Esta conversación surge de una frustración compartida por una antropóloga y un historiador a propósito de la reacción de muchos científicos sociales ante su interés por estudiar las clases medias en América Latina. En ella proponemos explorar cómo el estudio de las clases medias y el uso de esta categoría como constructo histórico proporciona una perspectiva enriquecedora para comprender las múltiples y diversas formas de poder y dominación en la región, desafiando ciertas interpretaciones hegemónicas. Se proponen, además, tres ejes temáticos de discusión: lo político y coyuntural, lo historiográfico-metodológico y lo histórico político. Estos ejes permiten anudar puntos cruciales de conexión entre el estudio histórico de las clases medias y un análisis crítico interdisciplinario e interseccional sobre procesos históricos más amplios.

This article demonstrates how political science, particularly the emerging field of American Political Economy (APE), can more robustly theorize and study the political economy of systemic racism by drawing on insights from critical race theories, including intersectionality and racial capitalism, and post/anti-colonial theory. A paired case study of the foreclosure “noncrisis” of the 1990s and the coerced sterilization of incarcerated women in California during the early 2000s highlights three key contributions of critical race theories: (1) intersectionality reveals nonuniformity, unintended consequences of purportedly progressive policy, and underscores the importance of margins-to-center resistance; (2) feudal-colonial roots illuminate how racialized hierarchies become institutionalized in law and policy, often without explicit racial language; and (3) racial capitalist logics explain how administrative tools, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, reproduce racial hierarchy through markets. This framework offers APE a more historically grounded, power-conscious, and theoretically expansive approach to systemic racism and underscores the urgency of resisting efforts to suppress such scholarship.

Despite improvement over the past few decades, particularly for white, cisgender women, intersectional gender-based inequality remains prominent within anthropological archaeology and beyond. Building on critiques of the leaky pipeline metaphor laid out in the introduction to this themed issue, and drawing on Black, Indigenous, and Posthumanist Feminisms, we advocate for a metaphorical shift focused on care, inclusivity, and diversity—that of a garden. The garden metaphor provides a way to express and explore the complex and intertwined ways disciplinary norms, institutions, and individuals structure and shape experiences in archaeology. After reviewing the garden metaphor and summarizing previous suggestions for improving equity in archaeology, we present recommendations for actionable steps at disciplinary, institutional, supervisory, and individual levels. Drawing on insights from the articles in the issue, as well as existing literature within and beyond archaeology, we argue that a greater emphasis on care, and its integration into the value structure of archaeology, would create a more inclusive discipline.

In this study, we engage in a deep dive into Black Americans views of the Congressional Black Caucus. We argue that given the goals of the organization, Black people should be the CBC’s strongest supporters. We also anticipate that age will be a major cleavage in support for the CBC among Black people. We test our hypotheses using the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). We find that Black people, and older Black people in particular, are the most supportive of the CBC. Moreover, we find that disparities in support among the youngest and oldest Black respondents are greater than the differences between Black and White people in our analysis. We empirically explore the causes of this intergenerational rift and show that younger Black Americans’ lower levels of support for the organization are in part tied to their lower levels of linked fate and their perception that elected officials do not work to advance their interest in government.

In an era of globalization, increasingly interconnected labor markets have intensified competition for skilled talent, particularly among countries in the Global North such as Canada. While Canada’s immigration policy prioritizes education and professional experience, these same credentials are often devalued upon arrival, as systemic barriers limit access to commensurate employment. This study examines the employment experiences of skilled, racialized immigrants in British Columbia, exploring how institutional narratives of meritocracy conceal exclusion, credential systems reinforce epistemic hierarchies, and settlement services pathologize migrant experiences. Using a qualitative design with four focus group discussions (n = 18), the study integrates critical migration theory, intersectionality, and decolonial social work to analyze the structural marginalization of skilled, racialized immigrants. Findings reveal a central paradox: the very system that celebrates global talent simultaneously erodes its value through credential gatekeeping, discriminatory hiring practices, and labor market practices that privilege local over global expertise. By situating these barriers within broader colonial and epistemic hierarchies, the study argues that integration must be understood not as individual adaptation but as institutional transformation. It contributes to critical debates on skilled migration, equity, and the reproduction of colonial logics within Canada’s labor market.

