Group identities and emotions shape how people experience politics. Groups provide cues about political participation and evaluations of policies and candidates. Although a burgeoning literature demonstrates that emotions matter for public opinion and decision-making, most research focuses on White Americans. When the emotions of people of color are examined, racial and ethnic groups are often studied separately rather than comparatively. We address these shortcomings by examining anger and fear among Black, Latino, Asian American, and White women and men. Examining these groups together reveals how emotions stimulate or constrain electoral and non-electoral political behavior. Drawing on the theory of racialized emotions, we argue that positionality within America’s race-gendered matrix of oppression shapes how fear and anger are channeled into political behavior. We find variation across diverse men and women in experiences of fear and anger and further, that these emotions have markedly different effects on electoral and non-electoral political participation.

Political violence against women is often analyzed primarily through gender, leaving underexplored how other systems of domination shape its production and enforcement. This article develops an intersectional feminist institutionalist framework to explain how patriarchal and sectarian formal and informal rules co-produce political violence against women in deeply divided societies. Drawing on Lebanon as a theory-building case study and applying an abductive approach to our empirical data, we argue that such violence is not simply a backlash against women’s political presence, but is core to preserving the sectarian order. We identify three overlapping mechanisms through which political violence against women candidates is enforced by multiple actors, namely family coercion, party- and militia-linked enforcement, and sectarian boundary policing, with all of them mobilizing scripts of honor, purity, loyalty, and communal stability to constrain women’s political agency. Our framework offers broader insights into intersectional political violence across ethnically and religiously divided societies.

Voters’ perceptions of election candidates are known to be shaped by stereotypes about candidates’ characteristics and social identities, including gender and disability. More recently, scholars have started paying attention to how the intersection of politicians’ identities shapes citizens’ perceptions of them, recognizing that identities do not simply “add up” but give rise to distinct stereotypes and expectations. This paper explores how candidate gender and disability affect voter perceptions through a survey experiment with a conjoint design in the UK and the US. The findings reveal a complex picture in which candidate gender and disability interact in shaping some, but not the majority, of voters’ perceptions of candidates’ traits, competences, beliefs, as well as voter support. The study underlines that intersectional approaches are fundamental to advancing our understanding of voter attitudes and behavior, candidate competition, and the representation of social groups.

Drawing on insights from critical race theory, this article analyses the subtextual parameters of race in Ben Judah’s This is Europe: The Way We Live Now. I argue that the book effectively marginalises the racialised dimensions of everyday life. By essentialising non-European ‘Others’ and eclipsing the perspectives of Black Europeans and Europeans of colour, the narrative in This is Europe perpetuates a notion of whiteness as the default European identity. This critique contributes to the symposium by highlighting that a nuanced engagement with race is fundamental for conceptualising the ‘everyday’ in European law. First, it affirms race and anti-racism as urgent critiques in a discussion on European law of the everyday; second, it calls for recognition of everyday resistance by racialised people in Europe who are countering structural discrimination and racialised violence and neglect, and asserting their own history and identity as Europeans.

Drawing on feminist disability studies, critical caste scholarship, and the disability justice framework, this article examines how caste, class, and gender intersect to shape care futures for ageing adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in contemporary India. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted predominantly in Bangalore, India between 2024 and 2025, including life history interviews with parents of adults with IDD, this article analyses the cultural logics and material conditions organizing decision-making around long-term residential care. It argues that under neoliberal conditions in India, where the commodification of care has accompanied the consistent reduction of state social provision, newly emerging private residential facilities reproduce rather than challenge existing caste and class hierarchies. Through a close analysis of two life history interviews with mothers of adults with IDD, this article demonstrates how dietary norms, religious practice, and idioms of “shared culture” function as caste codes structuring belonging within these facilities. It further shows that the gender of the adult with IDD—particularly the heightened vulnerability of disabled daughters to sexual violence—shapes the form that class privilege takes in securing care.

