Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:00:02.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Intersectionality and Epistemic Erasure: A Caution to Decolonial Feminism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

K. Bailey Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and African American Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania16802
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

In this article I caution that María Lugones's critiques of Kimberlé Crenshaw's intersectional theory posit a dangerous form of epistemic erasure, which underlies Lugones's decolonial methodology. This essay serves as a critical engagement with Lugones's essay “Radical Multiculturalism and Women of Color Feminisms” in order to uncover the decolonial lens within Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality. In her assertion that intersectionality is a “white bourgeois feminism colluding with the oppression of Women of Color,” Lugones precludes any possibility of intersectionality operating as a decolonial method. Although Lugones states that her “decolonial feminism” is for all women of color, it ultimately excludes Black women, particularly with her misconstruing of Crenshaw's articulation of intersectionality that is rooted within the Black American feminist tradition. I explore Lugones's claims by juxtaposing her rendering of intersectionality with Crenshaw's and conclude that Lugones's decolonial theory risks erasing Black women from her framework.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carbado, Devon, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Vickie Mays, and Tomlinson, Barbara. 2013. Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review 10 (2): 303–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, Sumi, Crenshaw, Kimberlé, and McCall, Leslie. 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs 38 (4): 784810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000/2009. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 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 1 (8): 139–68.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 2011. Twenty years of critical race theory: Looking back to move forward. Connecticut Law Review 43 (5): 12531352.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 2018. The urgency of intersectionality: Race & gender in work, life, and politics. The Barbara Jordan Lecture, The Pennsylvania State University, February 15.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2007. Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia 22 (1): 186209.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2011. Methodological notes toward a decolonial feminism. In Decolonizing epistemologies: Latina/o theology and philosophy, ed. Isasi-Díaz, Ada María and Mendieta, Eduardo. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2014. Radical multiculturalism and women of color feminisms. Journal for Culture and Religious Theory 13 (1): 6880.Google Scholar
May, Vivian M. 2014. “Speaking into the void?” Intersectionality critiques and epistemic backlash. Hypatia 29 (1): 94112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Vivian M. 2015. Pursuing intersectionality: Unsettling dominant imaginaries. New York: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, José. 2013. The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar