The Feminism We Need:

Between Intersectionality and Decolonial Thought

Text by Merle Lüking (University of Münster)

Art by Susan Wilkinson, CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED 

This essay explores the interplay between intersectional and decolonial feminist approaches, highlighting their synergies and tensions. It advocates for a feminist practice that combines both perspectives in solidarity, attentive to ‘colonial difference,’ and committed to dismantling colonial, capitalist patriarchy.

Introduction

“Your feminism isn’t feminism unless it’s intersectional” I read on colourful stickers, insta-slides and demo posters. Important, I think. Intersectionality is a theoretical approach that visualises and explains the interaction of multiple discrimination. The concept helps me – a cis and white[1] student – to understand the complexity of structural discrimination. For example how a Black[2] woman in Germany might experience both racial and gender-based discrimination in ways that I, as a white woman, do not. I think the strength of the concept lies in highlighting the significant differences in everyday realities caused by categorisation and systems of oppression. Despite its relevance, I began questioning how the term 'intersectionality' was used in broader discourse. To me, it often seemed like a flagship or buzzword, something added to demonstrate inclusivity and progressiveness, and to avoid doing anything 'wrong', but maybe not often accompanied by a real intention to rethink power structures.

Then, for the first time, I am engaging with decolonial – and specifically decolonial feminist-approaches, which always focus on the colonial past as an incisive historical and powerful material reality that continues to this day. In doing so, I also come up against criticism of the concept of intersectionality. In this essay, I would like to discuss intersectional-feminist and decolonial-feminist approaches and engage with María Lugones’ critique of intersectionality, without losing sight of the fact that both approaches go hand in hand and that the feminism of Women of Colour leads the joint fight against white patriarchy. In my opinion, however, this should not prevent emerging contradictions within discourses from being discussed in a respectful and careful framework, as this essay is intended to offer.

Decolonial Feminism: Coloniality and Power

Decolonial feminism emerged as a reaction to the hegemonic structures of Western and predominantly white feminism, which ignored the realities of Women of Colour and reproduced colonial power structures rather than breaking through them. In her book “A Decolonial Feminism”, French political theorist, feminist activist and writer Françoise Vergès emphasizes the need to liberate feminism from the ideological concepts of eurocentrism, capitalism and colonialism. She makes white feminism partly responsible for the preservation of white, patriarchal rule and cites islamophobia and specifically the so-called “headscarf debate” as an example of the argumentative alliance between white “feminists” and politically right-wing, nationalist groups. She also takes up the increasing global neoliberalisation, in which questionable white liberal movements calling themselves feminist also play a role (cf. Vergès 2021, 47). Vergès argues for a feminism that clearly opposes racism, imperialism and patriarchy and recognises the multi-layered mechanisms of oppression experienced by women from different social and cultural backgrounds (cf. Vergès 2021, 4).

The Argentinian philosopher and activist María Lugones played a key role in shaping decolonial feminism. She is also the originator of the critical examination of intersectionality, which I will discuss later. She sees decolonial feminism as an in-depth approach that enables us to understand and critically scrutinise global systems of power. Lugones closely links decolonial feminism with Aníbal Quijano’s concept of “coloniality of power”, in which he describes how colonial hegemonies continue until today and shape societal power dynamics (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 299). Lugones also refers to “colonial difference”, which she describes as the theoretical space in which global and local perspectives on power structures are negotiated. She places the appeal to combat colonial continuities and to rethink geopolitical knowledge systems and discourses at the center of decolonial feminism (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 302).

Rethinking Intersectional Feminism

Intersectional feminism arose from the need to recognise the complexity of women’s experiences of oppression. The term “intersectionality” was coined by the lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to linguistically categorise the reciprocal influences of social inequalities such as gender, class or race. Crenshaw’s background was the observation that multiple discriminations are not sufficiently taken into account in court due to legal and linguistic gaps. One specific example was a case in which a Black woman did not get a job and went to court because of discrimination. The employer in question argued that there was no discrimination because both Black people and women were employed by the company. However, the People of Colour who worked in the company were men employed as mechanics, while the women were white and employed as office staff. The discrimination was therefore not because of one of the two categories, but specifically because of the combination of both. “Intersectionality” is intended to show how different forms of oppression are intertwined and can reinforce each other. Intersectional feminism emphasises the need to consider gender, race, class and other identity categories together in order to capture (as fully as possible) the experiences of marginalised women (cf. Crenshaw 1990).

