The Criticism Of Intersectionality

It must be noted that criticism of intersectionality isn’t limited to its theoretical framing, it extends to the depoliticization of intersectionality. Yuval-Davis (2006, p. 196) writes that “in UN documents intersectionality has collapsed to ‘identity’ even when more complex arguments are being outlined”. She points out that too often, “intersectionality analysis ‘does not attend to the differential positioning of power in which different identity groups can be in specific historical contexts, let alone the dynamics of power relations within these groups. Nor does it give recognition to the potentially contested nature of the boundaries of these identity groupings and the possibly contested political claims for representation of people located in the same social positioning” (Ibid., p. 204).

Despite critiques and apprehensions regarding intersectionality, Bowleg (2012, p. 1268) writes that “the fact cannot be dismissed that intersectionality provides a unifying language and theoretical framework for public health scholars who are already engaged in investigating intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, and disability to reduce and eliminate health

Owing to India’s diversity, these identities are determined by caste, ancestry, socioeconomic class, religion, sexual orientation and geographic location, and play an important role in determining the social position of an individual (Anne, Callahan & Kang, 2011). Within this diversity, certain identities are privileged over others, due to social hierarchies and inequalities, whose roots are more than a thousand years old. These inequalities have marginalized groups and communities which is evident from their meagre participation in politics, access to health and education services and