Reconsidering Intersectionality: Falsity, Negativity, and Radical Racial Pragmatism in Social Work Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present historical juncture, characterized by overuse of the word “intersectionality” and underappreciation for its historical evolution and intention, warrants not only clarification of intersectionality as a concept, but thoroughgoing reconsideration of its contemporary utility and limitations. This is precisely the task undertaken in this article. Upon close scrutiny, extant theories of intersectionality fall upon a continuum ranging from falsity to negativity, the former indicating misrepresentation of identity through reliance on categories, the latter suggesting deconstruction to the point of making translation into practice difficult or impossible. Neither theoretical extreme of this continuum, nor any point in between, advances the intended mission of racial justice without also creating new problems or inflicting collateral social damage. This necessitates a theoretical and practical push beyond intersectionality toward a new project of radical racial pragmatism in social work praxis. Radical racial pragmatism offers a platform from which to begin a campaign for racial justice that avoids the obstacles of falsity and negativity by adhering to a program centering upon provisional racial relationality, epistemological and moral pluralism, and participatory, interracial democracy. The liberatory and transformative aspiration that guides but ultimately eludes intersectional theorization is thus restored by radical racial pragmatism in social work praxis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.181 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".