Intersectionality has become a go-to framework in cultural studies, activism, and institutional DEI programs. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Other theories—some complementary, some critical—offer competing ways to understand identity, oppression, and the self. Juxtaposing intersectionality with three such frameworks reveals not only what it explains best, but also where it might fall short or need revision.
1. Standpoint Theory: The Epistemological Cousin
Standpoint theory, most famously developed by feminist scholars like Nancy Hartsock and Sandra Harding, shares intersectionality’s concern with marginalized knowledge. It argues that those on the social margins possess epistemic advantages because they can see both dominant and subordinate perspectives.
Where intersectionality focuses on how systems of power interact (e.g., racism and sexism), standpoint theory emphasizes how lived experience under oppression generates alternative knowledges. In that sense, standpoint theory is more epistemological, while intersectionality is more structural.
Still, they align in their insistence that objectivity is a myth: knowledge is always situated. Intersectionality adds complexity by showing how multiple standpoints can exist within a single subject.
2. Identity Politics: The Movement Precursor
Intersectionality emerged from the soil of identity politics, particularly Black feminist organizing in the 1970s and '80s. But while identity politics often mobilizes around a single category (Black, queer, disabled), intersectionality questions the coherence of those categories.
The Combahee River Collective, for instance, saw Black women’s experiences as unique and irreducible—not simply the sum of racism and sexism. Crenshaw formalized that logic into a framework that resists siloed struggles.
Where identity politics can veer toward essentialism, intersectionality highlights internal differentiation: not all women experience womanhood the same way; not all Black people experience Blackness the same way. This makes intersectionality more flexible but also more prone to fragmentation, a tension still present in contemporary activist discourse.
3. Post-Identity Critique: The Anti-Category Turn
In contrast to both intersectionality and identity politics, post-identity theorists (like Paul Gilroy, Judith Butler, or David Eng) challenge the very utility of stable identity categories. They worry that intersectionality, despite its intentions, may reify the identities it analyzes.
Judith Butler, for example, sees gender as performative, not pre-existing. From this view, intersectionality risks turning fluid positionalities into fixed identities. Similarly, Paul Gilroy’s critique of "ethnic absolutism" pushes against frameworks that treat identity as heritage rather than hybridity.
Post-identity critique doesn't always oppose intersectionality—indeed, thinkers like Jasbir Puar merge them—but it does force us to ask: are categories analytical tools or political traps?
What These Debates Reveal
Intersectionality is not a complete theory of everything. It's a conceptual lens that clarifies how power operates through overlapping structures of identity. Standpoint theory pushes it toward epistemology, identity politics roots it in political struggle, and post-identity critique unsettles its categorical foundations.
Rather than choosing between these frameworks, the most productive approach is dialogical. Let them interrogate each other. After all, theory at its best doesn't resolve tension—it activates it.
See also:
Three Theoretical Takes on Intersectionality
Intersectionality Explained: Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Theory and Social Justice Movements
