欧洲联盟-交叉性框架:解读 "平等联盟 "议程中的交叉性

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Review Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1177/14789299241242343
P. Debusscher, Eva Luna Maes
{"title":"欧洲联盟-交叉性框架:解读 \"平等联盟 \"议程中的交叉性","authors":"P. Debusscher, Eva Luna Maes","doi":"10.1177/14789299241242343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the concept of intersectionality has gained significant prominence in the policy discourse of the European Union (EU). However, several scholars have noted a lack of engagement with intersectionality’s core social justice principles and stressed the need to carefully examine how intersectionality is taken up in EU policy. To contribute to this effort, the authors propose a new ‘EU-Intersectionality’ framework to analyse intersectionality in EU policy, combining elements of Critical Frame Analysis and identifying eight core criteria to operationalize intersectionality in EU policy texts and leverage its politically emancipatory potential. The resulting framework sheds light on how intersectionality has fared within EU policy contexts. Specifically, it asks which dimensions of intersectionality are captured, and which elements are left behind. We illustrate the framework by analysing the EU’s ‘Union of Equality’ strategies on anti-racism; gender equality; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer equality; Roma equality and the rights of persons with disabilities. We conclude that the EU-Intersectionality framework allows to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies – while some aspects of the ‘Union of Equality’ agenda resonate with the social justice aims behind the concept, the use of intersectionality remains superficial and largely maintains the status quo. Our findings caution against the co-optation of intersectionality in EU policymaking, while recognising the progressive advancements made within the EU equality policy area.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The European Union-Intersectionality Framework: Unpacking Intersectionality in the ‘Union of Equality’ Agenda\",\"authors\":\"P. Debusscher, Eva Luna Maes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14789299241242343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the concept of intersectionality has gained significant prominence in the policy discourse of the European Union (EU). However, several scholars have noted a lack of engagement with intersectionality’s core social justice principles and stressed the need to carefully examine how intersectionality is taken up in EU policy. To contribute to this effort, the authors propose a new ‘EU-Intersectionality’ framework to analyse intersectionality in EU policy, combining elements of Critical Frame Analysis and identifying eight core criteria to operationalize intersectionality in EU policy texts and leverage its politically emancipatory potential. The resulting framework sheds light on how intersectionality has fared within EU policy contexts. Specifically, it asks which dimensions of intersectionality are captured, and which elements are left behind. We illustrate the framework by analysing the EU’s ‘Union of Equality’ strategies on anti-racism; gender equality; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer equality; Roma equality and the rights of persons with disabilities. We conclude that the EU-Intersectionality framework allows to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies – while some aspects of the ‘Union of Equality’ agenda resonate with the social justice aims behind the concept, the use of intersectionality remains superficial and largely maintains the status quo. Our findings caution against the co-optation of intersectionality in EU policymaking, while recognising the progressive advancements made within the EU equality policy area.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Studies Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241242343\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241242343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,交叉性概念在欧盟(EU)的政策讨论中占据了重要地位。然而,一些学者指出,交叉性的核心社会正义原则缺乏参与,并强调有必要仔细研究欧盟政策是如何采纳交叉性的。为了促进这项工作,作者提出了一个新的 "欧盟-交叉性 "框架来分析欧盟政策中的交叉性,该框架结合了批判框架分析法的元素,并确定了八项核心标准,以在欧盟政策文本中落实交叉性,并发挥其政治解放的潜力。由此产生的框架揭示了交叉性在欧盟政策语境中的表现。具体来说,它询问了交叉性的哪些方面被捕捉到了,哪些因素被遗漏了。我们通过分析欧盟在反种族主义、性别平等、女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、双性人和同性恋者平等、罗姆人平等和残疾人权利方面的 "平等联盟 "战略来说明该框架。我们的结论是,欧盟交叉性框架允许我们剖析欧盟政策中实施交叉性的各种相互冲突的方式--虽然 "平等联盟 "议程的某些方面与这一概念背后的社会正义目标产生了共鸣,但交叉性的使用仍然是肤浅的,在很大程度上维持了现状。我们的研究结果告诫人们不要在欧盟决策中采用交叉性,同时也承认欧盟平等政策领域取得的进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The European Union-Intersectionality Framework: Unpacking Intersectionality in the ‘Union of Equality’ Agenda
In recent years, the concept of intersectionality has gained significant prominence in the policy discourse of the European Union (EU). However, several scholars have noted a lack of engagement with intersectionality’s core social justice principles and stressed the need to carefully examine how intersectionality is taken up in EU policy. To contribute to this effort, the authors propose a new ‘EU-Intersectionality’ framework to analyse intersectionality in EU policy, combining elements of Critical Frame Analysis and identifying eight core criteria to operationalize intersectionality in EU policy texts and leverage its politically emancipatory potential. The resulting framework sheds light on how intersectionality has fared within EU policy contexts. Specifically, it asks which dimensions of intersectionality are captured, and which elements are left behind. We illustrate the framework by analysing the EU’s ‘Union of Equality’ strategies on anti-racism; gender equality; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer equality; Roma equality and the rights of persons with disabilities. We conclude that the EU-Intersectionality framework allows to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies – while some aspects of the ‘Union of Equality’ agenda resonate with the social justice aims behind the concept, the use of intersectionality remains superficial and largely maintains the status quo. Our findings caution against the co-optation of intersectionality in EU policymaking, while recognising the progressive advancements made within the EU equality policy area.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies Review
Political Studies Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.
期刊最新文献
Commissioned Book Review: David Cutts, Andrew Russell and Joshua Townsley, The Liberal Democrats: From Hope to Despair to Where? Commissioned Book Review: Anita R. Gohdes, Repression in the Digital Age–Surveillance, Censorship, and the Dynamics of State Violence Commissioned Book Review: Robin Attfield, The Ethics of the Climate Crisis Commissioned Book Review: Elena Llaudet and Kosuke Imai, Data Analysis for Social Science: A Friendly and Practical Introduction Partisanship, Social Desirability, and Belief in Election Fraud: Evidence from the 2022 US Midterm Elections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1