I see intersectionality as a valuable tool that explains multiple discrimination in a clear – albeit very simplified – way. The image of the intersection makes it clear that multiple discrimination may happen. However, the necessary understanding of the contexts and origins of the categories on the basis of which structural discrimination still occurs today is – logically – omitted in this simplification. This is only problematic if the desire to understand discrimination stops at the concept of intersectionality. In that case, the origin of the categories – colonial – would  remain largely hidden.

In addition to the obvious simplification of the concept, Lugones sees further risks and points worthy of criticism in intersectional feminist approaches: For example, she criticises the fact that intersectional approaches remain within the colonial category logic and thus reproduce the categories that are actually supposed to be broken (cf. Velez 2019, 393). For example, “black” and “woman” are two separable categories in intersectional approaches, which Lugones criticises as following the logic of the oppressors (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 296). In her essay “Heterosexualism and the colonial-modern gender system”, Lugones emphasises that gender must always be understood as a colonial concept (cf. Lugones 2023 (2007), 144). One to four per-cent of the world’s population cannot be assigned to clear biological gender categories, which shows that gender is primarily a social construct (cf. Lugones 2023 (2007), 155). In the course of colonisation, the two-gender system was introduced in places where it had not previously existed (cf. Lugones 2023 (2007), 158). Lugones cites the Yoruba community as an example of this. She calls for gender to always be seen as a tool introduced by the West, which must always be deconstructed (cf. Lugones 2023 (2007), 159).

Lugones writes that these colonial categories create hierarchies and falsely simplify power dynamics due to dichotomous categorisation. Lugones identifies dichotomous hierarchisation and specifically the distinction between human and non-human existence as a decisive pattern of thought in colonialism: groups of people were “dehumanized” in order to “justify” colonial exploitation (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 297). The bodies of the colonised people were appropriated by white European rule in the cruelest way. They were weakened by hard labour, sexually abused and the reproductive capacity of childbearing bodies was controlled (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 298). In this colonial dichotomy between “human” and “non-human”, European women stood above colonised men. They reproduced capital and the “European” way of life and values. This is another reason why feminism can never be thought of without coloniality. Lugones calls this hierarchising dichotomy the coloniality of gender (cf. Lugones 2021 (2010), 297).

In 20th century feminism, the links between gender, class and heterosexuality were not made sufficiently clear. The debates at the time (and some of which continue to this day) fight against the characterisation of women as “weak” and “fragile”. However, this characterisation only applies to white-European constructed femininity. Lugones therefore rightly believes that these feminist struggles have excluded Women of Colour for decades (cf. Lugones 2023 (2007), 168). We therefore need a fundamentally new feminism that focusses on coloniality. Intersectionality is often seen as an addition to existing debates, as an important perspective – but that is not enough.

Coloniality and the complex forms of discrimination that arise from it must be placed at the center of feminist debates. This is not to say that intersectionality in itself is not challenging enough, but rather that intersectionality as a concept is not enough to scrutinise discrimination at a deeper level. At the same time, I perceive intersectionality to be very present in pop feminism, although at this point, I would cautiously question how intensively the concept and its backgrounds are actually dealt with there. I have a slight fear that intersectionality is sometimes seen as a kind of concession made by white feminists to Women of Colour without actually reflecting on their own working methods and structures.

Another point of criticism, which Lugones does not address in as much detail as the linguistic criticism, is the risk of Women of Colour fragmenting their own identity (cf. Velez 2019, 394). Especially for people to whom many different categories that devalue them according to a colonial logic apply, there is a risk of no longer seeing themselves as a complete Self, but instead as a puzzle of these categories imposed on them. Gender researcher Emma D. Velez is ambivalent about Lugones’ critique of intersectionality. She is also critical of the categorical logic but also sees the risk of criticising it too harshly among Black feminists, which in her opinion would distance Lugones from the valuable work of other Black feminists – such as Kimberlé Crenshaw in this case. In addition, Lugones’ main criticism is a linguistic criticism – she criticises the language Crenshaw uses but agrees with it in terms of content (cf. Velez 2019, 392). As I understand it, Velez takes a critical view of this and raises the question of whether such criticism can even be “afforded” in such a contested field as the activism of Women of Colour. She also emphasises the need to form coalitions and alliances among Women of Colour and refers to the traditional exchange between Black and Latin American feminists, on whose work our current theorising are based, and which would not have been possible without strong cohesion (cf. Velez 2019, 391).

