Dichotomous understandings of the relationship between feminist theory and practice have since long been problematized and found unproductive by feminist scholars. Nevertheless, when discussing and conceptualizing the field of intersectionality studies, this distinction constantly springs to mind. The need in various contexts to distinguish between the knowing and doing of intersectionality can be seen as a symptom of there being some sort of gap between the theorizings and the more practical applications of intersectionality. A recent call for papers for a special issue of NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research had the title “Intersectionality, yes, but how?”, implicitly pointing to such a gap. So, although feminist theoretical discourses are, arguably, characterized by a consensus that intersectionality should by now be considered an important, even indispensable, analytic sensibility (the “intersectionality, yes” part), the actual doing of intersectionality still seems to be surrounded by an air of confusion or mysticism (the “but how?” part). Adding to this apparent split between knowings and doings of intersectionality is the further notion of undoing intersectionality, i.e. conceptualizations or applications of intersectionality gone wrong. This is undergirded by a recent tendency in the academic literatures on intersectionality of identifying misapplications of intersectionality (see Alexander-Floyd 2012; Bilge 2013; Bowleg 2008; May 2015; Tomlinson 2013, 2018).

In this paper, I explore the interplay between these three modes of engaging with intersectionality: between knowings, doings and undoings. I do this by drawing on examples from my ongoing PhD research on the translation of intersectionality theory into different fields of practice, with a particular focus on the Scandinavian regional context. Why is the distinction between knowing and doing so often made relevant in feminist engagements with intersectionality? What does it mean to “undo” intersectionality? And in a time when intersectionality studies is in the process of being established as a research field of its own (Cho, Crenshaw, McCall 2013), could looking at the dynamics between these modes serve as a useful starting point for an analysis of implicit constructions of the field’s “proper objects”?

Amund Rake Hoffart is a PhD Candidate in Gender Studies at Örebro University. He holds a master’s degree (MPhil) in Philosophy from the University of Oslo and has previously worked as a researcher and lecturer at the Centre for Gender Research, University of Oslo. His research interests include feminist philosophy and critique, philosophy of language and gender research terminology. In his PhD thesis, Hoffart explores feminist conceptualizations of intersectionality as well as the translation of intersectionality theory into different fields of practice. Hoffart has also been involved in various projects on gender research terminology, resulting in a recent publication on the topic in NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research: “Constructing Terminology and Defining Concepts for Gender Studies in Norway and Sweden” (2018, with A. Werner, A. Lundberg and J. Økland).

No co-authors.