In this guide, we’ll explore:
- The origins of intersectionality: Intersectionality was never meant to be a buzzword
- Giving Black and Queer Feminist Thought-Leaders Their Flowers
- The Co-Option by the EDI sector, corporations, and non-profits DEI
- The True Meaning of Intersectionality
- How Organisations Practice Intersectionality With Integrity
Intersectionality was never meant to be a buzzword
Intersectionality has been watered down to the oblivion, as with many radical concepts that aren’t all that radical. In recent years, we’ve witnessed the term, as with many others, suffering the ill fate of being co-opted by EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion), which has turned into a buzzword in replacement of ‘diversity.’
Legal scholar and racial justice advocate Kimberlé Crenshaw is credited with first coining the term in 1989. A pinnacle year in global politics and the rise in technology, which saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Tiananmen Square Protests and the invention of the World Wide Web. In 1989, the world was making moves, and Crenshaw was too. Defining intersectionality as:
“…a metaphor for understanding the ways that multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage sometimes compound themselves and create obstacles that often are not understood among conventional ways of thinking.”
It is important to recognise that although Crenshaw developed a framework for intersectionality, she did not invent the concept. No, the idea of intersectionality is firmly rooted in black feminist political thought and was alluded to long before Crenshaw stepped on the scene.
Throughout the centuries, black women have been ‘invisibilised’ from movements from women’s rights to civil rights to LGBTQIA+ rights and everything in between. With mainstream movements often erasing the interlocking systems of oppression that black women have been subjected to.
This article breaks down what intersectionality is and what it ain’t. Exploring its limitations as a framework for anti-oppression, dispelling the myth that it is an antidote to injustice and delving into its misuse in philanthropy (in this sense, we mean charitable giving).
The framework of intersectionality exists for a reason, but it is often misused and misappropriated, causing more harm than good. Let’s dive deeper into the development of the concept, pre-Crenshaw, to understand how it should and could be used as a force for good when adopted as a lens to understand different lived experiences meaningfully.
Give Black and Queer Feminist Thought-Leaders Their Flowers
“And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
– Sojourner Truth, Ain’t I A Woman?
Delivered 1851 at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, United States
Sojourner Truth, Abolitionist and Civil Women’s Rights Activist, encapsulated the philosophy of intersectionality in her speech Ain’t I A Woman in 1851. Speaking truth to power when she called out the hypocrisy of how black women were further marginalised in comparison to men and white women. She highlighted that being subjected to enslavement did not change the fact that she was a woman. Yet, society treated her differently, discriminating against black women in more ways than one– painting a stark picture of the overlapping oppressions of race and gender.
Perhaps one of the most eloquent expressions of the underpinnings of intersectionality is that of Dr. Anna Julia Cooper, who was an author, activist, educator, scholar, and formerly enslaved. The extract below is taken from her book, A Voice From The South: By a Black Woman of the South, published in 1892, over 40 years after Sojourner Truth made history with her speech. Cooper argued that black women had a unique perspective from which to observe and contribute to society because of the oppression they faced concerning class and gender.
“We take our stand on the solidarity of humanity, the oneness of life, and the unnaturalness and injustice of all special favoritisms, whether of sex, race, country, or condition…The coloured woman feels that woman’s cause is one and universal and that…not till race, colour, sex, and condition are seen as accidents and not the substance of life; not till the universal title of humanity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is conceded to be inalienable to all, not till then is woman’s lesson taught and woman’s cause won – not the white woman’s nor the black woman’s.”
–Dr. Anna Julia Cooper, A Voice From The South
By naming the different types of oppression faced by people in general but from the lens of a black woman in the South, she demonstrated how geography, labour, disability and gender overlapped and how these oppressions were not accidents but symptoms of manufactured oppression, i.e. white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism.
Fast forward to 1977, and the Combahee River Collective (CRC), a black feminist lesbian organising group, released the following statement:
“…our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As Black women, we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of colour face.”
