CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence of gender inequality and the pursuit of equality have been and

remain an antithetical phenomena, spanning indigenous and alien cultures and

societies. Discrimination determined by sex – devalues, diminishes and divests a female

of dignified existence. Right from its embryonic inception as a female foetus to its birth

as an unwanted girl child, from a disadvantaged childhood, through a sexually

vulnerable adolescence to fatally abusive marriages, peril is an ineluctable factor that

courses through a woman’s life. This pervasive peril which confronts and conditions

women into subjugation, stems from the parvanimity of patriarchy. Be it in the century

gone by or in the present, the world has never ever belonged to women. The pre-

established male dominion over the other half of the human population, relegating them

into an existence in oblivion underwent a substantial change with first and second wave

feminism’s crusade for socio- political and legal visibility of women. The momentous

journey from the ignominy of invisibility to the legitimacy of existence certainly

enabled women to access arenas which were hitherto ring- fenced by patriarchy. This

historic ingression into the citadels held by men was anticipated to be the harbinger of

equal opportunities for women. But contrary to expectation it held forth the revelation

that access to avenues which had opened up was only a sectional privilege. In other

words the benefits of collective activism and struggle by women against gender

hierarchy were accrued to only a section of women who were more equal than the rest

of their sistern. Racial elitism among other factors emerged as the determiner,

sequestering attained opportunities of empowerment from non-white women. This

 2

ethnocentric partisanship explosed hierarchy within the group “women.” Hence it was

apparent that feminism’s doctrinal avowal of equal rights for women stood thwarted.

The reason for its failure lay in the universally unitary conception of women. This

imparted to it a perspective of essentialism instead of nominalism. Imbued with

essentialism feminism’s impact on women’s amelioration turned out to be exclusive

instead of inclusive. The negation of heterogeneity and assumption of homogeneity of

race, class and sexuality excluded Black women and women of colour from the ambit

of mainstream feminism. The exclusion placed them in a situation subjecting them to

triple discrimination – generally as women oppressed by White and Black patriarchies

and specifically as racially disadvantaged non-white women, inferior to and therefore

dominated by their racially privileged white counterparts. Doubly marginalized by

gender hegemony and intra-feminist apartheid, Black women from their position of

marginality had to make themselves visible and contest the stifling of their voices. Their

endeavour towards self-determination and autonomy, ending subjugation, was initiated

through Black feminism during second wave feminism. It was not just the role of race

as the differential demarcator, doubling their oppression that Black feminists sought to

bring into focus. They also emphasized on other oppressive markers of identity like

gender and class which were intertwined with race. The intertwining of race, gender

and class created an “interlocking system” (Collins 106) of oppression, contouring the

lives of Black women. This nexus of race, gender and class conceptualised as the

“matrix of domination” by Collins, called attention to the inter-relations among these

dominating entities, their interactions and the intersections which emerged in the

process. The intersections along the triple axes of the aforementioned discriminatory

categories interacted with simultaneity, determining the destinies of African –

 3

American women. This exclusivity of focus incorporating heterogeneity in the lives of

Black women, wrought forth the concept of intersectionality in Black feminist theory.

Intersectionality is a conceptualization of the problem that attempts to

capture both the structural and dynamic consequences of the interaction

between two or more axes of subordination. It specifically addresses the

manner in which racism, patriarchy, class oppression and other

discriminatory systems create background inequalities that structure the

relative positions of women, races, ethnicities, classes – and the like.

More over it addresses the way that specific acts and policies create

burdens that flow along these axes constituting the dynamic or active

aspects of disempowerment (Crenshaw 178).

This interpretation of intersectionality posits it as a theory transcending its

foundational African-American context and expanding its applicability across feminist

geographies of difference. Considering the theory’s scope for inclusion and analysis of

multiplicity, multidimensionality and simultaneity of oppression in the lives of women,

this thesis is an attempt to examine intersections encountered by Indian women through

the lived experiences of female characters in the select novels of Anita Rau Badami and

Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. The acknowledged perception of literature as embodying

the complexity of social realities, establishes the rationale for this study. Hence the

trajectories of life of women in fictional landscapes, mirroring the conditions of

existence for women in the society shall offer perspectives on intersectionality in the

Indian social milieu. Indian society as a conglomeration of cultures, communities with

diverse ethnicities, religions, ideologies, castes, sub-castes, languages, customs and

traditions is an apotheosis of pulsating plurality. It is therefore a domain that is

characteristic of tessellation.Tessellation is an arrangement of shapes closely fitted

 4

together, especially of polygons in a repeated pattern without gaps or overlapping. The

multitudinous elements which structure Indian society, manifesting themselves in

manifold aspects are analogous to the primary units – the polygons in a tessellation.

Like the polygons that are closely fitted together in a repeated pattern without gaps or

overlapping, the elements of social structure comprising cultural or normative patterns

are rigidly set in a pre-determined pattern. The rigidity of pattern does not allow spaces

or gaps for non-normative or self-determined design akin to the closely knit pattern of

the polygons. Similar to the non-overlapping feature of the polygons, the units of the

complex social structure function from their defined spaces. But at times occasional

overlapping owing to circumstances create complicit. The interlocking interdependence

and interaction of social components in such a patterned space also generates a

multitude of intersections. It is this tessellated domain, of which women in India are

denizens. Hence as inhabitants of a terrain embodying heterogeneity, they defy the

homogeneity inherent in the stereotyped identity of The Indian Woman or Bharathiya

Nari. Their identity as Indian women encompassing the multifactorial social

determinants, make them amenable as subjects to explore intersectionalities rather than

intersectionality in their lives.

Contextualizing Indian women within the intersectional framework places

emphasis of the study on two interpretative facets – cultural specificity and female

subjectivity and agency. “Culture is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the

practices, discourses and material expressions, which over time, express the

continuities and discontinuities of social meaning of a life held in common” (Puar 53).

Emphasizing on the power and influence which culture wields on an individual’s world

view, Jasbir Jain states that:

 5

Culture is one category that goes on to influence all facets and aspects

of life – behaviour, relationships, identities, responses and

epistemologies. How we ‘know’ and respond to the outside world is

governed in large measures by cultural constructs (Jain 1).

Culture manifests itself in the social order in all its diverseness through religion –

rituals, beliefs and customs, ideologies, regional, communal and ethnic divergences and

social stratification – hierarchies, stereotypes and archetypes. Assimilation of culture

takes place fairly early in girls due to the process of socialization. Cultural

indoctrination, internalization of feminine values, virtues and practices embedded in

scriptures and therefore deemed sacrosanct, the transgression of which would be

decreed blasphemous – clearly indicate the inexorable, indenturing impact culture has

on the lives of women. If culture can be conceived as an edifice, it is one which has

been engineered by masculine consciousness collectively across centuries. Hence

culture in the context of women’s emancipation cannot be a redeeming force – “for the

master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily

to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine

change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s

house as their only source of support” (Lorde 27). The clasp of culture on feminine

consciousness, unobtrusively suppresses and abrogates female subjectivity and agency.

Cultures denial of carte blanche to women in the Indian context by subsuming their

subjectivity and agency, aligns them on a triaxial plane. The three axes being – culture,

which is dominant; negating the other two axes – subjectivity and agency. Such an

alignment of the subject-woman along multiple axes and their resultant intersections

can be analysed through the intersectional lens that rejects “Single – axis” approach

(Crenshaw 139) to gender inequality.

