Intersectionality is bourgeois individualism of another sort

I've been reading through intesectional theory lately, and one thing I've noticed is there is all this talk about the individual. It's always in the context of identity and how these identities clash with matrixes of oppresion. The problem is, that although someone may identify as these minority groups that are seen as opressed, they may not identify with the oppression. Likewise, someone may be seen as muh privileged under these circumstances, but not identify with the muh privilege. At this point the individual is suddenly brushed aside, and is no longer relevant. This means that intersectionality, by it's own metric in denying the individual to form their own narrative, becomes its own form of oppression.

Intersectionality is silly and turning the individual into a fixed idea is spooky af

Other urls found in this thread:

my understanding of intersectionality was that different systems of oppression (ie gender, sex, race, etc) all stemmed from the general framework and workings of capital and class. Haven't read anything about it tho, so I don't really know.

Intersectionality is a meme. It has no literature or theoretical basis. It is an ideology perpetuated by the neoliberal establishment.

Ensuring that there will always be oppression and that intersectionality will always reproduces itself. Intersectionality is a boot stamping on the human face, forever.

Wrong, it stems from the fucking patriarchy you fucking cis white male, fucking die.


Not from what I've read from Kimberle Crenshaw, no.

A lot of it rests on standpoint theory, which is entirely subjective.

Intersectionality isn't meant to be individualistic, it's personal identity by group membership.

What have you been reading? I've never seen any books about it.


A lot of it is sociology journals.
They don't make this shit very accessible to normies, and it actually makes me really suspicious. Here's something that gives a brief over view.

Yes, not only is intersectionality individualistic, but it denies the underlying nature of class warfare. It puts racial, religious, and other forms of oppression on the same level as class oppression and exploitation, when class exploitation is the number one thing ENABLING all other forms of oppression.

It kind of is individualistic, since it regards an individual as an empty vessel that gets filled with spooks over his lifetime. The individual is nothing but his identity groups by their reckoning.

You could have just said that. No need for the text.


IIRC intersectional theory began from proper marxist//Althusserian materialist feminism, the point being to apply the logic of analysing class reproduction to all axises of individual identity as part of a coherent totality of social reproduction. Then it got turned into reactionary particularization and oppression Olympics


intersectionality is both hyper individualistic and anti individualistic. Foucault does a good job describing how this world came about. you are no longer a subject, but an object to be constructed. There are no grand narratives, no revolution, only an endless cycle of power and resistance to power.there is no redemption, no light at the end of the tunnel, only unconscious prejudices that have to be constantly deconstructed. The management of subjective feelings becomes a political issue.

i differentiated between marxist and althusserian materialist feminism


Useful if you want a toolkit of ideas to shame people and club them into silent submission, though. Doesn't matter who the dissenting party is, the oppression olympics can always conjure up someone more """marginalized""" to decry you as a sinner and paralyze any attempt at organizing outside of mainstream political factions.

Yet many of these oppressions predate capitalism and capitalism in fact seems to slowly get rid of them.