ABSTRACT
The article analyses the historical roots of intersectional theory and argues that the ambiguities and elisions that mark intersectional analysis are a weakness not a strength. It makes an argument for why Archer’s morphogenetic approach provides a more secure basis for analysing the overlapping oppressions that intersectional theory highlights. It avoids conflating experience with structural and cultural conditions and their elaboration and provides an analytical framework for the development of explanatory accounts of how intersections between gender, race, class and other markers of difference operate in concrete historical circumstances. Equally importantly, critical realism provides rich resources for theorising agency and in particular corporate agency, which is central to understanding the emergence of social movements, including feminism. The article argues that critical realism provides a basis for maintaining the significance of the normative in analysing social life and, in contrast to post-structuralism, provides a secure philosophical basis for the research programme opened up by a consideration of intersectionality.
