Rethinking intersectionality in German feminisms. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(1), 22-36.
Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 211-228.
Yoshida, K. (2013). Towards intersectionality in the European Court of Human Rights: The case of BS v Spain. Feminist Legal Studies, 21(2), 195-204.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193-209.
- JourMS - 