 6

The overarching influence of culture on women’s psyche, can be best explained

by the theory of cultural determinism:

The position that the ideas, meanings, beliefs and values people learn as

members of society determine human nature. People are what they learn,

optimistic version of cultural determinism place no limits on the abilities

of human beings to do or to be whatever they want. Some

anthropologists suggest that there is no universal “right way” of being

human. “Right way” is almost always “our way”; that “our way” in one

society almost never corresponds to “our way” in any other society ….

The optimistic version of this theory postulates that human nature being

infinitely malleable, human beings can choose the ways of life they

prefer. The pessimistic version maintains that people are what they are

conditioned to be; this is something over which they have no control.

Human beings are passive creatures and do whatever their culture tells

them to do (Choudhury 1).

It is cultural determinism of the pessimistic kind which attenuates female subjectivity

and agency. Women have since centuries subjected themselves to the circumscribed

lives prescribed by religious orthodoxy and various cultural practices. Failure to tread

the prescribed path certainly entailed proscription, the disgrace and fear of which

marshalled women across generations to scrupulously adhere to cultural norms. Sati,

purdah, dowry, child marriage are few from among the assemblage of practices which

are inherently gender discriminatory. Social reformation, women’s activism, legislation

intervention have all aimed at ending practices denigrating the dignity of women.
 7

The horrifying custom of sati or public immolation of widows on the funeral

pyres of their husbands was abolished in India as early as 1829. But in 1987 a young

widow RoopKanwar’s enforced sati in Deorala village of Rajasthan, shocked the

nation. “RoopKanwar was independent India’s fortieth sati” (Srivastava 2009). The

public immolation attracted protest and support in incredible measure. While feminist

protestors decried it as murder most foul, its supporters vociferously defended it arguing

“that sati represented one of the most noble elements not only of Rajput culture, but of

Hinduism, and claimed scriptural sanction for this view” (Kumar 178), “India has

atleast 250 sati temples” (Srivastava 2009) where glorification of sati clandestinely

continues till date. Though the Dowry prohibition Act was promulgated in 1961, the

ongoing spate of dowry deaths, with young brides being burnt, murdered and beaten to

death, continues to be India’s shame. Despite the legal barriers enforced by the

prohibition of child marriage Act 2006, young girls continue to be deprived of their

childhood, education and rights because their gender makes them a burden on their

parents and hence they must be disposed off in marriage at the earliest. In the state of

Haryana, “one incident of child marriage” is reported “every 24 hours” (Dheer 7). The

perpetuation of these social evils despite being banned by law points to three things.

Firstly, running through varying matrices of culture across the country is a robust strand

of constant culture – the culture of misogyny. Secondly androcentricity is woven into

the warp and weft of Indian society, resulting in the diminishing of female subjectivity

and agency. Thirdly the perception of women as entities of economic fortune and

misfortune. Women are perceived as conduits to gain pecuniary privileges through

dowry and deification of women who committed sati. On the other hand girls are

deemed as an economic liability to parents. Hence the earlier their disposal as child
 8

brides, lesser would be the burden on the family’s meager resources, which could be

utilized to bring up the male child – an asset to the family.

In the light of culture being a category that impels life altering situations in the

Indian context, it can be seen as substituting the category of race in the intersecting triad

of race, gender and class. Therefore women must contend with their lives enmeshed

within a matrix of culture, gender and class. Equality is a fundamental right in India.

The constitution of India guarantees equality as enshrined in Article 15 – “Prohibition

of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth” (7). This

right to equality has at best remained utopian and scarcely utilitarian. The ground

realities in society specifically in the context of gender reflect the asseveration of

Honore de Balzac that “Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever

turn it into a fact”.

Women in India do not lead a charmed life. They must tread carefully along

life’s path teeming with jeopardizing intersections patterned by patriarchy, sexism,

cultural prejudices, casteism, religious bigotry and personal laws, administrative,

political and legal ineptitude. Feminist movements in India have achieved significant

success in their battle against gender discrimination, in their fight for a fairer society.

Their struggles have enabled women to shatter glass ceilings, in achieving right to work

and pay parity in the organized sector, recourse to legal aid and protection of their rights

in the domestic sphere through the domestic violence Act 2005, establishment of

women’s police stations, legal avenues for safeguards and redressal against sexual

assaults and harassment, etc. Access to education and thereby the opportunity for

empowerment has facilitated women to be trailblazers pursuing the careers of their

choice from grassroots to the galaxies. The journeys of women who have been to able

to empower themselves stand out in singularity for pitching themselves against hostile
 9

patriarchal environment, carving their own niches with fortitude, grit and determination

against all odds. But these inspiring and commendable odysseys of success are

characterized by their exiguousness.

Contemporary Indian society with its cultural paradoxes and avenues for

women’s empowerment is a dynamic dead end. Emancipation in the true sense of the

term continues to be an illusion. While glorifying women achievers, the immanent

patriarchal predilection in society conveys the message that complete emancipation is

not appropriately a woman’s destiny. News of mind numbing atrocities against women

are reported by the newspapers every single day. Obsession for the male child which is

prevalent across cultures, castes and classes in our society imperils the lives of female

foetuses within their mother’s wombs. Despite the pre-conception and pre-Natal

Diagnostic techniques Act, 1994 banning sex determination tests, to put an end to

female foeticide and inhibit the declining sex ratio, sex-selective abortion continue

unabated. The news report on 7th March, 2017 describing the recovery of nineteen

female foetuses near a stream, at Mhaisal village in Maharastra is a case in point

(Deccan Herald 8). If the foetuses are saved from foeticide, some of them end up being

abandoned at birth in public places and trash dumpsters and are mauled by street dogs.

The girl child’s vulnerability continues after birth. Begining with infants who are just a

few months old to women in the twilight of their lives, none are spared the trauma of

sexual assault, rape. A “90 year old Widow raped by her 24-year old neighbour in

Hamirpur district” (Siddiqui TNN) in Kanpur, several other cases of rape, of women in

the same age group in other parts of the country – the heinous rape and murder of a

100-year old woman at Daun Kalan village in Punjab, the barbarity of Nirbhaya gang

rape case in the Indian capital, young girls who are not safe in their own homes, with

their fathers, uncles and male relatives becoming their molesters, sexual harassment in
 10

workplaces, public space and transport rendered unsafe for women by habitual

perpetrators of sexual crimes, the continued practice of the outlawed witch hunting,

where women branded as witches are stripped, paraded naked and sexually violated

before being killed – all stand testimony to the vulnerability of women within the social

system. Not a single day passes by without newspapers reporting dowry deaths, suicides

by young brides and mothers, harassed by their husbands and parents in law for dowry.

Domestic violence against woman has been escalating both in rural and urban India.

Honour killings and acid attacks continue to be rampant.

