Marxism and Intersectionality: Race, Gender, Class and Sexuality under Contemporary Capitalism

by Ashley J. Bohrer

What does the development of a truly robust contemporary theory of domination require? Ashley J. Bohrer argues that it is only by considering all of the dimensions of race, gender, sexuality, and class within the structures of capitalism and imperialism that we can understand power relations as we find them nowadays. Bohrer explains how many of the purported incompatibilities between Marxism and intersectionality arise more from miscommunication rather than a fundamental conceptual antagonism. As the first monograph entirely devoted to this issue, »Marxism and Intersectionality« serves as a tool to activists and academics working against multiple systems of domination, exploitation, and oppression.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Feminism, Sociology, Politics, Nonfiction, Race

320 pages, Paperback

Published September 27, 2019

Reviews

[Quin Rich · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a somewhat disappointing text given what it promises. Bohrer makes a clear and compelling case that Marxism and intersectionality are in principle and practice compatible with one another. Specifically, she argues that the antagonism between the two has more to do with mutual misunderstanding (more from Marxism toward intersectionality than the other way around) than from actual fundamental disagreements.

That said, this book reads as more of a literature review rather than a theoretical text in its own right. The vast majority of the text consists of summaries and restatements of the work of other authors. This makes sense, because the primary aim of the text is to clarify precisely what intersectionality is and why it is compatible with Marxism. However, it is underwhelming if you are already familiar with the intersectional literature, as I was when I read it.

Furthermore, the text makes a clear case why Marxists should accept and integrate intersectional perspectives into their thinking. It does not, however, make any argument in the other direction (i.e. why intersectionality needs Marxism). I can understand why Bohrer put her emphasis her; there has been much bad faith and uncritical hostility from self-identified white male Marxists toward intersectionality that needs to be rooted out. (I can think of several commentators that I would like to make sit down and force to read this book!). However , if you are a Marxist feminist sympathetic to intersectionality already and looking for greater theoretical integration of the two frameworks, you will be sorely disappointed. There is no grand restatement of historical materialism integrating race, gender, and sexuality in this text, for example.

Additionally, Bohrer seems to subscribe to some version of multiple systems theory, which is neither Marxist nor intersectional, so her analysis suffers from some conceptual weaknesses. Most underwhelming is her theory of solidarity in the final chapter. She sets herself to argue for a compelling vision of coalition based on intersectional writings, but then offers up a bizarre formulation based on simultaneously recognizing how everyone is ultimately impacted by intersectional oppression and how solidarity must be based in moments of “difference.” She would have been on stronger ground if she would have simply followed the Combahee River Collective’s claim that “if Black women were free, everyone would be free,” but she strangely rejects this formulation as insufficiently intersectional.

Over all, the people who most need to read this book (the Chapo Trap House/Jacobin white male socialist types who ignorantly disparage intersectionality for “dividing the Left” or some such nonsense) probably won’t, the people most likely to read this book (Marxists sympathetic to intersectionality and intersectionality theorists interested in Marxism) won’t get much out of it, and one is left with an unclear sense of precisely who is the audience for this book. Perhaps read it if you have interest, but maybe just jump straight to the authors Bohrer cites like Angela Davis or Silvia Federici.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my first time reading Ashler Bohrer and my first impression was immediately that this research was both well written and well structured. Academic writing can be a tad contorted and lost in abstraction, expecially when most of it is in English and not everyone is a native speaker, but I personally think that it takes a special ability in making your points and dissertations easy to communicate and understand. I particularly enjoyed learning more about the history of intersectional tradition (as Bohrer defines it) and the conclusions about the revolutionary potential of solidarity intended as unity and not uniformity. I only wish I could have gotten more critical analysis about the Marxist and leftist general tendency to dismiss and undermine the intersectional position, expecially intersectional femminism, which I was expecting from the introduction.
This is a great reading if you want to know more about the intersectional tradition's political and historical roots, and where it could be headed moving forward.

[Jasper van Loo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly used this book as a reference over the last year. Think I read most chapters now. Wouldn’t read it front to back (especially if you are already familiar with both Marxism and Intersectionality), but it’s a great handbook for preparing debates!

[Erick Forsyth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good introductory text for both Marxist and Intersectionality traditions that takes on the much needed task of fixing the erroneous assumptions and caricatures that each side has of one another. It definitely leans heavier toward the intersectionality but the author does a good job of showing the overlap of each. There are a few minor points I had issue with (lack of depth on Marx's philosophy of class) as well as a lack critique of some aspects of solidarity of difference. But overall, this is a superb book for anyone with interests in History, Politics, Philosophy, and Social Activism.

[ReemAdel · Rating 3 out of 5]

this is a literature review at best and offers nothing but a quick detour into the shared genealogy of Marxism & intersectionality to explain the theoretical, epistemological & ontological connection they possibly share. underwhelming, often redundant and full of easily identifiable editorial mistakes. could be useful to a 16 year old though.

[Balloonhands · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty easy read , I think this is perfect for someone trying to combat class reductionism in their Marxist spaces but it dosent really have a strong independent thesis. Mostly really great at highlighting contradictions within white male Marxist spaces especially the sectarianism that’s rampant within those circles but when it comes to intersectionality it’s generalized as a liberal ideology.

[Giorgio · Rating 4 out of 5]

this: https://www.izquierdadiario.es/Marxis...
beyond that, rich and well thought-out historical historical survey, with extensive bibliography to boot