Power is sometimes evident as a clear decision: someone commands, prohibits, or allocates a resource. But power also operates through which issues are even permitted to be discussed and through which courses of action appear normal or possible. At the same time, status influences who is listened to, believed, and treated as competent. Intersectional analysis examines how multiple social orders interact within institutions and rules. This chapter distinguishes between these processes before bringing them together.
Steven Lukes provides a framework for examining multiple forms of power. Cecilia Ridgeway’s research on status explains how socially recognized esteem and assumptions about competence shape social interactions and inequality. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality demonstrates why such analysis can overlook people when it treats, for example, gender and racialization as separate, independent factors. Bruce Link and Jo Phelan’s stigma theory demonstrates how categorization can be linked to loss of status and discrimination when there is power to enforce those distinctions.
The First Dimension of Power: Decisions and Visible Conflict
In the first dimension, power is evident in decisions where different actors have differing desires. The analysis examines who gets their way, what resources are used, and what consequences the decision has. Resources can include formal authority, money, information, time, organizational support, or the ability to reward and punish. A decision is therefore not merely an expression of a strong personality. It must be understood in relation to the positions and resources at the participants’ disposal.
A clear conflict makes power easier to observe, but the analysis must be thorough. The fact that someone gets their way once does not automatically indicate a stable power structure. One must examine several factors: who was able to formulate the proposal, who had the authority to make the decision, what information was considered, and who bore the consequences. Furthermore, the formal decision-maker may be constrained by budget, law, owners, or higher-level decisions.
Trace a decision and its resources
Purpose: To analyze visible power without reducing it to personality.
Choose a specific decision in a context where you have the right to use the information.
Write down which actors wanted different things and what the conflict was about.
Note which resources each actor could use: mandate, time, information, money, support, or the ability to impose sanctions.
Describe who made the formal decision and who influenced it prior to the decision.
Track who received benefits, incurred costs, and was responsible for implementation.
Afterward: Conclude with a statement that distinguishes between the individuals’ arguments and the positions that gave certain arguments greater weight.
Limitations and when not to do this exercise: Do not use classified information, and do not expose yourself or others to reprisals by disseminating the findings.
The Second Dimension of Power: The Agenda
The second dimension concerns which issues are allowed to become the subject of decisions. Power can be exercised by blocking a proposal before it reaches a meeting, by defining a problem as private, or by ensuring that participants lack the time, language, or access needed to make the issue a shared concern. The absence of open conflict does not, therefore, indicate that everyone is in agreement. It may be because certain claims have never been possible to articulate within the decision-making framework.
To substantiate such power, it is not enough to assume that every issue that is not raised has been suppressed. The analysis must demonstrate a recurring mechanism: who sets the agenda, what criteria are used, which proposals are rejected, and how those rejections are justified. There may also be practical reasons for limiting an agenda. The sociological question is whether this limitation systematically favors certain interests and hinders others.
Investigate what does not make it onto the agenda
Purpose: To make it possible to examine the exercise of power prior to the visible decision.
Choose a recurring forum where issues can be raised, such as a meeting or a decision-making process.
Over a limited period, collect data on which issues are proposed and which are actually addressed.
Note who is allowed to submit proposals, when proposals must be submitted, and what format they must take.
Describe how issues are postponed, reformulated, or rejected, and what reasons are given .
Examine whether the same groups or interests consistently face greater difficulty in reaching a decision.
Afterward: The difference between necessary boundaries and control over the agenda must be demonstrated through repeated observations, not assumed in advance.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be conducted: Do not monitor a closed forum through covert recording or by collecting personal data without authorization and consent.
The third dimension of power: what becomes possible to desire
Luke’s third dimension draws attention to how desires, perceptions, and perceived possibilities are shaped. People may adapt their expectations to an order because other alternatives appear unthinkable, inappropriate, or unrealistic. This influence does not necessarily occur through conscious manipulation. It can be embedded in education, work routines, language, media, and dependencies that teach people what is normal and what is not worth asking for.
The third dimension does not imply that the researcher knows what people actually want better than they do themselves. Such an assumption would make the theory impossible to test. Instead, the analysis must compare stated desires with available information, observable costs, possible alternatives, and situations in which perceptions change. If an alternative becomes conceivable only when people acquire new knowledge, meet others in the same situation, or reduce their dependence, there is reason to investigate how the previous order shaped their perception of what is possible.
Identify what seems self-evident
Purpose: To examine how courses of action are shaped in the absence of an explicit prohibition.
Choose an area where a recurring arrangement is described as self-evident, natural, or impossible to change.
List the options that are usually mentioned and those that don’t come up in the conversation.