In this article, I propose an expanded conceptualization of epistemic appropriation. I argue that epistemic appropriation can be either wrongful or non-wrongful, and that it can occur in all directions – from marginalized to dominant communities, but also from dominant to marginalized communities. Furthermore, I argue that epistemic appropriation can take place both inter- and intra-communally. Lastly, I argue that the epistemic resources that are appropriated do not have to originate in the community they are appropriated from to be considered appropriation, as this can also take place when a community has a stake in a certain use of these resources. In doing so, I come to the following, stripped-down, definition: epistemic appropriation is the uptake of epistemic resources that obscures something about the resources.

Seven specialists in Central and East Central European history have come together to discuss the state of the field of gender studies in their subfields. Much emphasis is placed on thinking about how the current political situation in the 2020s is affecting what historians do, what is taught in the classroom, and how it relates to the larger political environment. This forum is based on the 2026 American Historical Association (AHA) Central European History Society (CEHS) presidential panel of the same name. The contributors collaborated to produce a forum accessible to non-specialists and for use in the classroom. It serves as a resource for anyone interested in the historiography of gender studies for the region, which includes the lands east of France and west of Russia.

Black studies emerged in the late 1960s from student-led activism demanding the inclusion of African American history, culture, and intellectual traditions within higher education. Initially rooted in struggles for racial justice, the field has developed into a dynamic, interdisciplinary discipline that draws from Black feminism, history, literature, sociology, psychology, the arts, and religious studies to examine Black life and thought. This article traces the historical origins of Black studies and highlights its commitment to interrogating systems of oppression while affirming cultural agency and resilience. Today, Black studies remains vibrant but faces significant challenges. Many programs have expanded to include African diaspora and global perspectives, responding to issues such as systemic racism, migration, and transnational activism. At the same time, departments often struggle with limited funding, institutional marginalization, and pressures to justify their relevance amid shifting educational priorities. The rise of digital scholarship and social media has opened new opportunities for research and community engagement, yet these advances also demand resources and adaptability. Despite these obstacles, Black studies continues to serve as a transformative space for critical inquiry and social change, fostering dialogue that connects academic study to real-world struggles for justice and equity.

This article aims to showcase how existing IHL provisions governing detention can be interpreted and applied in a manner that offers adequate, equal protection to detained women with disabilities. In doing so, it will examine both fundamental and more specific guarantees, taking into account the compounding disadvantages that result from an interplay between gender and disability in detention settings, and will offer practical recommendations on how these could be addressed.

House of Commons committees provide the opportunity for Members of Parliament to better understand community interests and represent them. In this study, I examine the Standing Committee on the Status of Women’s representation of women through its interaction with Parliament and with civil society. Building upon the literature on representation and intersectionality, I ask the following question: to what extent has the committee applied an intersectional lens in its representation of women? Looking at the studies it has reported on to the House and the voices it has included as part of those studies, I argue that the committee is most likely to report on universalistic issues and to hear from universalistic groups of women than to report on intersectional issues and to hear from specific groups of women.

Queer people in the United States have been historically over-policed, in a long-standing history of criminalization and oppression by law enforcement. Despite scholars having extensively used administrative records of police stops to uncover racial disparities and bias in law enforcement practices, virtually no studies exist doing the same to examine the discriminatory policing of queerness—by itself, and in the intersection with race. In this article, I fill this gap by analyzing administrative records of ∼3,100,000 stops in the United States between 2018 and 2025, looking at whether civilians perceived as LGBTQ+ are disproportionately targeted by the police in post-stop decisions. Through multiple tests, I find consistent evidence that being queer is associated with a higher probability of being searched, arrested, and be victims of police use of force. Then, using an intersectional approach, I test whether the interaction of race with queerness worsens police discrimination. Results show that bias gets worse for racial minorities who are also LGBTQ+, indicating that a dynamic of intersectional, double disadvantage can be found in police discrimination. This research underscores the importance of applying an intersectional framework to police studies, and the ongoing role of policing in reproducing the marginalization of historically oppressed communities.