The relevance of education as a robust recourse. For women seems to fail at

times, owing to the maze of domestic intersections, where women find themselves

trapped. Educated women many a time find themselves utterly helpless when they face

cruelty and bestiality of patriarchy. The horror of such situations are evidenced by real

occurrence which get reported – “Beaten naked for turning on geyser, housewife hangs

herself” (DHNS 2016). The unfortunate home maker Shushrutha was a 31 year – old

post-graduate in education and a mother of two children. Her last message to her brother

read:

My husband beat me again. This time for heating water to take bath. I

told him that I was sorry for using the geyser for few minutes more. But

he did not listen. He dragged me out of the bathroom and thrashed me

in front of mother-in-law, Sister-in-law and even grown up children. My

father-in-law also supported my husband. He said that no one will save

me.

Her seven-year-old son told the police that his father dragged her out of

the bathroom naked and beat her (DHNS 2016).

 11

Incidents such as this bring into focus ground realities which are often sidelined.

It is not just patriarchy but also women’s inhumanity towards women, which in

collusion with patriarchy, disempower women, pushing them towards death. The

willful silence and inaction of the mother-in-law and sister-in-law as mute spectators to

her dehumanizing ordeal is indicative of women’s complicity in the subjugation and

suffering of women woman’s inhumanity to woman is an actuality that is manifest as a

pandemic across cultures, castes and classes and is a treacherous terrain which women

must navigate. Women have won accolades for shattering the proverbial glass ceiling,

for having excelled in fields which were earlier beyond access to them. But success in

the professional sphere also involves breaking the “Sisterhood ceiling” (Lee 872). This

term points out that “women are more likely to fall out with female colleagues, who

they suspect of trying to elbow them aside on the career ladder” (Sanghani 4).

Women’s empowerment and the everests of career scaled by them has also had

negative implications on the patriarchal mindset, which considers its established

hierarchy as being challenged and its absolute power being decimated. Studies have

pointed out that increased financial independence of women which bestows on them

greater autonomy on their lives, is also one of the reasons for the surge in violent crimes

against women. Being bludgeoned to death on the grounds of suspected fidelity, cases

of being stabbed to death for rejecting amorous advances, provoke a thought that –

surely the naked ape could not help carry the baggage of atavistic proclivity to draw

blood, down his journey in time from the age of barbarism to the age of civilization and

sophistication. He has only sharpened it, each drop of blood whetting his diabolic

appetite, which lies concealed behind the veneer of civilization. In the light of the stark

facts on gender inequality, the present scenario can be summed up in Jean – Baptiste

Alphonse Karr’s epigram- “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. Thus
 12

one can argue that comtemporary Indian society with its thrust on women’s

empowerment and emancipation simultaneously countered by the systemic sceptre of

patriarchy and its diverse manifestations, is indeed a dynamic dead end. The challenge

lies in breaking the gridlock of politics of obstructionism to facilitate the dynamism of

emancipation.

Taking cognizance of the fact that as an entity ‘woman’ is a palimpsest, whose

life’s tapestry is woven by an assortment of inter-related, interacting and intersecting

strands, it can be indubitably justified that the theory of intersectionality holds promise

as a multipronged approach to identify, analyse and negotiate intersections. “... the true

merit of theory is in its applications to real life, in this case literature” (Slavitt 2007).

The depiction of the myriad dimensions in the lives of Indian women through

gynocentric narratives set in the Indian societal and cultural sphere offers an

opportunity to apply conceptual theory into practice because like our fictional

counterparts, we too “do not live single – issue lives” (Lorde1). Our lives are ordained

by multiple factors and therefore its orientation is not along a “Single-axis” (Crenshaw

139) but within a “matrix” (May 9) “... wherein lived identities are treated as interlaced

and systems of oppression as enmeshed and mutually reinforcing one form of identity

or inequality is not seen as separable or superordinate” (May 9) . Emerging from such

a contextual necessity, “intersectionality is meant to be applied to real world problems,

to unsettle oppressive logics, to plumb gaps or silences for suppressed meanings and

implications, and to rethink how we approach liberation politics” (May 7, 8).

The concept of intersectionality has its origins in the history of Black feminist

movement. The “Foundational moments of intersectionality as a political and

intellectual movement” (Grzanka 13). In the context of lack of documentation of “a

comprehensive historical study of the development of intersectionality theory”

 13

(Russell, Ronald 6), scholars like Roderick Ferguson opine that “no one can really say

when the theory emerged. Some say the legal scholar Kimberte Crenshaw created it.

Others locate it even further back, with the Combahee River Collective Statement of

1977. Most agree that the category was a way to address the simultaneity of modes of

difference” (91). But the pursuit of the assertion that the theory’s “groundings and

histories”, have been “Crafted within Black Feminist, Critical race, and women of color

politics/theorizing” (May 18) leads us to a chronological understanding of the

conceptual evolution of the theory.

In 1851 Sojourner Truth, an African-American abolitionist and women’s right

activist, drew attention to her positionality when she questioned: “Ain’t I a Woman?”

at the Ohio Women’s Rights convention.

As a Black woman, truth demonstrated that being a black woman is more

than being black and a woman. Black women endure specific forms of

oppression that cannot be reduced to the sum total of those which Blacks

experience and those which women experience. Black women face

unique barriers, have a unique social position. (Williams 201).

Truth’s question and its implications present “critical thinking at the

intersections of struggles for race and gender justice” (May 32). published in 1886

women’s rights crusaders and educator Anna Julia Cooper’s essay “womanhood: A

Vital Element in the Regeneration and Progress of a Race” addressed “intersecting

issues of race, gender, and society – including intra-group racial politics, intra-group

gender politics, and the professed ideas of American society” (Gines 2015). In her

seminal text – “A Voice from the South by a Black Woman of the South”, published in

1892, Cooper highlighted “the racialization of gender and the sexualization of race”
 14

(Guy-Sheftall 12). Interpreting Cooper’s intellection of Black women’s repression,

Kathryn .T. Gines observes:

Cooper takes an intersectional approach to examining the interlocking

systems of race, gender and class oppression – explicitly articulating

how Black women are simultaneously impacted by racism (the race

problem) and sexism (the women question) and yet she is either an

unknown or unacknowledged (by white women, white men, or Black

men) factor in examining or eliminating these systems of oppression

(2015).

During the black feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Mary Ann

Weathers, in her essay “An Agreement for Black Women’s Liberation as a

Revolutionary Force” published in 1969 emphasized the crossroads at which Black

women found themselves in. They had to choose sides and prioritize being part of the

women’s movement lead by white women against gender discrimination over

supporting their men in the civil Rights movement against racism and class oppression.

Weathers’ view on the universality of female oppression anticipates the general

applicability of the theory of intersectionality beyond the African American context,

which was later proposed by Patricia Hill Collins. Weather asserted that:

All women suffer oppression, even white women, particularly poor

white women, and especially Indian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, oriental

and Black American women whose oppression is tripled by any of the

above mentioned. This means that we can begin to talk to other women

with this common factor and start building links with them and there by
 15

build and transform the revolutionary force we are now beginning to

amass (70).

