>>2237300Yes kinda. Intersectionality in the common discourse basically means "solidarity with minorities" anyways. In more sophisticated circles, it means that each identity intersects to create a matrix of unique forms of oppression. This sounds similar to what I described, but the approach is different and easily leads to different conclusions. The approach I take starts at the concrete activities and relationships to Capital and production that set a specific class apart from the others. Whereas in the typical intersectional approach, you start at the identities, for example, woman, and you analyze that. Then woman + lesbian, then woman + lesbian + black. In this analysis, identities are the scope and then you investigate their unique experiences, including their unique form of oppression, not their specific relationship to Capital and production etc.
In the first analysis, one can say that it makes sense to have the proletariat be a class since they share the relationship of being propertyless quite obviously and their relationship to Capital is pretty clear. Then we can further subcategorize women proletariat inside the proletariat class as having a specific function and relationship than men proletariat do. It doesn't start with identities as individual personal traits merely on the cultural level, but with concrete social/productive roles that may or may not constitute culturally recognized identities. Eg "proletariat" isn't really recognized as an identity, but "woman" is.
This is why intersectionality was so easily coopted. The multinational company I work for even teaches it in it's diversity educational material.
What do you think?