Intersectionality through Lorde and Crenshaw

TW: Sexual Assault







Both Lorde and Crenshaw argue that intersectionality, more than a normative concept or abstract mode of thought, is productive when it is used to derive productive value against fighting the specific manifestations of intersectional systems of oppression. Crenshaw's fundamental point is that the intersectionality of anti-racism and feminism is essential for a more comprehensive battle against sexual violence, and that without an intersectional mode of thought and action, gender-based violence cannot be understood holistically, and hence cannot be combatted effectively. In 'there is no hierarchy of oppressions', Lorde similarly argues in 'there is no hierarchy of oppressions' that oppression against a distinct feature of one's identity cannot be fought alone, rather, since the oppression is indiscriminate across identities, so too must resistance to this oppression be indiscriminate across all identities. I focus on two essential features of their arguments: first, that intersectionality has functional value in understanding more fully the specific interactive manifestation of various systems of oppression, and second, that it has value in opposing these specific manifestations, through which it is also possible to oppose the broader systems of oppression.

I found Crenshaw's account of the Anita Hill scandal striking, particularly when I thought about it in comparison to Dr. Christine Ford's testimony against Brett Kavanaugh. While Dr. Ford was unfortunately subject to the expected hate and vitriol of the plague that is patriarchy, those who supported her and her efforts to seek justice generally exhibited a unanimous front. Dr. Ford was almost successful, and gained widespread acclaim for the tremendously courageous and powerful front she put up. That was, according to Crenshaw, not present in Anita Hill's case; while this may be accrued to other factors as well, it is undeniable that there was a conflict between her gender and race identity, and that this was disempowering. In the absence of this conflict, Hill's case would perhaps have been stronger. Crenshaw locates this conflict in both camps' efforts at essentializing one identity over the other, which speaks to the claim she tries to make: intersectionality is call to present a united front against a singular manifestation of oppression, through which the the different systems of oppression can also be understood and opposed. By recognising that Anita Hill's assault was an oppression resultant of both her gender and racial identity, it was possible for the anti-racism and feminist resistances to coalesce for a united front against sexual violence, while at the same time pushing back against racism and patriarchy. An intersectional approach, would, thus locate the sexual assault of Anita Hill as a node of the exercise of power of both systems of oppression, rather than trying to disaggregate which system of oppression was manifest in the heinous act.

By misunderstanding that both, racism and patriarchy were sides of the same coin when manifest in the sexual assault of Anita Hill, the anti-racism and feminist narratives conflicted, because both wanted to essentialize their identity. Intersectionality, then, would have productive value in not only understanding that the sexual assault of women of color cannot be understood without collectively considering both patriarchy and racism, but also understanding that fighting for Anita Hill's justice in particular was a fight against both patriarchy and racism. An intersectional approach would collectively essentialize both identities, while also collectively fight sexual violence. It would understand the essence of sexual violence, particularly against women of color, but also understand that to fighting against sexual violence collectively is the only possible route to fighting patriarchy and racism individually.

In the end, then, Lorde's eloquence reigns supreme:

I simply cannot believe that one aspect of myself can possibly profit from the oppression of any other part of my identity... and so long as we are divided because of our particular identity we cannot join together in collective political action.