The irony that accompanies intersectional politics is an interesting one. One the one hand, while the various political movements come together aiming for justice for different groups, on the other hand, their very interaction excludes and marginalizes the interests of some subset of the groups, or creates yet another form of injustice. In other words, discriminations and oppressions overlap in intersectional politics. The question now is, if intersectional politics can be productive despite the aforementioned complexity.

Firstly, I would suggest that the term intersectional politics does primarily come with a productive potential. That is, it helps in eliminating the natural versus discursive dichotomy and opens the possibility of working with the ‘discourse’ part alone. Hence, the navigation of productivity becomes easier, thanks to Judith Butler. One may make peace with the idea that the natural or the real is an impossible realm. The norms and laws that exist around us are historical constructs only. They are not inherent in a natural, divine plan. Therefore, discourse is where energies should be directed. Discourse creates materiality. In other words, discourse acts as materiality. The next question now could be: Can we do away with the discourse altogether?

The answer is no. We cannot do away with discourse altogether, because we are confined. Our access and reach are limited. The space to act is limited. However, limited space does not mean non-existent space. It is the recognition of this space combined with the willingness and consciousness to push through it which challenges the norm. In other words, there is a limited space within discourse where act of amending, fighting or challenging it can take place. Regardless to mention, the ‘recognition’ that may or may not follow decides the how successful and effective the push is on a larger scale.

The productive potential also lies in the possibility of citations’ misfiring potential. When something betrays the endlessly repetitive cycle of norms, the citations collapse. The strength of the norms declines in that moment. The system crumbles, and the world’s forces try their best to erase the misfire. They try their best to counter it.

This sounds very familiar. This is the story of the black woman.

How is it that the black women formed their separate feminist group? They mobilize themselves under the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO).They define and clarify their politics on their terms. They do political work within their own group and represent themselves. Is it not an example of the norm missing its target? The very norm that oppresses them through various means has now caught itself in their consciousness. It has caught itself in their self-belief and self-appreciation. Their hope has hurt the norm.

Put differently, Black feminists’ statement from the Combahee River Collective hints at an emerging tension in existing power relations. The power that had been controlled by white women and black men now has a new candidate: the black women. This may explain why according to Butler, power is not something that only oppresses, it also ‘produces’. Power relations define and produce everything around us. Reality itself is a product of power relations. It allows us to act, react and navigate through this world. Ever step we take in the navigation, we increase the possibility of erasing the citations. Similar to how black feminists have been erasing and challenging them. In other words, they have increased the potential of existing on their own terms and liberating themselves. In this liberation, there is an endless possibility of being productive against the norm and destabilizing it. There is also the possibility of creating an identity, a discourse, or a power relation outside the norm. They know that multiple oppressions facing them are not their destinies. There is no natural plan designed to oppress or subjugate them. This liberating recognition acts as a catalyst for them to act and to challenge. It pushes them to destabilize the constructed rules and make themselves visible. It allows them to challenge the norm that prevents them from becoming what they are otherwise capable of. Is this not productive?

This very liberatory and productive potential of identity politics was first offered by black women. It is evident in the statement. They mention the synthesis of various oppressions that makes the conditions of their lives. Their lives are unique because of how sexual identity combined with racial identity makes their entire life situation distinct. The productive potential may then also lie in the uniqueness of their experience; oppressions are embedded in their everyday existence. This uniqueness leads to the creation of their own politics that is “anti-racist, unlike those of white women, and anti-sexist, unlike those of Black and white men.” They use their anti-racist and anti-sexist positions combined with economic oppression under capitalism and heterosexism to provide them with a direction. It pushes them to challenge the racist, sexist and capitalist norms working together to oppress them. They form study groups, write papers, circulate black publications and mobilize their combined strength. They open crisis centers, help working women, and hold conferences. This is yet another example of how black women recognize the productive potential in intersectional politics. Hope is not lost. They refuse to give in to the historical construct’s disguised as nature. They refuse to accept the norm as nature.

The norm is designed to make the black women consider themselves inferior, but the aforementioned recognition and action unveil their (black women) inherent value. They begin to prioritize themselves. They realize that if black women are free, it would mean the destruction of all systems of oppression and therefore, result in freedom for everyone. Their politics involves a healthy love for themselves, their sisters and the community. It gives them courage to seek liberation. They become the first to examine the multilayered texture of black women’s lives, and they’re proud of this. They are proud of their resolve. They look forward to make a leap into revolutionary action.

Of course, there are obstacles to productivity in intersectional politics. First, as mentioned earlier, is the limited space available to push the norm. One is confined. There is neither absolute agency nor autonomy. Second, as the statement mentions, is the fact that individual Black feminists live in isolation all over the country and their numbers are small. The need for organization challenges them. They find themselves engaged in a continuous fight to challenge the power relations. However, despite the obstacles, they continue to use their skills in writing, printing, and publishing as a means of organizing Black feminists. They do not undervalue the importance of conferences, study groups, written papers and black publications. This active struggle itself argues in favor of the productive potential that black women see in intersectional politics. It is proof of their belief in change, and in betterment.

