Understanding the (Mis)Use of Intersectionality

Written by Norah

   In The (Mis)Use of Intersectionality in Student Affairs, Alex C. Lange argues that the term “intersectionality” has been widely adopted across higher education but often in ways that strip it of its original purpose. Instead of being used as a framework for analyzing how systems of oppression interact to shape people’s experiences, it’s frequently reduced to either a list of personal identities or a kind of mathematical formula for privilege. Lange’s main argument is that practitioners must return to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s original intent/definition: intersectionality is an analytic lens for examining how structures such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism work together to produce unique forms of marginalization.
   One of the central points Lange makes is that intersectionality is not simply a way to “look at the whole person.” Many educators use the concept as a shorthand for acknowledging that people have multiple identities, but Lange argues that this misses the deeper point. The framework is not about counting identities but about understanding how power operates. The metaphors Lange highlights from Crenshaw help illustrate this. The basement metaphor, in particular, shows how systems allow some people with single axis marginalization to move upward while those with multiple marginalized identities remain stacked at the bottom. It made me see intersectionality less as a description of people and more as a description of systems.
   I agree strongly with Lange’s argument that reducing intersectionality to a set of personal identity categories weakens its ability to challenge institutions. When people in student affairs treat it as a checklist or point system, they unintentionally shift the focus away from structural inequalities and back onto individuals. Lange points out that this approach can even create comparisons around privilege scores, which can cause people to “compete” on who is more marginalized and also distracts from dismantling the systems that create those disparities. I think this critique is important because institutions often feel more comfortable talking about identities than talking about power.
   One point Lange could have explored further is why practitioners cling to simplified versions of intersectionality. It is possible that many educators want to do better but feel undertrained, overwhelmed, or afraid of making mistakes. The concept of intersectionality can be overwhelming but Lange critiques the misuse/misunderstandings effectively. But, the essay could have considered how institutional pressures or limited training influence the way people use the term. Doing research to get an understanding of these reasons might help bridge the gap between the ideal use of intersectionality and how it currently shows up in everyday practice.
   Reading this piece also made me think differently about how quickly academic concepts get absorbed into mainstream conversation and then their stories as well as their meanings are altered in the process. Lange mentions that the word has become a buzzword, sometimes used more to signal awareness than to engage with its meaning. I realized that I had absorbed the simplified version too because I was taught about intersectionality in middle school, but never the full concept talked about in this piece. I was thinking of intersectionality mainly as a mix of identities rather than a way to analyze systems of power, which I now understand is not the full story. Lange’s explanation helped me see how essential the structural part is.
   The essay also connected to my own life in ways I did not expect. Even though I am not in work for higher education, I see similar patterns in social media conversations, where identity and privilege get treated like rankings. Lange’s argument helped me see how oversimplification can erase the realities of people whose experiences do not fit neatly into those categories.
   In my community as well as my social circle, people often focus on individual behavior rather than the systems that shape opportunities. Lange’s call to shift attention to structures made me think about how this approach could change conversations about schooling, community support, or even online spaces I am part of. It encouraged me to think more critically about how people interpret others’ experiences and about how easily important concepts can lose their meaning when they become trends.
   One question I was left with is how realistic it is for practitioners to use intersectionality correctly when institutions themselves resist talking about structural oppression. Lange’s piece made me wonder what kind of training or cultural shift would make genuine intersectional practice possible.
   Ultimately, Lange’s argument challenged my assumptions and encouraged me to think more deeply about how words from academic or activist spaces are used. Intersectionality, as Lange reminds readers, is not about describing people. It is about identifying and dismantling the systems that shape their lives. That shift in focus is something I will carry with me, especially when thinking about my own community and the ways I interpret people’s experiences.