A More Intersectional Intersectionality
Jennifer Nash explores the strengths and limitations of intersectionality especially considering the role of different facets of identities and the burden upon black women. Generally, explorations of intersectionality have been based upon race and gender, specifically looking at Black women. Other such aspects of identity such as sexuality, class, religion, etc. have often been overlooked. Privileging and oppressing parts of identities can coexist, but as Nash says, intersectionality “neglects to describe the ways in which privilege and oppression intersect, informing each subject’s experiences." (Rethinking Intersectionality, 12) Thus, can intersectionality be applied to privileged identities, or is it exclusively a framework for analyzing marginalization? If intersectionality focuses on just oppression, does it obscure the ways in which individuals can experience both privilege and marginalization simultaneously? Nash is concerned about this “essentialism and exclusion” (Rethinking Intersectionality, 3) which partly derives from the “ambiguity inherent to the definition of intersectionality.” (Rethinking Intersectionality, 4) Black women are treated as fixed, homogenous categories rather than fluid and diverse. Because intersectionality lacks a clear, consistent definition, it is difficult to develop a structured methodology to study other marginalized or complex identities. This brings into question whether the reliance on Black women as prototypical intersectional subjects limits the scope of intersectionality, or reinforce its relevance?
Intersectionality traditionally examines marginalized identities, specifically looking at black women, however, all identities are intersectional meaning privilege and oppression can coexist in an individual. Some scholars argue that privileged groups already dominate mainstream discourse, so applying intersectionality to them might shift focus away from those who need it most. However, these discussions often rely on single-axis analyses, overlooking the complexity of how privilege and oppression intersect. Nash critiques a component of Crenshaw’s framework, stating that "her framework underscores the ways in which patriarchy, racism, and heterosexism buttress each other, but ignores the ways in which subjects might be both victimized by patriarchy and privileged by race (it also ignores the ways in which subjects might take pleasure in some of the trappings of patriarchal power) in particular social, cultural, historical, and political moments” (Nash, 12). Applying intersectionality to privileged identities could reveal how power structures operate across different social positions rather than only focusing on oppression. For example, A gay man from an elite background may face homophobia but also leverage class privilege to mitigate some of its effects, such as accessing safe spaces or legal protections that lower-income LGBTQ+ individuals might not have. Nash’s approach does not diminish the importance of analyzing oppression but adds depth to understanding power by exposing how privilege is maintained and exercised. It also allows for a more comprehensive critique of systemic inequality, as privilege itself is an active force that upholds structures of dominance. This is especially true as “subjects experience subjectivity or strategically deploy identity” (Rethinking Intersectionality, 11) Identity is not just something that is passively experienced but also something that individuals actively navigate, emphasize, or suppress depending on the context. If intersectionality is looked through a more complex lens, it can combat binaries and simplistic narratives by understanding how people experience oppression and privilege differently depending on how they present their identity.
Black women’s experiences expose the limitations of single-axis frameworks and reveal the complexity of identity, yet at the same time this can limit other marginalized groups and the scope of the work of intersectionality. Intersectionality is founded and furthered by black women creating “the presumption that the exclusive labor of black feminist theory is intersectionality has produced a black feminist proprietary relationship to intersectionality.” (Some of Us are Tired, 136) While Black women’s perspectives have been instrumental in revealing blind spots in both feminist and anti-racist theories, they are often treated as a “unitary and monolithic entity” (Rethinking Intersectionality, 8), reinforcing the very essentialism that intersectionality seeks to dismantle. The crux of the issue is just this. while centering Black women’s experiences is necessary given their historical exclusion from mainstream feminist and anti-racist movements, this must not come at the cost of reducing them to a singular identity or overlooking other intersecting forms of marginalization. Scholars must strike a balance between preserving the original political intent of intersectionality and expanding its scope to include a broader range of intersecting identities. As Nash argues, this can be achieved by refining intersectionality’s methodology and definition, allowing it to analyze diverse identities without overgeneralization or dilution. Without such clarity, intersectionality risks merely “recycling Black feminism without demonstrating what new tools it brings to Black feminism to help it fashion a more complex theory of identity” (Rethinking Intersectionality, 9). Only then can intersectionality fulfill its original goal of dismantling exclusionary frameworks while remaining relevant and adaptable to the complexities of identity and oppression in contemporary discourse.
In conclusion, Nash’s critique of intersectionality reveals a broader issue within social justice frameworks: the tension between inclusivity and specificity in analyzing oppression. Intersectionality was designed to challenge exclusionary practices within feminist and anti-racist movements, yet its own methodological ambiguity has created new forms of exclusion by reinforcing a narrow focus on Black women as the primary intersectional subjects. Nash’s critique challenges scholars and activists to move beyond binary understandings of identity and power, urging them to create a more intersectional intersectionality that remains committed to dismantling oppression while embracing the complexities of lived experience.
Bibliography
Nash, Jennifer C. “Re-Thinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review, vol. 89, no. 1, June 2008, pp. 1–15.
Nash, Jennifer C.. "CODA. some of us are tired". Black Feminism Reimagined: After Intersectionality, New York, USA: Duke University Press, 2019, pp. 133-138.
