CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Discrimination and Equality LawFeminist Theory and Gender StudiesFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

Institutionalizing Intersectionality in Europe: INTRODUCING THE THEME

Open access
Kantola, Johanna, Nousiainen, Kevät·2009·International Feminist Journal of Politics
DOI 10.1080/14616740903237426
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This Special Issue analyses the current transformations in anti-discrimination and equality policies in Europe. As a result of the expansion of European Union (EU) law to combat discrimination, a number of European countries have reformed their equality bodies and law. This has resulted in the creation of ‘single equality bodies’ in, for example, Britain, Norway and some Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). Part of the argumentation for such reform is based on tackling multiple and intersecting discriminations more effectively. Our aim in this Introduction is to provide theoretical and contextual background for the two key research questions addressed in this Special Issue: in what ways is ‘intersectionality’ being institutionalized in equality bodies and law in Europe? What political and legal implications does this have for tackling inequalities? In particular, we discuss these pan-European developments in relation to feminist debates on intersectionality. While current legal and institutional innovations seem to provide some answers to the theoretical and practical issues posed by intersectionality, we seek also to highlight the challenges facing ongoing processes in the EU and its member states. Drawing a distinction between ‘intersectionality’ and ‘multiple discrimination’ we argue that the EU focuses on the latter, hence favouring anti-discrimination policy as opposed to other measures in furthering equality, thereby narrowing down the debate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14616740903237426

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [4]4. Shaw, J. (ed.) Social Law and Policy in an Evolving European Union, pp. 157-70. Oxford & Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
  2. [18]18. Goodwin, M. 2008. 'Multidimensional Exclusion: Viewing Romani Marginalisation through the Nexus of Race and Poverty', in Schiek, D. and Chege, V. (eds) European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law, pp. 137-61. London: Routledge.
  3. [35]35. McColgan, A. 2005. Discrimination Law: Texts, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Hart.
  4. [37]37. Moon, G. 2006. 'Multiple Discrimination -Problems Compounded or Solutions Found?', Justice Journal 3 (2): 86-102.
  5. [39]39. Nousiainen, K. 2008a. 'Unification (or Not) of Equality Bodies and Legislation', European Gender Equality Law Review 1 (2): 24-33.
  6. [40]40. Nousiainen, K. 2008b. 'Utility Based Equality and Disparate Diversities', in Schiek, D. and Chege, V. (eds) European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Per- spectives on Multidimensional Equality Law, pp. 187-214. London: Routledge.
  7. [41]41. Prechal, S. 2008. 'EU Gender Equality Law: A Source of Inspiration for Other EU Legal Fields?', European Gender Equality Law Review 1 (1): 8-14.
  8. [52]52. Weldon, L. S. 2008. 'The Concept of Intersectionality', in Goertz, G. and Mazur, A. (eds) Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology, pp. 193-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kantola, J., & Nousiainen, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Kantola, Johanna
ORCID
Kantola, Johanna
Venue
International Feminist Journal of Politics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-12
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
459-477
ISSN
  • 1461-6742 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4470
DOI
10.1080/14616740903237426
OpenAlex
W1912131371
Cited by
135
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 21
FWCI
153.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Feminist Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Keywords
intersectionality, institutionalization, anti-discrimination policy, equality bodies, multiple discrimination, European Union law, feminist theory, Central and Eastern Europe, Great Britain, Norway

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review