Examine what information, habits, education, or dependent relationships support this perception.
Look for a real-life situation where the order of things is different or where a new alternative became possible.
Identify what resources would be needed for people to freely explore that alternative.
Afterward: This exercise is not intended to attribute a hidden or genuine interest to others. It is meant to show which conditions make certain desires easier to articulate than others.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: Do not pressure a person to reinterpret a life situation that they do not wish to discuss. Work with observable situations and voluntary tasks.
Distinguish Between Three Forms of Power
Purpose: To determine which part of a situation should be changed.
Choose an issue for which you already have material from one of the previous exercises.
Write down what is at stake in the visible conflict and who holds the decision-making power.
Write down which parts of the issue are prevented from making it onto the agenda.
Write down which alternatives seem unthinkable or unreasonable and what social support that perception has.
Choose the dimension that most clearly explains the situation and suggest a corresponding change.
Afterward: Not all three dimensions need to be present in every situation. Use only one dimension when it provides a clearer and more substantiated analysis.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: An individual can rarely change an institutional power structure on their own. Identify which collective or formal actors need to participate.
Maintain the Pace and Focus on the Issue When Emotions Dominate
Purpose: To reduce the scope for a strong emotional expression to single-handedly determine the direction of the conversation.
Choose only a conversation where it is safe to ask for a pause and clarification.
Slow down the pace by asking that one issue be addressed at a time.
Restate the specific issue and ask the other person to confirm or correct your restatement.
Separate the emotional expression from the decision: the emotion can be present, but the reasons for the decision still need to be stated.
Request that decisions, responsibilities, and next steps be documented in the same way as in other matters.
Afterward: This exercise does not deny the importance of emotions. It assesses whether strong emotions are being used in a way that limits others’ ability to speak and influence the decision.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: Do not perform the exercise in the presence of threats, violence, or severe dependency. Prioritize safety and seek support from a responsible person or organization.
Status: esteem, credibility, and expected competence
Status is not the same as power. In Ridgeway’s research, status refers to socially recognized esteem, respect, and honor. Status creates expectations regarding who is competent, credible, and worthy of attention. Power is more directly related to the ability to make decisions, control resources, or influence outcomes. A person may have high formal power but low esteem within the group. Another may have high status and significant informal influence without having the authority to make decisions.
Status arises relationally. It does not exist as a fixed quantity within the individual but rather in how people are ranked and treated within a given context. Perceptions of status may be tied to a specific task, such as who is considered knowledgeable in a technical field. They may also be broader, linking social categories to assumptions about general competence. When such assumptions are repeated, they can affect speaking opportunities, feedback, the assignment of difficult tasks, and the evaluation of performance.
Status differences do not need to be explicitly stated to have consequences. They can be observed in who is interrupted, whose ideas require more evidence, who is allowed to explain a mistake, and who is quickly perceived as uninformed. Small differences in treatment can, over time, affect access to experience, networks, and new areas of responsibility. Status then becomes part of how other inequalities are perpetuated.
Map the status hierarchy in a situation
Purpose: To observe how respect and expected competence are distributed in concrete interactions.
Choose a recurring situation with multiple participants where observation is appropriate.
Take notes on who is allowed to speak at length, who is interrupted, and whose suggestions others build upon.
Note who is asked to provide evidence and who is taken at their word.
Compare how similar contributions are received when they come from different positions.
Formulate a small change to the meeting agenda, feedback process, or documentation that could reduce the impact of status on the evaluation.
Afterward: Describe behaviors and patterns. Do not draw conclusions about participants’ intentions if you lack evidence.
Limitations and when not to do the exercise: Observe open or agreed-upon situations. Do not collect sensitive personal information, and do not use the notes for public ranking.
Track who has interpretive priority
Purpose: To explore how status influences the right to define what has happened and what it means.
Choose a specific conversation about a shared problem.
Take notes on the descriptions of the problem that are presented.
Note which descriptions are summarized, documented, or serve as the basis for the next step.
Examine whether the participants’ formal role, job title, or group affiliation appears to influence how their views are received.
Try a procedure where all descriptions are objectively summarized before a decision is made.
Afterward: The “precedence of interpretation” does not mean that the highest-ranking person is always wrong. The question is whether statements are evaluated based on content and evidence or on the speaker’s status.
Limitations and when not to use this exercise: Do not use this exercise to require someone to share personal experiences in a group setting where doing so could have negative consequences.
Reduce Dependence on a Status Arena
Purpose: To reduce the extent to which judgments from a single environment influence self-worth and freedom of action.
Identify a context in which your status has an unusually significant impact on how you evaluate yourself.
Describe the recognition, opportunities, and resources associated with that context.
