Intersectionality and the Risk of Flattening Difference: Gender and Race Logics, and the Strategic Use of Antiracist Singularity (pg. 100-117 of The Intersectional Approach)

by Rachel E. Luft

"[T]here can be unintended consequences to the blanket application of intersectionality. Uniform deployment may inadvertently contribute to flattening the very differences intersectional approaches intend to recognize. Flattening, in turn, impedes intersectional social change."

I really enjoyed reading this essay - possibly because it was easier to understand than previous essays. Probably. Luft repeatedly asserts her argument that applying broad techniques of discussion and education is questionable in the pursuit of "consciousness transformation". She also helpfully spends some time on the history of feminist and antiracist resistance activities (105). Luft spends the majority of her essay discussing the ideologies of race and gender.

Luft's discussion on gender centers around the fact that there is an "ongoing popular obsession with essential gender difference and its 'natural' manifestations". This assertion reminds me of the discussions we had in AP Euro on the Renaissance/Middle Ages and the cultural weight behind "proper" roles for the sexes. Luft only mentioned gender as a comparison for race - her argument was focused on race and how to go about fighting racism, not about feminism.

I was surprised by Luft's argument about race, not because I disagreed, but because I had never considered the topic as such. Culturally, she argues, we as Americans tend to simply think that "[T]he denial of [racial] difference indicates the lack of prejudice, which is good." Luft asserts that color blindness is more damaging that it is helpful; instead of breaking stereotypes and racial inequality down, it ignores/covers them up and allows their effect to build covertly.

Luft differentiates between gender and race by saying that gender should be discussed through an intersectional lens in macro/impersonal mediums while race should be dealt with selectively in introductory and interactive experiences. Although I had never considered this specific distinction, I find myself agreeing with Luft. She says that since "everyone is racialized according to a hierarchy of advantage and disadvantage", it is important to everyone to check their privilege and hold themselves accountable for subconscious and conscious actions.

Her insistence on discussion race as a single-issue problem instead of collectively under the umbrella of intersectionality is also understandable. It's true that we as a society are more likely to dismiss race than gender. We are more likely to skirt around someone's race as a descriptor than their apparent gender. Luft believes that in re-racializing history and educating people on race's effect on society, "homogeneity becomes a temporary heuristic". When I first read this, I thought it seemed rather counterproductive. How can we expect change if we revert to isolating experiences? I realized I had fallen into the very trap Luft had just explained. I wanted to view racism as something to be fixed through an intersectionalist lens, instead of an antiracist lens. Luft's goal is best summed up on page 111: "racial reeducation, racial identity transformations, and ultimately behavioral change."

My biggest source of confusion was on this statement: "As more movement actors adopt intersectional frameworks without substantive pursuit of intersectional aims [...] the disconnect contributes to mystification and cooptation." Is she saying people are putting on a show - educating/discussing - without a genuine intent to change? Or that they are unintentionally contributing to the flattening and diminishing difference?

Overall, it is important to note that Luft is not trying to diminish the power or importance of intersectionalism. She herself says that race does not trump gender but "neither does gender trump race". Luft says that "intersectionality's methodological application will be strengthened with accountability to the setting in which it is being used". The field of intersectionality is (and should remain to be) fluid and flexible enough to include strategic uses of singularity.