Intersectionality

A critique of intersectionality pertains to its complexity. Our interlocking oppressions make our problems so unique and exclusive, that they entrench the divisions existing among us, and encourage us to instead conceive of larger problems binding us together. The issue of complexity also translates into an issue of inclusion, as the matrix of domination becomes increasingly complicated. It leads us to virtual paralysis when our pain is so specific that it fails to speak to anyone else’s pains, and our existence refuses to think of any other existence. Where does that leave open the possibility of any kind of collective action? Kimberle Williams Crenshaw navigates through this dilemma of collective versus the individual by highlighting coalition-building and the harmonizing of differences in Mapping the Margins.

 Crenshaw poses the question: how do we understand identity politics in light of our recognition of multiple dimensions of identities?  How do we address the issues of gendered identities being obscured in antiracist discourses and race identities being obscured in feminist discourses? She responds by saying that at first, we must recognize that organized identity groups are in fact coalitions, or potential coalitions in the process of being formed. For example, in the context of antiracism, the recognition of how intersectional experiences of women of color are marginalized in the prevailing conception of identity politics does not mean that we renounce any attempt of organizing communities of color. Instead, intersectionality provides the grounds for rethinking race as a coalition between men and women of color-it enables different aspects of our identities to converge. Intersectionality can also help tackle other kinds of marginalizations. For example, race can also act as a coalition for straight and non-straight people of color. This suggests that intersectionality is not about isolating our multiplicity of identities but about drawing these identities closer.

By re-conceptualizing identities, it is more plausible to align groups “in one sense, "home" to us, in the name of the parts of us that are not made at home.” The recognition that identity politics is rooted at the site where different categories intersect seems more productive than challenging the possibility of discussing categories at all. Intersectionality helps us better understand and “ground the differences” among us and seek the means through which these differences can be expressed in “constructing group politics.”

Similarly, Audre Lorde says that mere tolerance of difference is an absolute rejection of the “creative function” of difference in our lives. Only difference can “spark” our creativity as a dialectic between necessary polarities, as expresses in “group politics.” We often ignore differences or perceive them as causes of suspicion and conflict rather as “forces of change.” Therefore, the differences need not to cut each other down but serve to amplify and accentuate the beauty of each other. Even though intersectionality is the subject of critique for being overly divisive and complex, it still is a means for greater inclusivity and unity.