The central concern addressed by intersectionality – multidimensional analysis of

interlocking systems of oppression which operate with simultaneity finds a precursor

in the Combahee River Collective statement of 1977. M.E.Hawkesworth and Maurice

Kogan refer to the Combahee River Collective statement as “what is often seen as the

definitive statement regarding the importance of identity politics, particularly for those

people whose identity is marked by multiple interlocking oppressions” (577). It was in

the Combahee River collective that Barbara Smith and her colleagues Demita Frazier

and Beverly Smith introduced the term “identity politics” interpreting it as a political

analysis for challenging the interlocking oppressions of race, gender, class and

sexuality. It is widely acknowledge among intersectional scholars that the interpretation

of the then neologism “identity politics” is referred to as intersectionality now. Barbara

Smith’s essay “Racism and Women’s studies” published in 1980 is “considered a

watershed moment for intersectionality in women’s studies” (Grzanka 32). Focusing

on race Smith states that “racism and racist behaviour is our white patriarchal legacy”

(48). Hence she terms racism as a feminist issue, emphasizing the need for feminism to

shun discrimination based on race. She argues that exclusion within the category

women would defeat feminism’s vision of emancipation by establishing intra-

categorical hierarchy.

The reason racism is a feminist issue is easily explained by the inherent

definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice that

struggles to free all women: women of color, working-class women,

poor women, disabled women, lesbrains, old women, as well as white,

economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this

 16

vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-

aggrandizement (48).

Such an inclusive perspective focusing on race, class, sexuality bespeaks, approaching

feminist concerns trough an intersectional lens.

In her book Women, Race and Class published in 1981, Black feminist author

Angela Davis had focused on intersection of the three categories – race, class and

gender. Tracing the emergence of an intersectional perspective during the Black

feminist movement, Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn point to existing documentation,

starting that it:

Came to the forefront of sociological circles in the late 1960s and early

1970s in conjunction with the multiracial feminist movement. It came

as part of a critique of radical feminism that had developed in the late

1960s known as the “re-visionist feminist theory” (6).

Through the re-visionist feminist theory bell hooks contested the perception of ‘gender’

as the primary determinant of a woman’s destiny, in her work feminist theory: from

margin to center published in 1984. Hookes is also credited with analyzing oppression

by focusing on the intersecting nature of social categories – race and gender, at a time

when the term intersectionality had not been coined.

It is clear that beginning from Sojourner Truth in 1851 to bell hooks in 1984,

Black feminists through their work accentuated their distinctive positionality and its

resultant intersecting social identities, emphasizing on the need to take cognizance of

the same. The denial of recognition by white feminist of their unique situation, infused

with heterogeneity was a problem Black feminist intellectuals worked towards

 17

addressing. This specific problem was termed the “ampersand problem” by Elizabeth

V.Spelman in 1988. Spelman contends that “attempts to focus on gender in isolation

from other aspects of identity such as race and class can work to obscure the effect race,

class, and gender have on each other” (114). Referring to the analytic approach towards

oppression of the racialized subject, she asserts that:

An additive analysis treats the oppressions of a Black woman in a

society that is racist as well as sexist as if it were a further burden when,

in fact, it is a different burden … to ignore the difference is to deny the

particular reality of the Black woman’s experience (Spelman 123).

Thus Spelman’s reservations against an additive approach to oppression, which she

posits through the “ampersand problem”, “is a failure to appreciate a distinctive form

of oppression that is more than a sum of its parts” (Williams). Thus Spelman anticipates

“non additivity” which is a core tenet in intersectional investigation.

It was in 1989 that the concept which had articulated the distinct and discernible

traits of Black women’s oppression since 1970s and 1980s, albeit without a name,

emerged on the theoretical horizon, termed as “intersectionality”. Commenting on the

genealogical trajectory of intersectionality, Vivian M.May opines that the:

notion that intersectionality is a recent development in feminist thought

relies upon a truncated theoretical geneology. While the late 20th

Century certainly marks the emergence in the critical lexicon of the term

“intersectionality”, by Kimberle Crenshaw, and while the 1970s and

1980s were shaped by wide-ranging discussions of the interplay among

systems of gender, class and sexuality, it is inaccurate to suggest that the

last forty years constitute the only historical moment in which the
 18

examination of intersections among systems, identities, and politics has

been pivotal in the history of feminist thought in general and Black

feminist thought in particular (10).

“As the story goes, it was in critical legal studies that the term “intersectionality” first

originated in print” (Grzanka 1), when it was coined by Black feminist legal scholar

Kimberte Williams Crenshaw. With law as the site of emergence of the term, Patrick

R. Grzanka points out juridical segments which served as a precedent to the formulation

of intersectionality:

Critical Race Theory (CRT), the prominent segment of critical legal

studies that explores the persistence of race and racism in the law and

society, preceded the formal elaboration of intersectionality and in many

ways served as the harbinger of intersectionality as an intellectual and

activist project (1).

Critical Race Theory’s emphasis on race sidelining the effects of other

components of identity like gender and class, prompted Crenshaw to highlight the fact

that it was not just race but also the gender and class which intersected and interacted

in contextual configurations, impacting the lives of Black women. In her essay

“Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A black feminist critique of Anti-

discrimination Doctrine, feminist theory and Antiracist politics”, Crenshaw bases her

argument on the premise that race and gender cannot be treated “as mutually exclusive

categories of experience and analysis” (139). To explain and analyse the consequences

of approaching race and gender “as mutually exclusive” groups (139), Crenshaw

accords centrality to Black women’s experience. Asserting “the multidimensionality of

 19

Black women’s experience” (139) she reveals the inadequacies of “Single-axis” (139)

categorical analysis:

“Single axis” is the term used in intersectional research to denote those

perspectives, methods, and modes of analysis that privilege one

dimension of inequality (eg. race or gender or class) and which derive

ideas, knowledge, and policy from that single dimension such that all

members of a racial, gender or class group are thought to have

essentially the same experiences of race, gender or class. Single-axis

paradigms generally position racism and sexism as parallel or

analogous, as opposed to intersecting or co-constitutive, phenomena

(Grzanka 25).

Within the frameworks of anti-racist policy and feminist theory, Crenshaw details how

single-axis modes of analysis, marginalize and erase “Black women in the

conceptualization, identification and remediation of race and sex discrimination by

limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privileged members of the group”

(140).

Citing instances of legal cases in the United States, where black women were

denied justice owing to the single axis stance adopted by anti-discrimination laws,

Crenshaw points to the failure of the judicial machinery to “acknowledge that Black

women encounter combined race and sex discrimination…” (143). She attributes this

lacunae in race and gender jurisprudence, to the definition and limitation of the

“boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine” (143) to “white women’s and

Black men’s experiences” (139). This marginalization Crenshaw asserts resulted in the

exclusion of Black women:

 20

… in feminist theory and anti-racist policy discourse because both are

predicated on a discrete set of experiences that often does not accurately

reflect the interaction of race and gender. These problems of exclusion

cannot be solved simply by including Black women within an already

established analytical structure. Because the intersectional experience is

greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not

take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the

particular manner in which Black women are subordinated (140).

In order to highlight the positionality of “multiply-disadvantaged” (145) Black women,

in anti-discrimination doctrine of the United States of America, Crenshaw postulates

the root metaphor of intersectionality:

Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in

all four directions. Discrimination like traffic through an intersection,

may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident

happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars travelling from any

number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them.Similarly, if a

Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury

could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination (149).

Through her analogy, supporting her argument on the failure of “single-axis” analysis

by anti-discrimination laws on race and gender, Crenshaw establishes that the theory of

intersectionality in praxis, enhances the recognition of complexities that result from the

intersection of race, class and gender in the lives of Black women.

