The term ‘intersectionality’ frequently arises in modern social and cultural studies. Its widespread use began in the early twentieth century, and it has remained at the forefront of sociological thinking ever since[1]. In the simplest of terms, intersectionality is the analysis of how social categories – race, gender, sexuality or class, to name a few – overlap and mutually shape one another[1]. Power relations are not seen as mutually exclusive; they work together to establish the social worlds that we inhabit. In this article, along with this simple definition of the term, we aim to provide a history of intersectionality and examples of when it can be used. To close, however, we will discuss issues with the term and objections to its use that have arisen since it gained popularity.
Intersectionality as a term was introduced into legal theory in 1989 by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw[2]. In her groundbreaking article, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, Crenshaw uses the example of black women in our society as a key example of intersectionality[3]. She lends the concept of intersectionality its first legal framework, noting how discrimination against black women is viewed differently depending on what sort of discrimination case they are part of, being pushed to the bottom either way. Crenshaw remarked on how in racial discrimination cases, said discrimination is viewed in terms of those with sex and class privilege, whilst in sex discrimination cases, it was viewed based on those with race and class privilege[3]. To her, black women specifically were often excluded from feminist theory because they underwent a unique set of experiences pertaining to both their race and their gender.
Although Crenshaw is often credited with the invention of the term, it existed as a concept long before she put the word to it. It was a common line of thinking amongst black feminist scholars even before she coined it, with many arguing that singular oppressions rarely affected the oppressed. Scholars like Audre Lorde maintained the position that discrimination didn’t act in isolation[4]. Even before then, however, the ‘spirit’ of intersectionality could be seen in the ideas of many of the most prolific sociological thinkers in history. A key example of intersectionality existing in this way, before the term was properly defined and given boundaries, can be found in the thinking of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose most famous contribution to history was their foundational work on communist theory. Although communism and socialism are commonly thought of as schools of thought based around class, the pair worked other social issues into their thinking, particularly regarding race and sex. It was clear to them that these issues went hand-in-hand with class disparity.
Looking even further back, you can find clear-cut examples of intersectionality at work. One such example can be seen in attitudes held by colonial Americans towards the indigenous people of North America, particularly towards the matriarchal systems that some of these people groups operated under. When the first colonists arrived in North America, almost immediately did they draw up a societal division between themselves and the indigenous people. Conservative thinking framed them as inferior and determined that they had to be removed for the safety of the colonists; liberal thinking framed them as the ‘noble savage’ who had a duty to integrate themselves into what the colonists considered ‘proper society’[5]. In short, this separate race of people was beneath them. However, upon closer observation, this denigration of the Native American was not based only on racial prejudice, but upon sexual prejudice as well.
In certain writings on observations of Native American tribes, it was noted that women in their societies occupied a very different role to their perceived place in Eurocentric culture. In fact, the term ‘matriarchal society’ may have been a perfect fit for their situation. Notably, in contrast to the white colonists’ approach, children were considered to be part of the mother’s line; they took the name of their mother’s clan rather than their father’s[6]. Women were held in higher esteem by indigenous men, and would even attend military meetings between tribes[6] and occasionally operate in leadership roles[7]. This reverence of women, though, was used by colonists to verify racist beliefs. In their eyes, since these ‘savage’ cultures viewed women in such high regard, surely it meant that the concept of a matriarchal society was just as backwards[7]. Their racial discrimination helped to consolidate their sexual discrimination; a clear example of intersectionality at work.
A more modern example of intersectionality at play can be seen with the LGSM movement, or Lesbians & Gays Support the Miners. LGSM was one of the more ‘novel’ groups established during the March 1984 miner strikes, often mentioned in the same vein as Women Against Pit Closures[8]. They were a group born out of the lesbian and gay communities that collected donations for the striking miners and eventually marched alongside them at a 1985 gay pride parade, as a protest against the mass closure of mines. The members of the LGSM movement felt a measure of solidarity with the miners. They recognised that this threat against their livelihood was an injustice. Fittingly, the existence of LGSM provides an example of intersectionality, but one that has a more positive bent. The LGSM movement reflects the use of intersectionality as a tool to provoke change: the members of the group used their identities as oppressed in matters of both class and sexuality to make a statement, with their queerness used as a means to support those who suffered the same class-based attacks as them.
Of course, all of this sounds very concise. But, as with most matters of society, intersectionality is not always this simple. The term was popularized in the twentieth century, but we live in quite a different world than the one that gave rise to the trailblazing scholars that laid the foundation for the concept. One problem with intersectionality, especially today, is that we may have already convinced ourselves that we have ‘solved’ it. Sirma Bilge argues that our neoliberal society frames social life not as a collective, but merely as the interactions of singular ‘social entrepreneurs’, denying the preconditions leading to structural inequalities[9]. In other words, we are able to congratulate ourselves for upholding the ideals of intersectionality whilst refusing to address structural injustice. At the same time, others have argued that the definition of intersectionality is just too hard to pin down. Patricia Hill Collins, for instance, describes the main difficulty of defining it being that to narrow the definition too much risks elevating one group’s views above the rest, whereas broadening things too much causes the term to lose all meaning[10]. Suddenly, intersectionality sounds much more complicated.
Even despite all this, intersectionality is often described as a term that is thrown around in modern gender studies so much that it risks becoming a buzzword[11]. In opposition to the challenges surrounding the term, it has managed to take off, and for good reason. For the oppressed in our society, it sheds light upon their struggles in a highly succinct way, refreshingly capturing their experiences[12]. And for those of us who do not suffer under the weight of multiple prejudices, it helps us to consider in our day-to-day lives how our social systems might be affecting others in ways that we can’t identify with. Because of that, it is very important to understand, no matter how nebulously it may be defined. All that we must do is avoid the belief that our work ends with learning what intersectionality is; we must continue to push for structural change in our society, so that the reasons for the term’s existence might one day no longer exist.
[1] Hill Collins, P. & Sirma, B. 2020. Intersectionality. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK; Medford, MA: Polity Press. p.15
[2] Carbado, D.W. & Harris, C.I. 2019. Intersectionality at 30: Mapping the Margins of Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality and Dominance Theory. Harvard Law Review 132(8) pp.2193-2239
[3] Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(8)
[4] Lorde, A. 1983. There is no Hierarchy of Oppressions. Bulletin: Homophobia and Educations. New York: Council on Interracial Books for Children
[5] McGuire, R.H. 1992. Archeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94(4) pp.816-836
[6] Beauchamp, W.M. 1900. Iroquois Women. The Journal of American Folklore 13(49) pp.81-91
[7] Saini, A. 2023. The Patriarchs. London, Dublin: Harper Collins
[8] Kelliher, D. 2014. Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984-5. History Workshop Journal 77 pp.240-262
[9] Bilge, S. 2013. Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Intersectionality Studies. Du Bois Review 10(2), pp.405-424
[10] Collins, P.H. 2015. Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology 41(1), pp.1-20
[11] Kelly, C; Kasperavicius, D; Duncan, D; Etherington, C; Giangregorio, L; Presseau, J; Sibley, K.M; Straus, S. 2021. ‘Doing’ or ‘using’ intersectionality? Opportunities and challenges in incorporating intersectionality into knowledge translation theory and practice. International Journal for Equity in Health 20(1), pp.1-7
[12] Echeverria, A. 2025. Intersectionality. Annals of Anthropological Practice 49(1), pp.N/A