I find Lugones’ criticisms understandable, but I wonder how one could avoid the linguistic and conceptual reproduction of the categories. How can we talk critically about discrimination without naming the categories on the basis of which people experience it? On Lugones’ second point, I wonder to what extent the fragmentation of one’s own identity into powerful categories, which are often targets of discrimination in everyday life, can have a negative impact on self-esteem. This also raises the question of how such self-esteem can in turn have a negative impact on feelings of self-efficacy and empowerment, which are indispensable in the everyday feminist and anti-racist struggle.

Towards a Feminism that is Both Intersectional and Decolonial

So: How do intersectional-feminist and decolonial-feminist approaches come together? Is intersectionality perhaps the intermediate step that feels inconsistent but is necessary before deconstructing and finally completely dismantling colonial category thinking? And is intersectionality perhaps also a way of communicating the complexity of multiple discrimination at a low threshold? At this point, I think it is also important to remember that theoretical debates in an academic context are only accessible and comprehensible to a very privileged minority. A bridge must always be found between, on the one hand, analysing in depth and scientifically and, on the other hand, ultimately bringing the knowledge gained into society, communicating it and, in the best case, using it in a politically effective way.

I see intersectionality as a helpful approach to understanding how multiple discrimination works. Perhaps it is a concept whose strength is to explain this to people who are hardly affected by discrimination themselves. In my understanding, intersectionality tends to focus on the present, on the current state of society, while decolonial feminism goes much further back and tries to holistically grasp and criticise our global power dynamics. Decolonial feminism questions the epistemological foundations of Western domination and hegemony. It recognises that Western modernity is built on colonial structures that continue to exist and influence marginalised groups. It is about analysing not only the surface of oppression, but also exposing and combating the underlying power structures and their historicity.

In order to achieve a productive interplay between decolonial and intersectional feminism, it is important to recognise the respective strengths and weaknesses. This requires an appreciative and inclusive feminist practice that actively campaigns against racism and colonial structures and supports feminist movements in solidarity on a global level. In the important words of María Lugones: “We are moving on at a time of crossings, of seeing each other at the colonial difference constructing a new subject of a new feminist geopolitics of knowing and loving” (Lugones (2021 (2010), 305).

Meeting and exchanging ideas – always against the background of the “colonial difference” mentioned by Lugones – enables the further development of feminist theory, which is necessary as a powerful foundation for feminist movements. Conducting theoretical debates like this also functions as constant questioning and rethinking, in the spirit of Walter Mignolo’s call for more epistemic disobedience (cf. Mignolo 2009, 160). At this point, I would like to emphasise that in our current political situation with right-wing ideologies and governments emerging worldwide, a global feminist practice that is unified and in solidarity with itself, despite different theoretical approaches, and whose main goal is the fight against colonial, capitalist patriarchy, is what we should all stand up for together. To conclude, and to return to the beginning of this essay, the activist appeal and urgent reminder: “Your feminism isn’t feminism unless it's intersectional and decolonial”.

Notes

[1] I write "white" in italics because it denotes a socio-political norm and position of power and does not refer to the colour.

[2] I write "Black" in capital letters because it is a constructed classification and is not due to the colour of the skin.

References

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1990. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–99.

Lorde, Audre. 2007. Sister Outsider. München: Btb Verlag.

Lugones, María. 2021 (2010). “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” In Insurrectionary Uprisings, edited by W. E. Marshall and M. Meyer, 296–305. Cantley, Québec: Daraja Press.

Lugones, María. 2023 (2007). “Heterosexualismus und das kolonial-moderne Geschlechtersystem.” In Materialistischer Queerfeminismus, edited by F. Beier, 143–74. Münster: Unrast Verlag.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2009. “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society 26 (7–8): 159–181.

Velez, Emma D. 2019. “Decolonial Feminism at the Intersection: A Critical Reflection on the Relationship between Decolonial Feminism and Intersectionality.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 33 (3): 390–406.

Vergès, Françoise, and Ashley J. Bohrer. 2021. A Decolonial Feminism. Vol. 13. London: Pluto Press.