In her essay “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity politics, and Violence

Against Women of color” published in 1997, Crenshaw explores “the various ways in
 21

which race and gender intersect in shaping structural , political and representational

aspects of violence against women of color”(1224). She defines each of these aspects

through an intersectional lens. Crenshaw describes “structural intersectionality” vis-a-

vis woman of color as “the ways in which the location of color at the intersection of

race and gender makes our actual experience of domestic violence, rape, and remedial

reform qualitatively different that of white women” (1245). Political intersectionality

analyses “how both feminist and anti-racist politics have, paradoxically, often helped

to marginalize the issue of violence against women of color “(Crenshaw 1245) while

representational intersectionality refers to the “cultural construction of women of color”

(Crenshaw 1245). Crenshaw suggests that focusing on intersectionalities of dimensions

that construct the societal edifice would help in locating intersectional identities of

women, shaped by multiple factors other than race and gender. She infers that this

would prevent the erasure of “intra-group differences” (1242) by identity politics,

which otherwise resulted in marginalization and denial of justice to women of color,

who were victims of violence specifically “battering and rape” (1243).

The potential for transcendence of intersectionality’s particularity as a theory

confining itself to the African-American context to one of universal applicability was

advocated by Patricia Hill Collins. Her book Black Feminist Thought – Knowledge,

Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment published in 1990, “has become

synonymous with the term intersectionality” (Grzanka 48). As a sociologist Collins

places an oppressive society in perspective and states that the social legacy of

subordination and “culture of resistance” inherited by Black woman is

“gained at the intersection of race, gender and class oppression” (10). She asserts that

“Black feminist thought encompasses theoretical interpretations of Black women’s

reality, by those who live it” (22). In their lives lead at the intersection of race, gender,
 22

African – American women are bound to experience diversity in inequality when “other

factors such as ethnicity, region of the country, urbanization and age combine to

produce a web of experience” (24). Collins highlights their lived experiences of inter

and intra – racial, and gender exclusions from “White physical space’ and “male space”

(55) within Black communities, which created a “matrix of domination”, placing them

within it such a situation favours “the foundations of a complex social hierarchy to

become grounded in the interwoven concepts of either/or dichotomous thinking,

oppositional difference and objectification” (Collins 70). “Opposition dichotomies” are

fraught with inequalities. Collins emphasizes that treating Black women as “the

objectified other in a range of such dichotomies demonstrates the power that

dichotomous either/or thinking, oppositional difference and objectification wield in

maintaining interlocking systems of oppression” (70). To resist oppression through

activism Collins states that “Black women’s standpoint rejects either/or dichotomous

thinking… by espousing a both / and orientation” (28, 29). “The both/ and conceptual

orientation” (29) embodies “Black women’s experiences living as both African -

Americans and women and in many cases, in poverty” (Collins 29). This both/and logic

in opposition to the either/ or perception is the cardinal tenet of intersectionality thus

Collins underscores intersectionality as a critical social theory because of its

“commitment to justice, both for U.S Black woman as a collectivity, and for that of

other similarly oppressed groups” across the world (9). This conveys that any group or

community’s nexus of oppression can be analysed by placing them within their specific

matrix of domination.

Though the inception of intersectional logic hinged on the intersection between

gender and race, other dimensions of difference like class and sexuality intersecting

with the categories of gender and race also become a part of the theoretical analysis
 23

over the years. The publication of a feminist anthology This Bridge Called My Back:

Writings by Radical Women of Color in 1981, edited by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria

Anzaldua represented the “experience of woman of color and accentuated the points of

intersectionality within their multiple identities’’ (22). Intersectionality today

encompasses within its theoretical terrain a plethora of categories like age, ethnicity,

ability, religion, nationality, caste, occupation, education, skin color, etc constituting an

individual’s identity/identities.

Patrick.R.Grzanka contends that the term interesectionality.

....suggests at least two denotations. First “intersectional” and

“intersectionality” signify a kind of theory, method or mode of analysis

that incorporates the tenets of the field broadly construed…, and second,

“intersectionality”refers to actual intersecting oppressions as they

manifest in the empirical universe…(18).

This thesis shall make use of the term in its dual denotations. It shall employ

intersectionality as its theoretical frame work to locate and analyse the labyrinth of

intersections in the lives of Indian women depicted through characters in the fictional

landscape of the select novels chose for study. The pursuit of intersectional research

also entails choosing from the forms of intersectionality. Dill and Kohlman strike a

distinction between two forms of intersectional research, “strong intersectionality

which refers to analyses of systems of inequality and indentities in relationship to one

another, and weak intersectionality, which any attention to critical analyses or the

interrogation of power structures” (158). Since the objective of the study is to examine

inter-related inter-dependent and interacting intersections constituted by categories of

 24

identity, inducing inequality in all its multiplicity, the logical choice for an analytical

tool shall be strong intersectionality.

Elucidating the theory’s approach to locate multiple oppression May states that

“it approaches lived identities as interlaced and systems of oppression as enmeshed and

mutually reinforcing” (3), emphasizing that one dimension of identity or a pattern of

inequality is not considered or a pattern of inequality is not considered as “separate or

as superordinate” (3). This constitutes the “matrix” perspective which contests “single-

axis framework” (Crenshaw139) as inadequate for examining “subjective, relational

power and privilege, simultaneity…” (May 5) of oppression and a host of undercurrents

of subordination. Crenshaw conveys the ineptitude of “single axis” categorical analogy

of a basement with only a trap door:

Imagine a basement which contains all people who are disadvantaged

on the basis of race, sex, class, sexual preference, age, and/or physical

ability. These people are stacked feet standing on shoulders- with those

on the bottom being disadvantaged by the full array of factors, upto the

very top, where the heads of all those disadvantaged by a singular factor

brush up against the ceiling Their ceiling is actually the floor above

which only those who are not disadvantaged in any way reside. In efforts

to correct some aspects of domination, those above the ceiling admit

from the basement only those who can say that “but for” the ceiling, they

too would be in the upper room. A hatch is developed through which

those placed immediately below can crawl. Yet this hatch is generally

available only to those who due to the singularity of their burden and

their otherwise privileged position relative to those below are in the

position to crawl through. Those who are multiply- burdened are

 25

generally left below unless they can somehow pull themselves into the

groups that are permitted to squeeze through the hatch (152).

Thus the basement metaphor communicates that single axis interpretation is “ruinous

to social change organizing and activism” (Spade 1035). “Focusing on the interplay of

identities” (May 3) and the multiple configurations of power, an intersectional

approach rejects single axis gender primary perspectives, while ratifying a

multidimensional orientation.

A Single axis frame work hinges on “either /or evaluation “(May 65) while an

intersectional view corresponds to “both/and” (May 65) basis of logic. Assaying the

single and multidimensional frame works Vivian M.May opines:

In a nutshell, the either/or approach while straight forward, can suppress

contradictions and alternative possibilities by adhering to a dichotomous

view , it may also create conflict or enforce divisions where they may,

in fact, be none. The both/and lens, though a….. more difficult place to

begin (and end), offers ways to evaluate a situation from multiple stand

points , creates room to identify shared logics while accounting for

differences and can be used to approach tensions or contradictions as

having logics and implications of their own, rather than treating them

primarily as problems to smooth over(65).

The gender primary orientation is also contested by intersectionality.