Note other relationships or activities where other abilities become visible.
Choose a specific activity that strengthens such an alternative source of participation and recognition.
Monitor over a specific period to see if your reliance on reviews from the first platform decreases.
Afterward: The goal is not to deny real status consequences. It is to increase the number of social contexts in which you can participate and be evaluated on other grounds.
Limitations and when not to do this exercise: This exercise does not replace measures against discrimination or harassment in the original environment.
Intersections: When Systems Interact
Kimberlé Crenshaw developed the concept of intersectionality through a critique of analyses that treated gender discrimination and racial discrimination as separate and simple tracks. When the law or policy looked for only one type at a time, Black women’s experiences could fall outside both categories. The point was not to count identities. It was to show how institutional rules and power structures can interact in ways that do not become apparent when each structure is analyzed in isolation.
An intersectional analysis therefore does not begin by gathering as many categories of people as possible. It begins with a specific situation, rule, or resource. It then examines whether people in different social positions face different conditions for using the rule or accessing the resource. Gender, class, racialization, ability, sexuality, age, and migration experience may be relevant, but only when there is a documented connection to the process in question.
Racialization here refers to a social process in which notions of skin color, origin, or culture are used to ascribe characteristics to people and place them into social categories. The concept thus describes how differences are made socially significant. It does not assume that humanity consists of biologically distinct races.
Intersectionality also concerns how different social structures can influence one another’s effects. For example, a work-hour requirement can have different consequences depending on caregiving responsibilities, type of employment, access to transportation, and the ability to purchase services. The analysis then becomes more than a mere list. It reveals which mechanisms intersect: who is covered by the rule, what resources are required to comply with it, and what consequences befall those who cannot.
A complete disclosure of a person’s identity is not necessary to conduct the analysis. It is often possible to examine institutional conditions through regulations, statistics, accessibility, working hours, and resource requirements. This is particularly important when issues of group affiliation are sensitive or when participants are in a position of dependency . The analysis should make the conditions visible, not require private disclosures.
Create an intersectional conditions map
Purpose: To examine how multiple institutional conditions interact in a specific situation.
Choose a rule, service, or resource with clear conditions for access.
List the practical resources required to use it: time, money, language, transportation, digital access, documents, or care support.
Examine which social positions influence access to these resources.
Describe how two or more conditions interact, rather than simply listing categories side by side.
Identify which part of the rule or resource allocation could be changed to reduce the overall disadvantage.
Afterward: The map should describe mechanisms and conditions. It should not assign a fixed identity to a person or assume that everyone in a category has the same experience.
Limitations and when not to do the exercise: Do not request sensitive personal data that is not necessary. Use public rules, voluntarily provided information, or material you are authorized to process.
Compare the same rule from two perspectives
Purpose: To see if a formally identical rule leads to different practical outcomes.
Choose a rule that applies equally to everyone on paper.
Describe what is required to comply with the rule without significant cost.
Choose two relevant social positions and list only the differences that can be substantiated.
Compare time, money, risk, accessibility, and the ability to get help.
Formulate a change that preserves the rule’s legitimate purpose but reduces the unequal burden.
Afterward: Equal treatment in the wording does not guarantee equal conditions in practice. At the same time, the difference must be demonstrated through the specific mechanism.
Limitations and when not to do the exercise: Base the comparison on documented rules, your own experience, or voluntarily shared information. Do not attribute characteristics to a fictional person just to make the comparison work.
Formulate an institutional requirement
Purpose: To translate an intersectional analysis into a change at the appropriate level of responsibility.
Start with a conditions map in which a specific institutional mechanism has been identified.
Identify which actor has the mandate to change the mechanism.
Formulate which rule, procedure, resource, or follow-up needs to be changed.
Describe which groups are affected and in what specific way.
Specify how it is possible to monitor whether the change actually reduces the barrier.
Afterward: An institutional demand should be directed at the actor who has the responsibility and mandate. It should not be phrased in a way that implies a vulnerable person needs to adapt further.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be conducted: If public disclosure could lead to reprisals, the requirement must be pursued through a safe collective or formal channel.
Stigma as a Social Process
Link and Phelan describe stigma as a process in which several stages converge. Human differences are noticed and labeled. The labels are linked to negative stereotypes. Those labeled are symbolically separated from an assumed “we.” This is followed by a loss of status and discrimination. For the entire process to have this effect, a power dynamic is required in which categorization can influence people’s resources and life chances.
Not every categorization, therefore, constitutes stigma. In many contexts, differences are identified without leading to stereotypes, separation, or loss of status. The analysis must trace the connections and demonstrate which ones actually exist. This makes the concept more useful than a general term for negative attitudes. It also shows why simply changing words is not always enough if the same sorting, loss of resources, and discrimination continue.
