Madeline Steffey
Intersectionality with Kimberle Crenshaw and Gloria Anzaldua

Intersectionality can be described as the study of the intersection of different forms of discrimination experienced by individuals who are members of multiple minority groups. For example, a Hispanic woman faces barriers in society not only because she is Hispanic, but also because she is a woman and one could not fully understand her oppression without taking both of these aspects into consideration. Kimberly Crenshaw and Gloria Anzaldua both provide accounts of intersectionality and utilize different approaches in their explanations. I will begin by analyzing their approaches separately, then I will explain how Crenshaw might object to Anzaldua’s account because it does not contain adequate factual evidence or realistic solutions. As a response from Anzaldua to Crenshaw’s objections, I will assert that Anzaldua effectively used personal and cultural experiences to reflect on intersectionality.
Throughout her life, Anzaldua felt like she lived within borders. That in order to live and survive, she had to cross borders continuously. This is because multiple aspects of her life typically result in societal discrimination. She is unique in that she is a minority in several ways such as being a mix of Mexican and Anglo-Saxon, as well as being a lesbian. These aspects overlap and intertwine, which results in intersectionality. When crossing borders, one has to adapt to the different norms that are customary to the different sides of the border. It is necessary to exist in her worlds in different ways. For example, Mexican and Anglo-Saxon people have diverse views and rules that dictate appropriate actions and behavior that are accepted. Anzaldua is born of parents who are both Mexican and Anglo-Saxon, which makes her a mixture of both cultures.
From the words of Azaldua, “Dominant paradigms, predefined concepts that exist as unquestionable, unchallengeable, are transmitted to us through culture (p. 16, Anzaldua). Within a culture, one is not supposed to attempt to defy or rebel against the paradigms that exist. According to her culture, Anzaldua explained that a woman could only choose between becoming a nun, a prostitute, or a mother. These options are so rigid and leave little room for self-exploration and achievement of personal goals and desires. From a young age, Anzaldua was stubborn and did not submit to the norms of her culture. She had a fire inside of her that destined her for a calling other than one of the typical three choices available to women. As a child, Anzaldua would spend most of her time reading or studying instead of obeying and doing her household chores, such as ironing clothes. She even went as far as to say, “Nothing in my culture approved of me” (p. 16, Anzaldua). Her culture did not approve because she was rebellious and did not conform to how a typical woman in her culture should behave.
In addition, Anzaldua’s sexuality also intersects with her culture, which does not accept homosexuality. In her culture, people who are homosexual are seen as half and half, like an abnormality of nature that instills fear and confusion in others. This is yet another part of Anzaldua’s life that is known to be victim to judgment and discrimination. Unlike what some people may believe, Anzaldua made it clear that homosexuals do not suffer from sexuality identity or gender. Instead, they suffer from the limitation of having to be only one gender or the other, which does not allow for the evolution of human nature to become something better. Despite the cultural limitations, Anzaldua affirms that she is indeed both male and female, saying, “I am the embodiment of the hieros gamos: the coming together of opposite qualities within”(p.19, Anzaldua). Her sexuality paved a way for an interesting path in life, one that is alternatively influenced by the white, Catholic, Mexican, and indigenous instincts inside of her.
Anzaldua gives a harrowing look into the lives of women of color who live on the border between two cultures. Their world is not safe for them and they fear being attacked or exploited by the dominant race. It would be such an alienating feeling to be caught in between two worlds and to not feel like you belong to one or the other. Her culture, while trying to protect the women, actually prevents their ability to respond and overcome their alienation. As a result, women of color living on the border are immobilized and are not able to move forwards or backwards. Because women of color are stuck in between worlds, they do not feel confident enough to take advantage of faculties and of their own free will. Barriers make them feel victimized and block them from bringing change to their situation. However, there is a choice that Anzaldua brought to attention when she said, “And there in front of us is the crossroads and choice: to feel a victim where someone else is in control and therefore responsible and to blame, or to feel strong, and, for the most part, in control (p. 21, Anzaldua). This quote leads me to Anzaldua’s solution to overcoming intersectionality.
Anzaldua could have played the victim and let society dictate the type of life she would lead, however, her rebellious and independent spirit would not allow it. She took control of her life and used her strength to overcome the limitations that were inherently set before her. This strength came from her Shadow Beast, which Anzaldua describes as the part of her that refuses to take orders from outside authorities or her conscious will and which kicks out with both feet at any hint of limitation or constraint. She did not hide it, nor did she simply exist in it, but rather she faced and embraced it. She hopes that other women of color could find the same strength to live proudly in their identity and let all parts of themselves show. Anzaldua also hopes that it could be possible to have a cultural mixing and bring opposite worlds together to form one that allows for all of the different, intersecting parts of who we are as people in order to form a new mestiza.
Crenshaw begins her account of intersectionality by acknowledging that while identity-based politics have provided strength, community and intellectual development, it also contends with dominant conceptions of social justice. She asserts that the problem with identity politics is that it overlooks intragroup differences. Particularly in the case of violence against women, identity politics can hinder the complete understanding of the complicated experience of women affected by domestic violence. It is imperative to account for the multiple dimensions of the women’s identities, such as their ethnic backgrounds and social class. In the same way that a feminist cannot overlook race and expect to change the experiences of all women, nor can anti-racist efforts succeed without fighting for the equality of women. In both cases, one group will continue to remain oppressed unless it is acknowledged that racism and sexism are not mutually exclusive.