Considering a bottom-up approach, the acknowledgement of an entity as primary,

points to a logical acceptance of the presence of entities in secondary and tertiary

positions. This then would create a pecking order where gender as the common

denominator would provide the base for ascension of “hierarchies of identity and
 26

oppression” (May 133). Alternately if a gender primary outlook is considered as a top

to bottom approach, the primacy of gender as Vivian May argues “can reinforce

whiteness as gender’s normative centre” (174). It would also reinforce marginalization,

placing women at the bottom of the social order in a position of “double jeopardy”

(Beal) or “multiple jeopardy” (King 42). In addition to the both/ and framework, May

asserts that “intersectionality’s same/different thesis must be retained, whether in

delineating differences and distinctions, or in identifying connections and tracing

parallels” (172).

Identity trough an intersectional prism is a nonadditive category, where it “is not a

cumulative or arithmetical formula (race + gender + class + sexuality + disability +

citizenship status…)” (Bowleg, Hancock 315). Instead as May states, intersectionality,

“focuses on simultaneity, attends to within-group differences and rejects single-axis

categories that falsely universalize the experiences or needs of a select few as

representative of all group members” (22). Beginning from Crenshaw and Collins,

scholars in the field of intersectionality studies like Lisa bowleg, Ange-Marie Hancock,

Guidroz and Berger among others have insisted that an additive idea of identity

abrogates the matrix prescription, which is at the core of examining cross-cutting

trajectories of multiple dimensions of gender ,race, class ,power, privilege and

persecution, summatively , matrix of domination intertwined identities/positionalities,

or coalitional politics constitute the key concepts of intersectionality.

The multifaceted merit of intersectionality as a theory gets explicated in its being

termed “an epistemological practice”, employed to investigate dominant “knowledge

practices”, and reveal the lacunae therein, as “an ontological project” probing

oppression, discrimination , exclusion by hegemonic powers , in all their multiplicity,

simultaneity and complexity , as a “coalitional political orientation” aimed at collective

 27

efforts in eliminating disparities and as a “resistant imaginary” exploring

unconventional alternatives to contest the“dominant social imagination”(May 34).

The applicability of the aforementioned facets of the theory requires a

methodological approach, mirroring “the complexity of social life” (McCall 1772). In

her endeavour to study “multiple, intersecting, and complex social relations” (McCall

1772), Leslie McCall delineates three methodological approaches–“anticategorical

complexity, intercategorical complexity and intracategorical complexity” (1773). She

states that the approaches are premised on “their stance toward categories” (1773).

Accordingly “anticategorical complexity”, “is based on a methodology that

deconstructs analytical categories” (McCall 1773). It stresses on “the deconstruction of

master categories” as a way forward in the “deconstruction of inequality” (McCall

1777). McCall maintains that “since symbolic violence and material inequalities are

rooted in relationships that are defined by race,class, sexuality, and gender, the project

of deconstructing the normative assumptions of these categories contributes to the

possibility of positive social change”(1771). The second approach identified as

“intercategorical” or “categorical complexity” begins with the recognition of existence

of “relationships of inequality among already constituted social groups” (McCall 1786).

The third approach “intracategorical complexity”, begins with a unified “intersectional

core – a single social group, event, or concept – and works its way outward to

analytically unravel one by one the influences of gender, race, class, and so on…”

(McCall 1787). The current study shall make use of the intercategorical and

intrarcategorical approach as its analytic tool to examine the dynamics among social

groups in the fictional world of the novels chosen for analysis.

 28

Intersectionality strikes a similitude with its theoretical counterparts in attracting its

share of criticism.Devon Carbado discusses and responds to six “standard criticisms

of the theory” (812):

1. Intersectionality is only or largely about Black women, or only

about race and gender.

2. Intersectionality is an indentitarian framework

3. Intersectionality is a static theory that does not capture the dynamic

and contigent process of identity formation.

4. Intersectionality is overly invested in subjects.

5. Intersectionality has travelled as far as it can go, or there is nothing

more the theory can teach us.

6. Intersectionality should be replaced by or at least applied in

conjunction with (fill in the blank) (812).

The theory’s “major implications for a global intersectional stratification

analysis”(Yuval Davis 162), its key conceptual framework of matrix orientation for

analysing oppression, the interplay of diverse range of dimensions of difference, calls

into attention, its interdisciplinarity,its justice orientation in attempting to eliminate

inequalities in policy formulations, are ample justifications against criticisms directed

towards intersectionality.

The relevance and efficacy of intersectional framework to unravel and examine

patterns of oppression created by enmeshed multiple identities, intersecting across

multiple categories of caste, class and gender has been acknowledged, in the context of

according centrality to the subjectivity of women, in the Indian societal set up. Due
 29

recognition has been accorded to the theory’s utility in highlighting gender imperialism

and consequent bias, engendering women’s subjection in India. Uma Naryan opines

that the theory is pertinent to transnational feminist politics because it presents

strategies for deliberating “within and across communities” to attend to the needs of a

“range of differently situated women” (153). Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s emphasis on

locating case specific diverse matrices of domination which render women powerless,

contextualizes the present study’s objective. Mohanty avers:

What binds women together is a sociological notion of the “sameness”

of their oppression….The focus is not on uncovering the material and

ideological specificities that constitute a particular group of women as

“powerless” in a particular context. It is rather on finding a variety of

cases of “powerless” groups of women to prove the general point that

women as a group are powerless (337, 338).

While the core tenets of intersectionality would suffice to focus on the complexities of

intersections which impale Indian women within the particularity of their situational

contexts, the absence of a root metaphor to particularize the Indian context is a gap

which the present study shall attempt to fill. Like Crenshaw’s analogy of a traffic

intersection which has become synonymous with intersectionality in the African –

American context, the Indian intersectional terrain with greater complexity, can be

analogized through the Indian banyan tree. The aggregation of roots at the base of the

banyan tree presents a robust maze of criss-crossing, intertwining, imbricating,

enmeshed wooden structural network. This is akin to the structural and systemic

inequalities and structural barriers that women find, in life’s path laid out before them.
 30

The Indian banyan tree – Ficus Benghalensis is the national tree of India.

Imbued with the character of India, which translates into complex diversities and

cultural paradoxes persisting for years, yet continuing to be a composite

conglomeration of culture, caste and class, the banyan tree is an apt root metaphor to

convey the multifariousness of intersections for women in India. The banyan tree has

specialized roots called aerial prop roots. These are aerial roots that arise from its

branches and descend to take root in the soil to become new trunks (Webster’s).

