Steven Kucklick

SOCY 698
Memo: Intersectionality
The first article that we had to read, Why Race Class and Gender Still Matter by
Andersen and Collins, approaches the idea that race, class, and gender all play into the individual
experience of one person. They explain how a person cannot be defined solely based on a single
one of these. Instead, to understand their full story, each one of these social constructs must be
looked at. While this chapter is certainly educational, it also offers some serious words of caution
to its readers. A huge point that these authors make is that it is very easy to go about trying to
understand a person in a wrong way. One thing that they mention is this addition style of social
classification. This puts labels on people and whoever has the most labels wins, or, in reality,
looses. The example they give is that a white women living in poverty would have it bad, but a
black women living in poverty would have it worse, and a transgender Latino living in poverty
would have it worse than either of them. This does nothing but discount the experiences of the
first two women. Instead, the authors argue that a matrix of domination is most beneficial when
looking at someones experience. This tool puts everything in context within the constructs of
society, without discrediting a single persons experience. Andersen and Collins also talk about
the role that knowledge plays into everything. In short, they say that having knowledge about a
group of people is not really that important, however, there can be problems if someone has false
knowledge. False knowledge can lead to misconceptions and bad social policy. The authors
suggest that it is better to start from a clean slate then to have skewed knowledge. In the last few
paragraphs, the authors sum up what they are really trying to do with this article. Overall, the
advocate for understanding the person not based on these social constructions that they live in,
but instead by looking at their life and their accomplishments. The second reading we had,
Critical Thinking About Inequality by Zambrana and Dill, outlined broadly how intersectionality
plays out in everyday life. Unlike the previous reading, the authors here give more specific
examples and explanations of how intersectionality actually works and what it looks like. They
also explain how the study of intersectionality got its start in the sociological field. They explain
that it happened organically as heritage and history started to become the focus of sociological
studies of inequality. One of their biggest points is that political and social institutions have
always been in place to keep minority groups out of power. The authors explain that these
institutions have moved from political law into social rhetoric. Social constructs such as race,
ethnicity, and gender all work to keep minorities out of power. The third reading we had
Staggered Inequalities in Access to Higher Education by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity by
Zambrana and MacDonald, focused on the struggle that black women and Hispanic, specifically
Mexican, women face while trying to achieve a higher education. This reading seems to take
what has been talked about in the previous articles about intersectionality and apply it to a
specific case. The authors explain that there are several factors working against them. One of the
things that stuck out to me was that women often feel undervalued in the classroom. The authors
explain that this applies not only to higher education, but also to K-12 education. Another
problem that the authors highlight is a lack of funding for higher education in the forms of
scholarships and loans. They explain that African and American and Hispanic women struggle to
receive enough financial aid to be able to attend a college or university. The final larger point that
the authors argue is that women, specifically Hispanic women, face a large amount of stress in
their higher educational career. This added stress negatively affected their work. I think that this

added stress factor is one of the more interesting points raised in the article and is often
overlooked. Nowadays, stress is often seen a good thing because it means that you are working
hard. However, stress can seriously impact a students educational and social life. The final
article read was written by Philip Cohen and is titled Whos Afraid of Young Black Men? How
Gender did (and did not) Affect the Verdict of the George Zimmerman Trial. This article looks at
the makeup of the jury of the Zimmerman trial based on the defense that the lawyers were going
for. What the author finds is that the defense was trying to scare the jury using the assumption
that white people are afraid of black men. The author questions whether this is really a viable
strategy. What the author concludes is that white women may (may being the key word here)
have less preconceived stereotypes of black then white males do. He cites a specific study in
which white men and women were asked how big they think the black population is. Based on
the results of the study, the author pretty much concludes that it could go either way, but the
study could show that white women have less preconceived stereotypes of black men. It seems as
though the author really did not prove something one way or another. That being said, I do not
think that this was the point of the article. Instead, it seemed as though he was just trying to make
the point that race is not the only thing that matters, which ties into the themes of the other three
articles.
What I really found interesting about all of these readings is that they really question the
social implications that race, gender, ethnicity, and class, can play on a person living in the US. I
think that often times people are blind to social injustices and disadvantages if they are not clear
and right in front of them. It is important that we have studies like this that question the social
structure of todays society. I was also really appreciative of the tone that most of these articles
took. A constant theme that I noticed was that the authors never made specific claims about
broad groups of people Instead, the made broad claims about these groups. It seemed that most
instead argued that everyone has a different story and that race, gender, and class are not the only
things that play into that story. I find this particularly interesting because I love studying history
from a micro level and being able to make macro claims using the information. It seems that the
authors are arguing that the best way to learn about society is to study individual experiences.
Finally, one piece of the Women and Higher Education article really interested me. On page 81,
the authors describe the serious lack of female faculty, role models, and mentors that exist within
the higher education system. This summer I have taken classes on gifted and talented education
and one thing that I took away most from that class is how to teach gifted girls. One of the key
things that we talked about in that class with regards to gifted girls is that they benefit from
having female educators and role models in their lives. College is such an important and stressful
time in any students life and the fact that there is such a lack of female mentors is extremely
troubling.
While I did enjoy reading these articles, I do have one questions and critique for them.
My question is that, what can we do as a society to help bring to light intersectionality and
inequalities that are still present in the world? While some of the articles do pose some solutions,
they seemed to be just mentioned in passing. While I know the point of the articles is not to
provide solutions, but to instead highlight a problem, I would have loved to see an article focus
on at least one solution. The first article by Andersen and Collins sort of does this by saying that
people should be viewed not by their social constructs but by what theyve done. This, however,
seems vague and I feel like the authors could have gone into it a bit more.