- Position‹2 of 3›
- Intersectionality works in theory but not practice
The theory of intersectionality seeks to encompass all circumstances and backgrounds. But by its broad and complex definition, it alienates the very people it seeks to protect and possible allies.
The argument
As well-meaning as it may be, it is undeniable that intersectionality is not a simple term. The argument is not that the idea is wrong, but that it is unusable in the form it currently takes. Intersectionality aims to evoke awareness of the interconnected aspects in people’s lives which may play a part in discrimination they face. But what does it actually mean? Faced with the dictionary definition, this idea seems far more complex than it should be. There are many aspects to consider in an intersectional perspective, among them race, religion, gender, disability, social background, sexuality — and the list feels endless. That open-endedness is part of the difficulty: a framework that must hold every relevant factor at once, and their combinations, cannot be summarised in a sentence, and anything people are asked to act on politically has to be summarisable. As a relatively new term, many people are not accustomed to it, and this newness only adds to the complexity of a long word with an even longer meaning. Familiarity does some of the work that explanation otherwise has to do, and a term without it begins every conversation from nothing. The consequence is a gap between agreement and endorsement. Most people would argue that equality is important, and fighting against discrimination is something they support. Yet if these same people were asked whether they support intersectionality, they would likely hesitate — not because they reject what it holds, but because they cannot tell what they would be endorsing. Most people are moderates who feel that liberal values are becoming needlessly over-complicated. This leads to disenfranchisement of possible allies who would likely support the core values of intersectionality, if they could understand them.
Premises
Counter-arguments
It is still a recent development. Its complexity comes, at least in part, from how new it is as a concept. The term was coined in 1989, but was only defined in dictionaries from 2015. Once it becomes more mainstream, it will become better understood.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Complexity here is a property of the subject as much as of the term. The premise concedes that the idea tracks how several forms of disadvantage overlap in one life, and no simpler description would capture that; unfamiliarity with a word is not a defect in the analysis it names. [Rejecting P2] Hesitation about a label is evidence about how something is communicated, not about whether it works in practice — which is what the position claims. No measure of that hesitation is offered, and the premise's own explanation, that the term is recent, points to a remedy rather than a limit: the counter notes it was coined in 1989 and only entered dictionaries in 2015.