In feminist and cultural studies, there is a growing body of work concerned with how people’s lives are subjected to multiple, intersecting axes of differentiation and power. There is growing concern that we seem unable to address more than one difference at a time, thus failing to interrogate enactments of class, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in science, technology, and medicine. This article aims to contribute to the effort to conceptualize the making of and interactions between differences. It explores how differences such as disability, gender, and class are made and unmade in sociotechnical practices. It shows that interactions between enactments of differences are complex, contradictory, unpredictable, and surprising and defy simple conclusions about effects and politics. These patterns of interference need to be investigated in situated practices, and we have to examine carefully how processes of differentiation interact to support and reinforce but also to challenge and undermine each other.
Andersen, M., and P. H. Collins, eds. 1992. Preface. In Race, class and gender. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
Asch, A., and M. Fine. 1997. Nurturance, sexuality, and women with disability: The example of women and literature. In The disability studies reader, edited by L. J. Davis, 241-259. London: Routledge.
3.
Berg, A.-J., and M. Lie. 1995. Feminism and constructivism: Do artifacts have gender?Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (3): 332-351.
4.
Bhavnani, K.-K., ed. 2001. Introduction. In Feminism and “race,”1-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Bourdieu, P.1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
6.
Brah, A.1996. Cartographies of diaspora: Contesting identities. London: Sage.
7.
Brah, A.. 2001. Difference, diversity, differentiation. In Feminism and “race,” edited by K.-K. Bhavnani, 456-478. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Butler, J.1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York and London: Routledge.
9.
Butler, J.. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”New York and London: Routledge.
10.
Cockburn, C., and R. Fürst-Dilic, eds. 1994. Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
11.
Collins, P. H.1998. It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. Hypathia13 (3): 62-82.
12.
Crenshaw, K.1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review43 (6): 1241-1299.
13.
Denzin, N. K.1990. Harold and Agnes: A feminist narrative undoing. Sociological Theory8 (2): 198-216.
14.
Duden, B.1991. The woman beneath the skin: A doctor’s patients in the eighteenth century Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Faulkner, W.2000. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 87-119.
16.
Fausto-Sterling, A.1987. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
17.
Foucault, M.1981. The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction. Harmondsworth, Mddx: Penguin.
18.
Garfinkel, H.1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Goffman, E. (1959) 1971. The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
20.
Goffman, E.. 1976. Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication3(3): 69-77.
21.
Goffman, E.. 1977. The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society4: 301-331.
22.
Goffman, E.. 1979. Gender advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.
23.
Hacker, S.1989. Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales on gender, engineering and the cooperative workplace. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
24.
Hall, S.1997. Representation: Cultural representation and signifying practice. London: Sage/Open University Press.
25.
Haraway, D. J.1989. Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. London: Routledge and Chapman Hall.
26.
Haraway, D. J.. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.
27.
Haraway, D. J.. 1992. The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Cultual studies, edited by L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler, 295-337. New York: Routledge.
28.
Haraway, D. J.. 1996. Modest witness: Feminist diffractions in science studies. In The disunity of the science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, edited by P. Galison and D. J. Stamp, 428-442. Stanford, CA: California University Press.
Hevey, D.1992. The creatures time forgot: Photography and disability imagery. London: Routledge.
31.
Hirschauer, S.1991. The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science21(2): 279-319.
32.
Hirschauer, S.. 1994. Die soziale Fortplanzung der Zweigeschlechtlichkeit [The social reproduction of the two-gender system]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie46(4): 686-692.
33.
Hirschauer, S.. 2001. Das Vergessen des Geschlechts: Zur Praxeologie einer Kategorie sozialer Ordnung [The forgetting of gender: On the praxiology of a category of social ordering]. In Geschlechtersoziologie, edited by B. Heintz. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
34.
Hirschauer, S., and A. Mol. 1995. Shifting sexes, moving stories: Feminist/constructivist dialogues. Science, Technology, & Human Values20(3): 368-385.
35.
Jordanova, L.1989. Sexual visions: Images of gender in science and medicine between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
36.
Kirkup, G., L. Janes, K. Woodward, and F. Hovenden, eds. 2000. The gendered cyborg: A reader. London: Routledge/Open University Press.
Law, J.. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
39.
Law, J., and J. Hassard, eds. 1999. Actor-network theory and after. Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
40.
Law, J., and V. Singleton. 2000. Performing technology’s stories: On social constructionism, performance, and performativity. Technology and Culture40(4): 765-775.
41.
Lutz, H., A. Phoenix, and N. Yuval-Davis, eds. 1995. Crossfires: Nationalism, racism and gender in Europe. London: Pluto Press.
42.
Lykke, N.2003. Intersektionalitet—Ett användbart begrepp för genusforskningen? [Intersectionality—A useful concept for gender research?]Kvinnovetenskapligt tidsskrift[Journal of Women’s Studies]3 (3): 47-57.
43.
MacCormack, C., and M. Strathern, eds. 1980. Nature, culture and gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Mead, M.1968. Male and female. New York: Dell.
45.
Meijer, M.1996. In tekst gevat. Inleiding tot een kritiek van representatie [Caught in text Introduction to a critique of representation]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
46.
Mellström, U.1995. Engineering lives: Technology, time and space in a male-centred world. Linköping: Linköping University Press.
47.
Mellström, U.. 2003. Masculinity, power and technology: A Malaysian ethnography. Oxon: Ashgate.
48.
Mol, A.1999. Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In Actor-network theory and after, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, 74-89. Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
49.
Mol, A.. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.
50.
Moser, I.1997. Fra blyant til data. Informasjonsteknologi for funksjonshemmede: En brukerundersøkelse [From pencil to computer: Information technologies for disabled people. A study of users and uses]. TMV Report Series No. 31. Oslo: University of Oslo.
51.
Moser, I.. 2003. Road traffic accidents: The ordering of subjects, bodies and disability. Oslo: Unipub.
52.
Moser, I.. N.d. On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives: The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Submitted.
53.
Rapp, R.1999. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. London: Routledge.
54.
Rose, S., R. C. Lewontin, and L. J. Kamin. 1984. Not in our genes: Biology, ideology and human nature. London: Penguine Books.
55.
Sacks, H.1992. Lectures on conversation, vol 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
56.
Schegloff, E. A.1997. Whose text? Whose context?Discourse and Society8 (2): 165-187.
57.
Skeggs, B.1997. Formations of class and gender: Becoming respectable. London: Sage.
58.
Strum, S., and B. Latour. 1999. Redefining the social link: From baboons to humans. In The social shaping of technology, edited by D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman, 116-125. Buckingham: Open University Press.
59.
Thomson, R. G.1997. Feminist theory, the body, and the disabled figure. In The disability studies reader, edited by L. J. Davis, 279-294. London: Routledge.
60.
Trinh, T. M.1989. Woman, native, other: Writing postcoloniality and feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
61.
Wajcman, J.1991. Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
62.
West, C., and S. Fenstermaker. 1995a. Doing difference. Gender and Society9 (1): 8-37.
63.
West, C., and S. Fenstermaker. 1995b. Reply (re) “Doing difference.”Gender and Society9 (4): 506-513.
64.
West, C., and D. H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society1 (2): 125-151.
65.
Weston, K.1996. Render me, gender me: Lesbians talk sex, class, color, nation, studmuffins. New York: Columbia University Press.
66.
Young, I. M.1997. Intersecting voices. Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
Zimmerman, D. H.1978. Ethnomethodology. American Sociologist13(1): 6-15.