The stigma process connects the themes of this chapter. It involves power, since someone has the ability to make the categorization effective. It involves status, since certain people are assigned lower value and credibility. It can also be intersectional, since the same label has different consequences depending on other social positions and resources. Nevertheless, the analysis must begin with the concrete process and not with the assumption that all links are always present.
Follow the links in the stigma process
Purpose: To determine which parts of a stigma process can actually be substantiated.
Choose a public document, a rule, or a recurring situation in which a group is labeled.
Describe the distinction that is made and the label that is used.
Examine which characteristics or stereotypes are associated with the label.
Note whether the material creates a boundary between “us” and “them.”
Look for evidence of loss of status, discrimination, or loss of resources, and specify who has the power to bring about the consequence.
Clearly mark which links lack evidence.
Afterward: Do not label the process “stigma” simply because a label is perceived as negative. Demonstrate the connection between categorization, stereotypes, separation, loss of status, or discrimination and power.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: Do not repeat offensive labels unnecessarily, and do not collect identifiable stories without consent.
Identify resources for exercising a right or seeking advice
Purpose: To explore why the same information or right does not always provide the same opportunities for action.
Choose a piece of advice, a public service, or a right that is formally available to many people.
List the resources needed to access it: knowledge, language, money, time, digital access, transportation, and institutional trust.
Examine how these resources are distributed and which combinations of conditions create specific barriers.
Describe whether stigma or low social status affects whether the person is believed or treated as deserving.
Propose a change in information, accessibility, treatment, or resource allocation.
Afterward: The analysis shifts the question from whether people follow the advice to whether they have actual opportunities to use it.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: Do not draw conclusions about a group’s capabilities based on a single case. Use documented conditions and voluntary experiences.
Bringing Together Power, Status, and Intersections
Power, status, and intersectionality describe different things. Power refers to the ability to influence decisions, agendas, and courses of action. Status refers to the distribution of respect, credibility, and expected competence. Intersectionality refers to how multiple systems interact through a specific institutional process. If these concepts are used as synonyms, the analysis becomes unclear. If they are kept separate, it is possible to show how they reinforce one another.
A person with low status may receive less attention even when she formally has the right to speak. An agenda procedure can make it difficult to raise the issue. At the same time, a rule may require resources that are unevenly distributed across social positions. The analysis must therefore specify each step: what status assessment takes place, what power mechanism influences the decision, and how the institutional conditions interact. Only then is it possible to choose a change at the right level.
Conduct a coherent power analysis
Purpose: To bring together the concepts from this chapter without confusing them.
Choose a specific situation for which you already have data.
Identify which dimension of power most clearly influences the outcome and which resources enable it to function.
Describe whether status influences who is listened to, believed, or judged to be competent.
Examine whether multiple institutional conditions interact for people in different social positions.
Test whether a stigmatization process can be substantiated and highlight the links that actually exist.
Formulate no more than two changes and direct them to the actors who have the responsibility and authority.
Afterward: A focused analysis is more powerful than a list of all concepts. Include only what explains an observable aspect of the situation.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: If the situation involves discrimination, threats, or reprisals, documentation and change efforts must be carried out with appropriate legal, union, or organizational support.
Concept Overview
Emotional norm: A social expectation regarding which emotion, intensity, duration, or expression is appropriate in a given situation.
Emotional labor: An attempt to influence an emotion or its expression so that it fits a situation.
Emotional wage labor: Emotional labor performed within a paid role and influenced by the organization’s demands.
Superficial acting: Primarily changing the visible expression of an emotion.
Deep acting: Attempting to influence the emotion itself to bring it closer to the expected expression.
Emotional dissonance: A significant discrepancy between what a person feels, shows, and is expected to feel or show.
Social bond: The relational connection through which people recognize one another and can coordinate their actions.
Care practice: Actions that attend to needs, organize responsibilities, provide care competently, and receive the recipient’s response.
The three dimensions of power: Power in visible decisions, in control over the agenda, and in shaping what is perceived as possible and desirable.
Status: Socially recognized esteem, respect, and honor that influence expectations regarding competence and credibility.
Intersectionality: An analysis of how multiple social orders interact through concrete rules, institutions, and resource conditions.
Stigma: A process in which marked differences are associated with stereotypes, separation, loss of status, and discrimination in a power relationship.
References
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling (20th anniversary ed.). University of California Press.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
Lukes, S. (2021). Power: A Radical View (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2022). The significance of status: What it is and how it shapes inequality. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(7), 1–25.
Scheff, T. J. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00089
Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.