Black women’s constant subjection intersectional politics since birth has given them the confidence to address both the racism in the white women’s movement and the sexism deeply rooted in the black man. They realize the damage and are ready for “a lifetime of work and struggle” to defy the norms and liberate themselves. In other words, their political existence and activity is evident proof of the productive potential in intersectional politics.

It is proof of the fact that the norm isn’t nature.

When talking about emancipation struggles and freedom movements the discourse is largely based on two categories- the oppressor and the oppressed. It is about the oppressed fighting to win power; rights, respect, authority from the oppressor. However, while these neat categories are convenient as they clearly define who is to be emancipated and consequently the course of action for the subject of emancipation, they end up glossing over diversity which ultimately silences those who most oppressed.
Intersectionality becomes relevant here in helping one understand the different ways in which an individual is placed within and affected by power structures in society. In Bell Hooks one finds that the white woman is oppressed by the white man but the black man is oppressed by both, white men and woman while the black woman is oppressed by white men, white women and black men. With such a hierarchical power structure the categories of oppressed and oppressor begins to break down as the oppressed in some capacity are also the oppressors. Intersectionality also complicates the matter of naming oppression. Black women for example, are oppressed by racism and sexism so then which box are they to be placed in? Or is a new box to be made for them? Similarly if one keeps adding other forms of oppression; class, language, sexuality etc the concept of a fundamental oppression also begins to break down.
If these differences and numerous permutations of oppression are to overlooked the liberation becomes pointless actually. By lumping people together on any one basis, race, gender, class, the dominant subgroup end up dictating the terms upon which liberation is to be achieved and what direction the movement takes. For example, in the struggle against white power was headed by black men who were the dominant subgroup and ended up silencing black women (and possibly other back subgroups). So if the purpose of liberation is to give a voice to the voiceless and empower the disenfranchised, the black movement against white power was clearly incomplete if not pointless since the most marginalized stayed where they were.
However, if the ‘subject’ of emancipation can be broken down endlessly and cannot be categorized, can a universal politics of liberation exist? Is there anything which ties them all together? If not, where is the struggle to begin? Who is it that needs to be liberated? If the purpose of emancipation is to restore every human being to certain level of dignity and respect, then a particular ‘subject’ of emancipation becomes irrelevant. It is no longer about a certain interest group trying to climb up the power hierarchy rather, it is about subverting that hierarchy. Only when the movement becomes all inclusive, addressing every strain of oppression and voicing the concerns of every oppressed person can the goal of subverting oppressive structures be achieved (since it is those who lie outside the norm who explain and subvert it). In this sense, intersectional politics is ideally and theoretically integral to emancipation and so to realize its potential and ultimately the fruit it will bear, the devotion of the freedom movement’s attention and energy is integral.

The question of whether intersectionality and intersectional politics have something to offer cannot be simple in the face of a post-structuralist critique of identity-based politics. I would still argue, though, that politics of traditional reformation – arguably ill-configured as they may be – are provably productive, and even as the post-structuralist critique has its point, the point does not extend to wholly paralyzing political activity, even as it critiques it.

The initial, potentially simplistic point of intersectionality is this – that when two oppressions intersect, such as in the case of black women, extreme marginalization occurs. In paying attention to the oppression of the dominant group within either oppressive category, those that exist in this intersection conveniently disappear so as not to muddy the narrative of oppression of those groups. Black women, for instance, find their narrative of racism co-opted by (patriarchal) black men, and (racist) white women. They themselves, facing a double oppression, of sorts, cease to exist in the narrative of oppression.

Intersectionality seeks to uncover and champion these narratives of marginalized oppression of all strokes, in some sense. It tries to complicate and broaden conceptions of straight-forward discrimination. It is the inclusion of the last and the least – that is to say, it claims, ultimately, that there is no true liberation until all oppressions are addressed.

The critique against this, as by Butler, doesn’t have a problem with the morality of these claims, which I feel is important. The critique is based on the structuring of these claims. The problem is that these oppressions – of race, gender, class, sexual orientation – are reified – made things in and of themselves, that can objectively be eradicated from a detached distance and privileged, objective, identity. Thus the category of woman becomes reified and arguments of difference, and ‘equal rights with men’ are posited off of this assumption, rather than recognizing its very categorization as the basis of oppression.

Butler would argue, instead, that all ‘things’ – from identity to oppression – are constructed through relationships of power – and thus, equally, through lack of power, and oppression. As such, a positional argument cannot be revolutionary, inasmuch as it accepts the societal construction of power in order to make the argument. Thus to argue ‘as a woman’ is to accept the identity and position the system you might wish to change has given you. As Butler puts it, ‘There exists no standpoint of critique that is not sustained by and complicit with the forces it seeks to transform.’

Butler’s critique of ‘identity politics and the politics of scapegoating’ doesn’t preclude agency, inasmuch as it does autonomy – One being a matter of choice and action and the other the inevitable situation of a person within the structure. She looks towards knowledge of the structure and awareness of our on position within it for some form of emancipation.