This is where we see the modern iteration from which intersectionality, as coined by Crenshaw, stemmed. Combahee River Collective clearly defined that different types of oppression did not exist in silos. If true collective liberation was to be achieved, if meaningful change was to happen, then social justice efforts would need to be grounded in an “integrated analysis” with the understanding that all major systems of oppression are interconnected.
Audre Lorde echoed this by saying it loud and clear in 1982 in her speech, Learning From The 60s, when she expressed the dangers of dividing race, class, gender, and sexuality:
“There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.”
Angela Davis also spoke about intersectional feminism before it had its name in her seminal book Women, Race and Class, published in 1981. Davis’s focus was mainly on the plight of black American women within the feminist movement and how their experiences of different types of labour, class distinctions, and race overlapped. In her book, she stated:
“Even the most radical white abolitionists, basing their opposition to slavery on moral and humanitarian grounds, failed to understand that the rapidly developing capitalism from the North was also an oppressive system. They viewed slavery as a detestable and inhuman institution, an archaic transgression of justice. But they did not recognise that the white worker in the North, his or her status as “free” labourer notwithstanding, was no different from the enslaved “worker” in the South: both were victims of economic exploitation.”
In this passage, Davis exposed the lack of knowledge when it came to understanding the overlapping nature in how systems of oppression affected different groups. Specifically speaking to how race, class and economic systems intersect in the context of enslavement and capitalism.
In the same year, bell hooks published her book Ain’t I A Woman? Titled after Sojourner Truth’s speech of the same name. hooks examined the interlocking nature and effect of racism and sexism on black women. Arguing that Black women have experienced a specific form of oppression ignored by feminist movements, which often centre on white women. Her approach captured the essence of intersectionality before it had its name by calling out the single-axis thinking that underpinned mainstream feminist movements, much like Audre Lorde, who spoke of the dangers of dividing race, class, and gender.
“No other group in America has had their identity socialised out of existence as have Black women. When Black people are talked about, the focus tends to be on Black men; and when women are talked about, the focus tends to be on white women.”
–bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman?
The Co-Option by the EDI sector, corporations, and non-profits
In the past few years, there has been vocal criticism of the EDI sector and some of its approaches, recognising the often performative ways in which corporations and charities, yes, even charities, can use EDI as a tick-boxing exercise, signalling performative allyship rather than deep conscious systemic change.
EDI initiatives use the language of social justice movements to demonstrate that they are with you. However, the language used is sometimes devoid of action, having lost its meaning through its dilution and misuse. Representation is still tokenistic behind closed doors, and the issues they claim to be addressing aren’t approached with integrity because they lack meaningful connection to the inequity they claim to address or lack the depth of understanding and expertise needed to deliver effectively.
That’s not to say that EDI isn’t needed and isn’t important. Regarding representation, it has led to the protection and creation of jobs specifically for people experiencing marginalisation and racialisation. Ultimately, EDI exists within the confines of a small ecosystem but does not lead to transformative change outside of that ecosystem. Its focus is largely on representation, policy updates and diverse environments.
In comparison, anti-racism is concerned with deeper, systemic approaches — actively challenging and dismantling the structures, behaviours, and ideologies that uphold white supremacy and racial injustice.
Due to EDI initiatives popularising the term intersectionality. Charities and corporations who engage with EDI have been using it as a calling card for social justice. Corporations embed the term in their marketing strategies, and many use it superficially to mean “diverse representation.” But we expect that from corporations or those who exist for profit and performance rather than social good. Although, hey, Ben & Jerry’s, we see you, we love it, and keep up the good work.
Charities have increasingly used the language of intersectionality in funding bids – not necessarily because it’s embedded in their work, but because funders are asking for it. This shift hasn’t always come from a place of genuine understanding but rather from a growing trend where funders and grantmakers treat intersectionality as a checkbox or requirement without engaging with its depth or purpose.
In doing so, they weaponise the concept, for many organisations led by people with lived experience of marginalisation, this creates an additional barrier to accessing funding. Instead of intersectionality being a tool for justice and inclusion, it’s being misapplied in ways that exclude the very groups it was meant to centre.