Functionally they provide additional support to the branches of the tree. This makes it

possible for the banyan tree branches to extend horizontally to great distances (Bareja)

forming an incredibly expansive canopy, resembling a grove of trees. This unique trait

of the tree has earned it epithets like “trees that walk” and “many footed ones”

(Govindan 2000). Its presence in the mythological and cultural annals of India, has

earned it veneration for its “longevity, serenity, wisdom and resilience” (Govindan

2000). The banyan tree’s status as the national tree and its longevity spanning centuries

can be perceived to be symbolic of patriarchy in India. The patriarchal social order,

ubiquitous across the country has a nationalized character. It has had and continues to

have an abiding presence down the ages till date.The current study is based not in

perceiving patriarchy as gender hegemony perpetrated by men alone. But in accepting

the reality that “patriarchy has no gender” (Hooks 1) and in acknowledging the fact that

women too are equally responsible for proliferation of patriarchal values across

generations

The topology of the extensive aerial prop root system moving down to anchor itself

firmly in the soil , enabling it to be a sturdy system of support to the tree’s massive

structure is indicative of a tripartite strategy through which patriarchy operates . The

first step is to manifest itself in all its multitudinous forms, spawning intersections. This
 31

is akin to the cascade of aerial prop roots in all its multiplicity to manifest its

labyrinthine network on the soil. Having entrenched itself in the social terrain through

its manifestations, patriarchy’s second strategy is to sustain itself, drawing strength

from its immense and intricate matrices of domination and oppression. Similarity can

be perceived between this action of strengthening base and the formidable support and

strength that the banyan tree receives from its prop root system, once they firmly sink

in to the soil creating a web of tangled and gnarled roots. The third part of patriarchal

manoeuvring lies in expanding its suzerainty. Utilising its embedded matrices of

domination and oppression it perpetuates and reinforces itself, penetrating,

territorializing and cutting a swathe through women’s lives. This aspect of patriarchal

aggrandizement is analogous to the incredibly colossal and seemingly unending

expansion of the banyan tree’s canopy across large areas of land, supported by a

multitude of its tenacious roots. The interwoven maze of multiplicity of roots also

signify multiple vectors of power whose interplay would result in increasing

intersections while reinforcing inequality. The veneration accorded to the Indian

banyan tree can be seen as an analogy to the deep seated attitudinal loyalty that we as a

nation harbour towards patriarchy. It is this attitudinal stasis which makes it conducive

for the creation, propagation and perpetuation of intersections induced by partiarchy

predominantly and its allied discriminatory conceptions like sexism, misogyny and

social stratification. Hence it is intersectionalities rather than intersectionality that

women in India must contend with, being placed within the network of culture, caste,

class and gender.

Lived experiences are central to intersectional analysis. May states that “as part of

intersectionality’s both/and multilevel and analytical approach, earliest intersectionality

writings called for lived experience to be examined in the context structural oppression
 32

and vice versa” (114). Literary works are windows to the empirical world. Narratives

of lives lead in “a world that is unevenly advantaged” (Zack 9) is woven into the

fictional canvases of Anita Rau Badami and Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. To focus on

the lived experiences of women inhabiting and conditioned by the Indian socio-cultural

milieu, this thesis shall have as its frames of reference – eight novels, four each by the

two novelists chosen for study. The novels – Tamarind Mem, The Hero’s walk, Can

you Hear the Nightbird Call? And Tell It to the Trees by Indian-Canadian author Anitha

Rau Badami and The Mistress of Spices, Sister of My heart, The Vine of Desire and The

Palace of Illusions by Indian American author Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. Though the

authors chosen for study are novelists of the Indian Diaspora, this thesis shall not touch

upon the domain of Diaspora or Diasporic fictional renditions. Instead it shall

concentrate on the liberal feminist perspective of the authors in their portrayal of Indian

women. The present study shall attempt to delineate in the select gynocentric narratives,

lives of women interrupted, intercepted and intimidated by intersections. “By attending

to lived experience, and to how identities are shaped by social structures, an

intersectional approach examines how politics play out on both structural and personal

level” (Hancock). Hence the thesis is an attempt to analyse the politics of

intersectionality as it gets played out in the fictional terrain created by authors Anita

Rau Badami and Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. The thesis is organised into four chapters,

followed by a conclusion. The organising principle of the chapters is based on the

multifaceted attribute of intersectionality, as a feminist theory. Beginning from the first

chapter, which shall outline the introduction to the theoretical framework employed in

the thesis, the second, third and fourth chapters shall in progression analyse the novels

within the framework of the theory of intersectionality, accentuating it as an

“epistemological practice”, “an ontological project” and as a kind of “resistant

 33

imaginary” (May 34) . The conclusion shall focus on constructivism – a summative

presentation of how the analysed fictional narratives could offer insights on negotiating

intersections in every day life.

The argument in the chapters shall be in logical progression of examining the facet

of the theory – beginning from its epistemological standpoint, to its ontological

application, progressing towards analyzing intersectionality’s heuristic approach as a

resistant/contestatory practice, against dominant social perceptions. Such a structural

organization of the chapters shall require discussion of all the novels in all the chapters

under different circumstantial context .Since the texts chosen for analysis incorporate

narratives subscribing to all stages of argument in the thesis, all the eight texts shall be

referred to in all the chapters. The chapters in the study shall be thus organized:

Chapter 1

Introduction

The first chapter shall explicate on the contextual relevance of analyzing the

situation of women within the theoretical framework of intersectionality, vis-a-vis the

Indian socio-cultural milieu. Illustrating the immense influence that culture wields in

the lives of Indian women, the chapter substitutes race with culture as a category for

analysis, instituting culture, gender and class as the principal intersecting categories

that circumscribe the lives of women in Indian society. It shall include a brief review

of literature highlighting the historic origins of the theory. Chronicling the inception of

the concept from Black feminist intellectuals to the coining of the term

“intersectionality” by KimberleWilliams Crenshaw, the chapter attempts to plot the

diverse origins of the foundational logic of intersectionality. Highlighting the root

metaphor and analogies synonymous with the theory, the introductory chapter shall try
 34

to fill in the gap in the theory, by positing the Indian banyan tree as the root metaphor

for intersectionality in the Indian context. Key concepts of the theory, methodological

approach along with criticisms against the theory shall be explained in the chapter

organisation of the thesis into chapters and an overview of the individual chapters shall

also be part of the introduction.

Chapter 2

Illumining Intersectional Interstices

The centrality of space and place in identifying and locating fields of intersection

and intersectional interstices at the micro, meso and macro levels of social reality shall

be discussed in this chapter in order to contextualize oppressions through lived

experiences at the intersections . Intersectionality as an “epistemological practice” shall

be explored, interrogating conventional tralatitious knowledge practices that hinder

rather than help women. Attempts shall be made to focus on patriarchal institutions of

domination and discrimination, cultural practices and attitudinal perspectives imbued

by social indoctrination. The objective of such an attempt is to unearth generally

inconspicuous intersections, for unravelling the deep chasms in gender inequality and

the muffled tones of silence that prevail therein. The texts shall be analysed to see the

extent to which they foster and align along intersectionality’s anti-subordination

bearings.

Chapter 3

Iniquity of Intersections

The third chapter shall investigate the theory’s facet as an “ontological project”.

The core concepts of intersectionality namely, matrix of oppressions, intertwined

 35

identities/positionalities and coalition politics shall be examined in the context of lived

experiences documented in the narratives of the novels.The theory’s analytical tools

such as both/and orientation to encompass the multidimensionality and simultaneity of

intersectional oppressions, its nonadditive approach to identity acknowledging

transecting relationships,emerging from multiple dimensions of categories of analysis,

its rejection of gender primary orientation to eliminate hierarchies of hegemony while

advocating the retention of its same different thesis to trace connections and

contradictions in women’s situation and experiences, shall be employed to dissect the

functioning of intersections and their impact on inhabitants of intersectional spaces.