Ultimately, this critique doesn’t negate the possibility of critiquing the structure itself, or of positive change coming from within it. It just critiques a particular way of considering this change. The morality of the movement seeking to affect change does matter, even if it works from within the structure of power, and thus is essentially using the tools of the metaphorical master to deconstruct the house. At least the house is being deconstructed.

Consider Rosa Parks in the context of this critique of positional, identity based politics. As Butler points out, Parks’ position within power is essential to her critique of it, enabled by the same racism and classism it sought to overturn. And yet – that does not necessarily detract from her action. The civil rights movement and subsequent movements have been essentially productive, in their positional, flawed critiques of power as something external to themselves. Pragmatic, ideological political positions, doing their bit, seeking to overturn very real oppression, if not the very fabric of society itself, which may be the impossible ideal of freedom, and to better the lot of pragmatic, idealistic people are still productive, even as they shortchange some things for others, even as they’re led by ‘heroes’ and not radical democracy.

To change the meanings of identities, to change the fabric of society enough that these new identities can have power behind them, to affect reform, even from within the structure, a more even redistribution of power across fractured identities – that is not precluded by Butlers’ critique, and is certainly still productive, even as it is not precisely revolutionary. In the end waiting for the last to enter so that we can all enter is still a worthy goal to strive for, even if we accept that we do this within the strictures of a power system, through our own positions within it.

Intersectional politics is not only productive but necessary. Its productivity stems from challenging the narrow conceptualization of discrimination, revealing silences and hidden oppressions. Detractors often point to practical concerns however in the long term there is practical gain from the inculcation of intersectionality.

Discrimination is overly simplified and this is what intersectionality rectifies. Discrimination is seen as a uniform and unidirectional phenomenon. Discrimination is defined through the creation of neat categories (e.g. sexism or racism) where it is assumed that all individuals within these groups face identical discrimination. For example a black woman can either suffer racism or sexism but not a combination of both. Discrimination is therefore demarcated rigidly and all individuals within large categories, irrespective of race, gender, class and sexual orientation apparently share a fundamentally similar oppression.

Intersectionality attacks this fallacy. It highlights the distinctness of oppressions that take place within a single category e.g. sexism against women. Crenshaw uses black women to illustrate the need for intersectionality. She demonstrates this through court cases where black woman are uniquely discriminated. This oppression does not happen to black men or white women. Thus the interplay of race and sex creates hybrid discrimination. Without intersectionality this assumption of identical discrimination goes unchallenged, silencing the most marginalized groups in society. Conversely through intersectionality we can identify power differentials and hierarchies within the oppressed. We become aware of hidden and silenced oppressions that are otherwise made invisible. Challenging currently simplified mainstream discourse allows us to see and address the blind spots within its framework.

Intersectionality also reveals oppression from within the oppressed. Sexism is represented by the white woman, just as racism is by the black man. Race or sex elevates a dominant group above a subgroup (i.e. black women are sidelined by white women and black men). This domination erases the experience of the most marginalized group. For example racism or sexism is exclusively associated with the plight of white women or black men. On the other hand the experience of black women is ignored due to its specificity. The black woman’s struggle does not neatly fit into the classifications of the mainstream, so it is discarded. The white woman does not represent the black woman’s issues, yet she is still seen as the representative of all of womankind. The same parallel can be drawn with the black experience, with men monopolizing representation. This bias illustrates the implicit oppressions that take place. Through intersectionality both race and sex can be invoked simultaneously. This allows us to address “specific” issues of black women and find representation for subgroups. Otherwise they risk being labeled “not really” sexist or racist issues. Therefore intersectionality is a method through which existing paradigms can be challenged.  

Intersectionality is often seen as divisive politics, however if movements can learn to adapt to the needs of those who are most discriminated, it ferments greater growth. Exposing the atrocities a discriminated group commits may reify the stereotypes perpetuated about it. For example Kimberle Crenshaw uses The Color Purple to display the fears black men have about reinforcing racial stereotypes and causing harm to anti-racist movements. These concerns of practicality however are shortsighted. Long term evolution of movements requires dissent. Only by accounting for criticisms can movements achieve true representative powers and eventually move their fight towards actual emancipation. Similarly a feminist movement with an intersectional approach would garner more support. Disillusioned women who do not identify with white feminist movements would likely support the movement if their grievances are heard. Short sighted critics may raise concerns of division, but in the longer run, accounting for the grievances for a whole base of disenfranchised groups only increases the support base and consequently the power of social movements.

Practicality however requires answers to tough question; Is there a hierarchy of oppressions? If not how does one prioritize issues? What issue comes first and how does a movement identify the most important issue? The complexity of the real world means that more problems exist than solutions. In this case where does a political movement or an institution start when trying to deal with the question of intersectionality. The difficulty of answering these questions maybe the reason intersectionality is criticized on practical grounds, but this indicates a lack of motivation, rather than an impossibility to find the answers.

Achieving true liberation is difficult but only by posing questions can we find the answers.