Nowadays, intersectionality critique plays a prominent role in the problematization of uniaxial social category analyses based on which identities are accepted as universal, indivisible and consistent. This critique aims to make visible the multidimensional, complex, and relational positions of oppressed groups and to transform identity-based politics, and in doing so, it often refers to research findings in anthropology, law, political science, and sociology. Criticisms that emerge in the context of intersectionality indicate a struggle for liberation and salvation, or a fight for defining the ideological ground of social conflicts, as pointed out by the New Left. On the other hand, the unitary organization of a particular group that resists any form of social inequality and oppression in these conflicts is a generally accepted and widespread strategy. One of the examples that succinctly reflects the conventional thinking is hidden in the following statement, while referring to the destructiveness of the separatist ideas of socialism in the liberation struggle: All roads lead to Rome, but there is only one Rome. However, how to continue the struggle and how to build consensus and unity among such groups remains a subject of contention. As a result, Marxism asked workers of the world to unite! and did not receive a response in the past. The main focus of this study is not to determine which form of struggle is more inclusive and which power relationship is more dominant over others, but to determine the potential impact of intersectionality critiques in transforming uniaxial/mono identity thought.

Idea of intersectionality maintains that subjects on different intersection axes may have different subjective experiences in practice, such as discrimination and privilege operating in the social and political areas. However, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) and other researchers inspired by her work on intersectionality have not proposed a simple principle of hierarchy or opposition between different intersection axes. They have instead argued that subjective experience is accessible only by bringing out the different intersections where the subject is positioned. For example, from the perspective of intersectionality, female experience and male experience can express neither a field of subjectivity equivalent to a gender category, such as being a woman or being a man, nor simply the identical experiences within each of the two opposing groups. Especially when focusing on intersubjective power relations, the aim is to reject the narratives based on the universal oppressor-oppressed binary oppositions that manifest themselves in various forms (male-female, white-colored, heterosexual-homosexual).

Attaining prestige at the end of a recognition process can remedy the social problems targeted by the group demanding recognition. Access to resources and services, equitable distribution, trust in social justice, fearless and equal participation in social life, or visibility in the public sphere can be given as examples. The critical point that brings intersectionality and recognition politics against each other is that the latter fails to grasp the complexity of the identity question while essentializing and totalizing differences. 

When discussed in the context of identity theory/politics, intersectionality is juxtaposed with the concept of coalition. This affinity comes from both of them emphasizing that if liberatory identity-based politics is to be continued, the groups that carry out this politics must first face the differences within themselves. However, confronting and problematizing differences does not spontaneously reveal a particular political strategy. Advocates of coalition politics still debate about whether coalition unity will be formed despite the differences, to protect the differences, or to denature the differences. On the other hand, intersectionality does not enter into such a discussion, approaching the issue of coalition politics from a different angle, as intersectionality theorists agree that current identities should be understood as examples of coalitions rather than building a new identity-based coalition all over again.