Those who live at the intersections of systemic injustice, the very people for whom the framework was developed, are being left out in the cold due to the superficial and incorrect use of the term by those in power.
The True Meaning of Intersectionality
Intersectionality is a framework that helps us understand how overlapping systems of oppression marginalise and privilege groups in society. The systems of oppression often relate to:
- White supremacy
- Patriarchy
- Sexism
- Ableism
- Classism
- Heteronormativity
- Cisnormativity
- Colonialism and Imperialism
- Ageism
- Religious oppression
Identity politics helps us understand how social groups are impacted by systems of oppression. By taking a more granular look into these systems, identity politics, as defined by Barbara Smith, a former member of the CRC (Combahee River Collective), acknowledges:
“…that people have different relationships to systemic oppression based upon who they are. And that we have to take that into account when we’re trying to figure out the best way forward when we’re trying to challenge and eradicate that oppression…we [were] all fighting vicious homophobia…but what identity politics would bring to that was that, yeah, but if you are a black trans woman, you’re in a different relationship to those issues that seemingly have been already defined. So we have to look at the specificity of who we are to figure out the solutions for what we face.”
Over the past few years, academics, activists, organisers and politicians have been in conflict about what identity politics is. Many say it is a separatist ideology used to cause division rather than connection in society. It is used as a frequent talking point by the manosphere, the far right on Facebook forums and in the not-so-deep depths of Reddit, as well as certain fascist politicians claiming that “identity politics is beginning to rip us into pieces.” However, when going back to the term’s origins, you can see that it was used by the CRC as an act of resistance to the mainstream politics of their time, which considered identity irrelevant. As many of the aforementioned Black feminist thinkers noted when discussing mainstream feminism and civil rights – social identities, specifically pertaining to Black women, were largely erased from movements.
CRC used their own positionality as described by them to build “the most profound and potentially most radical politics.” Recognising that someone’s identity affected their experience of injustice, thus making identity politically relevant. They understood that their everyday experiences in an oppressive society were a result of a combination of their multiple identities and multiple oppressions. These were considered combined as connecting us rather than separating us, contrary to many criticisms of identity politics. CRC intended to stand in solidarity with everyone by recognising how everyone’s identity was impacted by overarching systems of oppression, but that these systems impacted them in a variety of ways depending on their identity.
Recognising that identity politics is a powerful and meaningful tool within an intersectional framework is essential. It should not centre on lived experience as the primary source of authority. It should be used as a tool within a framework offering a structural analysis of power, only then can meaningful learning and action take place. When identity politics is used in an individualistic manner, separate from a systemic context of oppression, it is reduced to being a separatist ideology.
How Can Organisations Practice Intersectionality With Integrity?
Organisations can learn a lot from community organising in terms of practicing intersectionality with integrity. However, that doesn’t negate the limitations of operating within the confines of capitalism.
INCITE! Women, Gender Non-Conforming, and Trans people of Colour Against Violence, a U.S based organising group, approaches their grassroots organising:
“From the framework that locates women of colour as living in the dangerous intersections of sexism and racism, as well as other oppressions.“
Their focus is on how sexual violence and domestic violence connect with state violence. In this way, they ensure that their approach to intersectionality is rooted within the critical analysis from which it was born. Their focus also highlights a commitment to systemic change by addressing the overarching and overlapping systems of oppression impacting the communities they support.
As part of their approach INCITE! Recognises that by committing to centre communities with direct lived experiences of interlocking oppression they gain:
“…a more comprehensive view of the diverse strategies needed to end all forms of violence.”
What grassroots organising groups like INCITE! teach us is that in order to practice intersectionality meaningfully, organisations and practitioners must go beyond using it as a tool to build inclusion and use it as a tool towards transformative change by taking the following steps:
- Centre lived experiences with the understanding that not everyone is an “expert by experience.”
- Go beyond single-issue advocacy by resisting siloed thinking of people’s identities.
- Audit internal power structures and follow up by taking action to address unequal power dynamics –who are the decision makers? And how are they supported and held accountable?
- Not engage in tokenistic hires but rather establish mechanisms in which everyone has an opportunity to influence decision-making.
