Political identity movements are complicit or at least compatible with neoliberal directives; intersectionality as I've written, is a way of describing how overdeterimination functions on the individual level. But intersectionality coming from legal studies is just a way of talking about overdetermination without reference to Marx and how Marx has been interpreted and reinterpreted.
The same is true of Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow, as flawed a book as you can get when it comes to talking about the prison system by never mentioning capitalism, by pandering to white liberals by excluding revolutionary names in prison abolition like George Jackson, Huey Newton, and Abdul Mumia-Jamal. See Osel, Joseph D. "Toward Détournement of the New Jim Crow or the Strange Career of the New Jim Crow." *International Journal of Radical Critique* 1, no. 2 (2012) and his other articles on the topic for more salient critiques. The point is that liberals and some radicals are easily mislead by political identity agendas, however radical they seem on the surface.
And it should be noted that civility is another way of separating the "legitimate" and "illegitimate," whether it be race or gender. These same white, liberals often prove their legitimacy by pointing out how racist or sexist (or both) the ignorant "Other" is in order to plaster over their own more refined racism and sexism.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>