From the words of Crenshaw, “Contemporary feminist and antiracist discourses have failed to consider intersectional identities such as women of color,” who face discrimination stemming from their gender as well as their race (p. 1244, Crenshaw). Crenshaw accounts for both race and gender in the violence against women of color and explains how their experiences are often the result of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism. There are various ways in which race and gender intersect, which result in not only structural aspects of violence against women of color, but also political and representational. Crenshaw also makes it known that race and gender are not the only factors that affect the lives of women of color and stressed the need to account for multiple grounds of identity in the consideration of the social world and its construction. Intervention strategies for victims of abuse do not work for women of color if they fail to account for their specific experiences and obstacles. Such strategies are typically far too general to begin to undress the many layers of difficulties that are faced by women of color. For example, one specific problem arose for women of color as a result of a provision to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which made it necessary to be married for at least two years before being able to apply for permanent residence status. This provision made it even harder for female victims of violence to leave their partners due to their fear of deportation. They are trapped between the difficult decision of seeking support from abuse or risking being deported and thus returning to square one. Even if they did choose to find help, the process is more complicated than one would believe. Women of color are limited by their inability to access resources and in addition, Crenshaw says, “Cultural barriers often further discourage immigrant women from reporting or escaping battering situations” (p. 1248, Crenshaw). In resolution, Crenshaw explains the needs to challenge groups to speak out against internal exclusions and marginalizations. She adds that recognizing the ways in which women of color experience intersectionality does not mean that attempts to organize as communities of color need be eliminated. Instead, she points out that “Intersectionality provides a basis for reconceptualizing race as a coalition between men and women of color” (p. 1299, Crenshaw). Becoming aware of intersectionality will provide knowledge of the differences among groups that will allow members to find similarities among their differences, which will result in better addressing the needs and experiences of the marginalized.
I think that Crenshaw would consider Anzaldua’s account of intersectionality to be too abstract without viable solutions. Crenshaw is very research-driven and concerned with the political and structural policies that act as barriers to women of color. She might say that Anzaldua relies too heavily on her story telling approach and does not delve deeper into the underlying causes of intersectionality and the structures of society that perpetuate it. In her resolution, Anzaldua states that she wants there to be a cultural mixing, where two worlds can become one, however, Crenshaw would probably claim that she does not provide enough detail or explanation regarding how that could become possible. She would say that Anzaldua does not call for any action or state specifically what steps she thinks would be necessary to overcome intersectionality.
Crenshaw might also say that Anzaldua focuses too much on her personal life and upbringing rather than the experiences of others in similar situations. She might argue that this makes for a limited view of intersectionality and might exclude valuable insight. Crenshaw did not get personal and instead focuses on intersectionality from an outsider’s perspective by studying the tribulations faced by women of color by going out and seeking information in communities. Crenshaw also might argue that Anzaldua did not adequately go in depth with her research analysis and does not use enough evidence to support her claims. Crenshaw utilized her extensive research, which included a field study to a battered women’s shelter in a minority community in Los Angeles, to support her definition of intersectionality. Anzaldua mentioned that women living on the border do not have the confidence to access faculties that are in place to help them. However, Crenshaw gives more support as to how political and structural factors play a role in preventing women from getting the help they need. For example, by giving evidence of how the Immigration and Nationality Act affects women of color, her readers gain a clear understanding of some of the barriers women of color face. Language barriers are another important factor in why women of color do not seek the help they need. Women may not know about shelters because the information about them is in a different language, or they may even be turned away at a shelter due to the lack of bilingual personnel and resources. While Anzaldua incorporates her native language into her writing, she does not specifically give information about how it acts as a barrier to women on the border.
In response to Crenshaw’s objections to her version of intersectionality, Anzaldua would likely say that her personal account of her story might enable a woman reading it who went through the same situation to relate and to not feel so alone. She might stress that while facts and figures provide valuable information, story-telling is a way to get inside a readers’ head emotionally. Anzaldua likely knows the power and impact that such an emotional story can have and how it can stay with a reader for a long time after reading. This impact can change the way someone views intersectionality and may touch upon an important aspect that academic research simply cannot supply. Anzaldua would stress the importance of expressing yourself and believing in your unique story in order to overcome your struggles in life. By telling her story, Anzaldua brought light and truth to the dark experiences held by women living on the border and in between worlds.
Also, while Anzaldua does not give specific information regarding language barriers, she integrated her native language throughout her paper, which represents the divide. She wanted her reader to have to translate the meaning of the Spanish words, so that they would gain an appreciation of what it is like to live on the border where you have to navigate a foreign language. In addition, Anzaldua did not provide political and structural evidence like Crenshaw did, but her evidence is in her experience. She also provides a detailed account of her culture and its influence on intersectionality, which Crenshaw does not do. Analyzing the way culture affects women of color living on the border gives explanation as to why these women have a hard time seeking help and elevating themselves. For example, Anzaldua mentioned that selfishness and ambition are condemned in her culture. Many women on the border would fear that if they tried to change and improve their situation their culture would shame them.
In response to the objections Crenshaw gave regarding her resolution, Anzaldua would probably say that while she did not give specific ways to overcome intersectionality, her words are likely to inspire border women to face their fears. For example, Anzaldua said, “And if going home is denied me then I will have to stand and claim my space, making a new culture- una cultura mestiza- with my own lumber, my own bricks and mortar and my own feminist architecture” (p. 22, Anzaldua). She is encouraging other women through her words to rise up and claim their space and position in society, even if they might feel as if they are unaccounted for in their world on the border. Her raw and authentic account of intersectionality provides a candid perspective that is not easily found. She gives a voice to border women by sharing the vivid and raw experiences she had while living on the border of two worlds.

References

Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.

Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. New York: Routledge.