- Avoid one-size-fits-all solutions and being open to understanding there is no one right way of doing things.
- Moving from performative allyship, understanding that intersectionality is a critical analysis of power and marginalisation requiring action that goes beyond signalling.
- Be flexible and understand that the journey is not linear.
To ensure intersectionality doesn’t lose its meaning, organisations and practitioners must commit to its radical roots – recognising the complex realities of the world we live in today. This requires engaging in deep, ongoing learning about historical and present-day systems of oppression, especially the enduring influence of white supremacy culture.
Intersectionality must not be reduced to a white, Western lens, which too often distorts its purpose. When viewed this way, it can be misused to downplay, dismiss, or deny the real impact of oppression on racialised communities, which often gives the false impression that we have all started from an equal level playing field, which is exactly what intersectionality exposes and it should never be approached in a paternalistic manner.
Glossary
- Ableism: Discrimination and social prejudice against disabled people are rooted in the belief that non-disabled bodies are superior. Ableism marginalises and excludes disabled people in systems, structures, language, and culture.
- Anti-Oppression: An approach that seeks to recognise, challenge, and dismantle all forms of systemic inequality and injustice. Anti-oppression work is intersectional and considers how race, gender, class, ability, and other identities interconnect to sustain oppression.
- Anti-Racism: The active process of confronting and eliminating racism by changing systems, organisational structures, policies, practices, and attitudes. It requires intentional actions to challenge white supremacy and racial inequity.
- Colonialism: A violent system of domination where one nation asserts control over another territory and its people, extracting resources and erasing cultures. Colonialism has lasting effects on Indigenous peoples and communities worldwide.
- Cisnormativity: The assumption that everyone identifies with the gender assigned to them at birth (cisgender) and that this is the default or norm. This marginalises transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse people.
- Heteronormativity: The belief that heterosexuality is the default or preferred sexual orientation. It reinforces a limited view of relationships and identities and excludes LGBTQIA+ individuals from social, legal, and cultural norms.
- Imperialism: The extension of a nation’s power through territorial acquisition, political or economic control, or cultural dominance. Imperialism often reinforces racial hierarchies and justifies exploitation under the guise of “civilisation.”
- Manosphere: A network of online spaces that promote misogynistic and anti-feminist ideologies. These communities often uphold toxic masculinity and intersect with white supremacy and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric.
- Performative Allyship: Allyship that is surface-level or done for social approval rather than genuine support. It often centres the ally’s image while avoiding real risk or challenge to oppressive systems.
- Positionality: An understanding of how one’s social identities (such as race, gender, class, ability, etc.) shape their worldview, access to power, and relationship to systems of oppression. Acknowledging positionality is key in anti-racist work.
- Siloed: Working in isolation without recognising how issues are interconnected. Siloed approaches in advocacy or organisations can reinforce oppression by ignoring intersectionality.
- Single-Issue Advocacy: An approach that focuses narrowly on one form of injustice without acknowledging how different systems of oppression intersect. This can unintentionally perpetuate exclusion and limit meaningful progress.
- Systems of Oppression: Deeply embedded societal structures—like racism, sexism, ableism, and others—that create and maintain inequities by privileging some groups while marginalising others. These systems are interconnected and reinforced by culture, policy, and institutions.
- White Supremacy: An ideology and system that upholds white people and whiteness as superior. It is not limited to overt hate but includes structural advantages for white people in education, healthcare, justice, media, and beyond.
- White Supremacy Culture: A set of values and norms that prioritise white, Western ways of being—such as perfectionism, urgency, individualism, and defensiveness—and are often unconsciously embedded in organisations and institutions.
Zoe Daniels, they/them, is a wearer of many hats. A Brand and Marcomms and Racial Justice consultant for Spark Insights and JMB Consulting, a baddy writer, hopeless romantic poet, community organiser and stand-up comedian when they feel like it. Connect with them on LinkedIn; they would love to meet you!
This guide was developed for Spark & Co. in March 2025. It will next be reviewed in April 2026.