Such an analysis shall bring the iniquity of intersections operating in situations of

heterogeneity, convergence of oppressive social system and enmeshment within the

matrices of domination.The chapter shall also call into attention the operational

dynamics of simultaneous privilege and subjugation.

Chapter 4

Negotiating Intersectional Infrangibility

Considering the infrangibility or inviolability of intersections as a reality, the

fourth chapter shall focus on the functionality of the theory as a “resistant imaginary”.

The chapter shall agree that a contestatory approach can only be context specific and is

not an amenable solution under all circumstances. This line of argument shall be

instantiated by situational responses of women detailed in the texts being referred to.

The references shall bear testimony to the fact that positionality of subjects determine

their contestatory or conciliatory approach towards the intersectional gridlock. Given

the ubiquity of patriarchal hegemony in the Indian socio-cultural set up, the chapter

shall accentuate the necessity of treading the middle path neither confronting nor
 36

conflating with the demoralizing morass of intersections. The proposed middle path

shall be the course of negotiation. This course of action as evidenced from textual

references and advocated by intersectionality’s “resistant imaginary”, involves

adopting non-normative perception of situations or thinking against dominant social

suppositions.

Conclusion

The conclusion shall endeavour to underscore an immanent aspect of

constructivism that runs through the fictional world created by Anita Rau Badami and

Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni.The constructivist perspective of the authors shall be

assessed by identifying emulative strategies for indefatigability, fortitude, and

resilience in negotiating intersectional quicksand. Detailing the theory’s scope for

interdisciplinarity the conclusion shall point towards areas in which further research

can be carried out. On a concluding note, it shall present the knowledge of the theory

of intersectionality as a heuristic in feminist thought guiding women in empowering

themselves to combat and negotiate the opprobrious oppression arising from the

intersections of culture, caste, class and gender. This would enable women to imbibe

an indomitable outlook towards a life of disparities, as a strategy for survival in a world

bedeviled by gender discrimination.

 37

WORKS CITED

Balzac, Honore de. “Quotes.” Goodreads.

www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/228089.Honor_de_Balzac. Accessed 15

Aug. 2014.

Bareja, Ben. G. “Taproot and Fibrous Root Systems, Specialized Roots.” Cropsview,

Apr. 2011, www.cropsreview.com/fibrous-root.html.

Bowleg, Lisa. “When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The

Methodological Challenges of Qualitative Intersectionality Research.” Sex

Roles, vol. 59, no. 5, 2008, pp. 312-325.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the

Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000.

Crenshaw, Kimberle Williams. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A

Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and

Antiracist Politics.” U of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 1989, no.1, 1989, pp.139-

167.

---. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity

Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”.Stanford Law Review, vol.

43, no.1241, July1991, pp. 1241-1299.

---. “Background paper for the expert meeting on the gender related aspects of race

discrimination.” Revista Estudos Feministas, vol. 10, no. 1, 2002, pp. 171-188.

dx.doi.org/10.1590/50140-026X20020000100011.

Choudhury, Iftekharuddin. “Culture”. www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/culture.html.

Accessed 25 Mar.2017.
 38

Carbado, Devon W. “Colorblind Intersectionality”. Signs: Journal of Women in

Culture and Society, vol. 38, no.4, summer 2013, pp. 811-845.

Dheer, Gautam. “Haryana Flooded with Child Marriage Complaints”. Deccan Herald,

6 Mar. 2017, p. 7.

DH News Service. “19 Female Foetuses Recovered near Stream”. Deccan Herald, 7

Mar.2017, p. 8

---. “Beaten Naked for Turning on Geyser, Housewife Hangs Herself”. Deccan

Herald, 13 Sep. 2016, 5.30p.m.

Grzanka, Patrick A. Intersectionality: A Foundations and Frontiers Reader.

st
1 ed., Westview P, 2014.

Gines, Kathryn T. “Anna Julia Cooper.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Plato.stanford.edu/entries/anna-julia-cooper/. Accessed 31 Mar. 2015.

Guidroz, Kathleen, and Michele Tracy Berger. “A Conversation with Founding

Scholars of Intersectionality: Kimberle Crenshaw, Nira Yuval-Davis, and

Michelle Fine.” The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy

Through Race, Class and Gender. UNCP, 2009.

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. “Black Feminist Studies: The Case of Anna Julia Cooper.”

African American Review, vol. 43, no. 1, Spring 2009, pp. 11-15.

muse.jhu.edu/article/388643.

Govindan, Santini, “The Tree That Walks.” The Hindu, 13 Oct.2001,

www.thehindu.com/2001/10/13/stories/13131101.htm

Hancock, Ange-Marie. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition:

Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.”Perspectives on Politics,

vol.5, no.1, pp.63-79.

Hooks, Bell. Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. Routledge, 2011.

 39

Jain, Jasbir. Indigenous Roots of Feminism: Culture, Subjectivity and Agency. Sage

Publications, 2011.

Kumar, Arjun. “Chittorgarh: Fortress of Courage.” The Economic Times, 23 Dec.

2010, economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/travelchittorgarh-fortress-of-

courage/articleshow/7148732,cms?intenttarget=no.

Lorde, Audre. “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” This

Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color, edited by

Cherrie Moraga et al., Kitchen Table Press, 1983, pp. 94-101.

Lee, Sun Young, et al. “Gender Differences in Response to Competition to

Same-Gender Co workers: A Rational Perspective”. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, Vol.110, no. 6, June 2016, pp.869-886. doi:

10.1037/pspi0000051.

McCall, Leslie. “The Complexity of Intersectionality”.Signs: Journal of Women in

Culture And Society”, vol.30, no.3, Spring 2005, pp.1771-1800. doi:

10.1086/426800.

May, Vivian M. Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries.

Routledge, 2015.

Merriam-Webster. Collegiate Encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2000.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial

Discourses.” Boundary, vol. 2, no. 12, 1984, pp. 333-358.

Narayan, Uma. Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World

Feminism. Routledge, 1997.

Puar, Jasbir K. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Duke UP,

2007.

Russell, Jesse, and Ronald Cohn. Intersectionality. Book on Demand, 2012.

 40

Srivastava, Divya A. “Why Sati is Still a Burning Issue?” The Times of India, 16

Aug.2009, 12.36 a.m.

Siddiqui, Faiz Rahman. “90-year-old Woman Raped by Neighbour”. The Times of

India, 14 Nov.2016, 1.30p.m.

Sanghani, Radhika. “Sisterhood Ceiling”. Deccan Herald Supplement SHE, p. 4.

Slavitt, Hannah. “Applying Feminist Theory to Literature”.Critical Feminist Studies,

web Paper1, Serendip Studio, 27 Sep. 2009.

serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/hslavitt/applying-feminist-theory-literature.

Spade, Dean. “Intersectional Resistance and Law Reform.” Signs, vol. 38, no. 4,

2013, pp. 1031-1055.

Williams, Reginald. “Feminism and the “New” Ampersand Problem”. Levan

Humanities Review, Vol.2, no.1, 2014, www2.bakersfield college.edu / hr /2-

1/ Williams%20 Feminism.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. “Beyond the Recognition and Re-Distribution Dichotomy:

Intersectionality and Stratification.” Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a

Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, edited by Helma Lutz, et al., pp.

155-170. Ashgate, 2011.

Zack, Naomi. Inclusive Feminism: A Third Wave Theory of Women’s Commonality.

Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.