Introduction
Audre Lorde’s assertion that “there is no hierarchy of oppression” is a foundational statement in intersectional feminist and social justice discourse. As a Black lesbian feminist, poet, and activist, Lorde articulated an understanding of oppression that rejected fragmenting struggles into ranked systems of suffering. Instead, she contended that all forms of oppression, whether based on race, gender, sexuality, class, or disability, are interconnected and must be addressed holistically. This essay critically evaluates Lorde’s position, examining its theoretical foundations, its implications for activism, and its practical applications in contemporary struggles against systemic injustice.
Theoretical Foundations: Lorde’s Intersectional Analysis
Lorde’s argument is rooted in an intersectional framework that predates the coining of the term by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. She rejected the idea that any one form of oppression could be considered more severe or urgent than another, instead insisting that they reinforce each other. Her stance challenges single-axis approaches to social justice, which often prioritise one form of marginalisation while sidelining others.
Lorde’s perspective aligns with other radical Black feminist thinkers such as bell hooks and Angela Davis, who have long argued that systems of oppression cannot be dismantled in isolation. The Combahee River Collective’s A Black Feminist Statement (1977) similarly outlined the necessity of an interlocking analysis of race, gender, and class oppression.
Challenging the Notion of Prioritisation in Activism
One of the key critiques of Lorde’s position is the argument that in practical activism, some struggles must necessarily take precedence due to urgency. For example, during moments of acute crisis, such as genocidal violence, ethnic cleansing, or mass incarceration, activists and policymakers may prioritise certain interventions over others. Some scholars argue that this pragmatic approach does not necessarily undermine intersectionality but acknowledges that different forms of oppression manifest with varying degrees of immediacy in different contexts.
However, Lorde counters this logic by demonstrating how these crises are themselves shaped by multiple forms of systemic oppression. For example, in the context of police brutality, Black men may be overrepresented among victims, but the violence cannot be fully understood without recognising how Black women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and disabled people are also disproportionately targeted in ways that often go unacknowledged.
Oppression is Structural, Not Competitive
Lorde’s rejection of a hierarchy of oppression is also a rejection of oppression Olympics—the competitive ranking of marginalised experiences. She argued that this mindset diverts energy away from dismantling oppression and instead fosters division among oppressed groups. This critique remains highly relevant today, as movements sometimes struggle with infighting over which issues should be prioritised.
A contemporary example can be seen in the tensions within feminist movements between white feminists and women of colour. Mainstream feminism has historically prioritised gender-based oppression without adequately addressing how race, class, and sexuality shape women’s experiences. Lorde’s position forces a re-evaluation of these dynamics, pushing for a feminism that is truly inclusive rather than selectively focused on certain struggles.
Practical Implications for Contemporary Activism
Lorde’s argument has significant implications for activism today, particularly in movements like Black Lives Matter, climate justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. The most effective movements operate with an understanding that racial justice is linked to economic justice, that gender oppression is intertwined with state violence, and that environmental degradation disproportionately impacts marginalised communities.
For instance, the feminist movement’s engagement with trans rights remains a contested issue, with some radical feminists arguing that prioritising trans inclusion undermines women’s rights. Lorde’s framework challenges such exclusionary arguments by demonstrating that true liberation must encompass all marginalised identities.
Similarly, in the UK, the Windrush scandal cannot be understood solely as an issue of immigration; it is also about racism, economic exploitation, and the erasure of Black British histories. Lorde’s insistence on interconnected oppression provides a lens for understanding how these issues intersect rather than exist in silos.
Critiques and Limitations of Lorde’s Argument
While Lorde’s position is widely embraced, some critiques merit consideration. One argument is that while oppression may be interconnected, different systems of oppression operate with distinct mechanisms and impacts. For example, capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy function differently and require different strategies of resistance. Some argue that this reality necessitates a strategic approach where certain struggles are prioritised depending on the context.
Additionally, while Lorde’s vision is idealistic and necessary, it is often difficult to implement in practical policymaking. Governments and organisations typically operate within frameworks that compartmentalise issues, making it challenging to apply an intersectional approach in legislation and resource allocation.
Conclusion
Audre Lorde’s statement that “there is no hierarchy of oppression” remains a radical and urgent call to action. It challenges activists, policymakers, and scholars to adopt an intersectional analysis that refuses to isolate struggles into competing categories. While practical constraints and differing political strategies may sometimes require prioritisation, Lorde’s central insight. that oppression must be understood and fought holistically, continues to shape progressive movements today.
Her legacy demands that we resist the temptation to rank suffering and instead commit to dismantling all oppressive systems together. Without this understanding, movements risk reproducing the very hierarchies they seek to dismantle.
Reflective Questions
How does Lorde’s rejection of a hierarchy of oppression apply to contemporary social justice movements?
Are there moments where prioritising one form of oppression over another is necessary? If so, how can this be done without reinforcing division?
How can activists and policymakers ensure that intersectionality is more than a buzzword and is actually implemented in practice?
In what ways does mainstream feminism still struggle with the issue of intersectionality today?
What are the risks of engaging in oppression Olympics? How can movements avoid falling into this trap?
Further Reading
Books & Essays
Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider (1984) A collection of essays and speeches exploring race, gender, and intersectionality.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. On Intersectionality: Essential Writings (2017) Introduces the concept of intersectionality and its applications.
hooks, bell. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism (1981) Examines how race and gender oppression intersect.
Davis, Angela. Women, Race & Class (1981) Explores the historical and contemporary intersections of race, gender, and class.
Combahee River Collective. A Black Feminist Statement (1977) A foundational document on intersectionality and collective liberation.
Articles & Reports
Nash, Jennifer C. Re-thinking Intersectionality (2008) A critical analysis of how intersectionality is understood and applied.
Hill Collins, Patricia. Black Feminist Thought (1990) An essential text on Black feminist epistemology.
Ahmed, Sara. The Cultural Politics of Emotion (2004) Examines how emotions shape political discourse and activism.
Phipps, Alison. The Politics of the Body: Gender in a Neoliberal and Neoconservative Age (2014) Explores feminism and intersectionality in contemporary politics.
Lorde, Audre. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House (1984) A seminal essay critiquing exclusionary feminism.
Comments