Studies on authorship in archaeology have revealed inequalities that influence interpretations of archaeological narratives. Like other countries with rich archaeological heritage, Guatemala has drawn a diverse pool of researchers for decades, owing to its renowned Maya heritage. This study examines how gender and nationality shape knowledge production in Guatemalan archaeology. We analyze publication trends in Guatemala’s most prominent publication venue, the memoirs of the annual archaeology symposium, and two international journals: Latin American Antiquity and Estudios de Cultura Maya. We also incorporate alumni data from Guatemalan universities and responses from an exploratory survey of 103 local archaeologists regarding occupations, identities, and perceptions of inequalities. Our study reveals that although Guatemalan archaeology has been characterized by relative gender parity, the dissemination of academic knowledge has been predominantly led by men, even during periods when there have been more female professional archaeologists. These disparities likely stem from several factors, including occupational variations, traditional gender-role expectations, and institutional barriers. While men have traditionally led the dissemination of academic knowledge, women have achieved leadership in other domains. This study highlights the current state of diversity in Guatemalan archaeology and serves as a first step toward building a more inclusive archaeological community.

The term “Women of Color” (WoC) has seen a marked rise in usage, yet little is known about how it functions as a coalitional identity with political significance. I argue that WoC operates both as a descriptor and an identity. As a descriptor, it resembles a panethnic label for nonwhite women. When adopted as an identity—the focus of this study—it may carry deeper significance connected to its progressive roots. Scholars often categorize all racially diverse women as WoC based on presumed experiences of oppression. However, this assumption overlooks variation in race-gendered discrimination shaped by factors such as appearance and class. Women who are perceived as white or those with lighter skin tones, for example, may not experience racialization in the same ways as other nonwhite women. Given the label’s association with liberal political views and its emphasis on “color,” some women may choose not to adopt it or may be uncertain about their inclusion. Using 2020 CMPS data, this study builds on WoC scholarship by incorporating Asian women and compares their experiences and attitudes to those of Latina and Black women. Results show that the majority of Asian women identify as a WoC and report high levels of WoC-linked fate. Among Asian women, personal experiences with discrimination and empathy toward other marginalized groups are especially important in WoC identity formation. WoC-linked fate also demonstrates political relevance across all three groups, showing a positive relationship with support for undocumented immigrants and the #MeToo movement.

This article examines how Latina Republican Congressional candidates frame themselves as both embodying and representing the “real Latino electorate,” who they claim has been ignored in the U.S. political arena. In this article, I engage in an in-depth analysis of these candidates — including content analyses of their public interviews, speeches, advertisements, websites, newspaper coverage, and social media presences — in four border districts in Texas. I find that the ways in which these candidates strategically reframe Latinidad and the immigrant experience to align with Republican ideology allow these candidates to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform while simultaneously engaging in the Latino threat narrative that dehumanizes the very community they claim to represent. More specifically, these candidates articulate an alternate, intersectional vision of Latinidad which presents Latino immigrant women and children as victims, Latino immigrant men as criminals, and themselves as unique authorities on immigration given their status as border patrol wives. These candidates’ race-gender consciousness also allows these candidates to express political anger, which has generally been denied to women of color in the Republican Party. In so doing, they offer a pointed critique claiming that Latinos are a captured group in American political parties.

Men's numerical over-representation in politics leads to complacency regarding their substantive representation. Yet the men in politics are not descriptively representative of most men and are drawn disproportionately from the most socially privileged groups. Building on theories of representation, intersectionality and masculinities, I argue that men have gendered representational needs that are not adequately met. Power structures among men leave many men marginalized and/or subordinated, and disincentivize the privileged men in power from defending disadvantaged men's interests. Masculinist cultures within politics inhibit discussion of male vulnerability and further undermine the substantive representation of men. I make the case for why we should study men's substantive representation and then show how we could do so. I propose a groundbreaking research agenda for identifying and measuring men's diverse representational needs, recognizing how these are shaped by gender and its intersection with other identities. Combining insights from objectivist, constructivist and intersectional approaches, I develop a framework for measuring the substantive representation of men that explores who represents men, which ideology informs their claims, which men are included and excluded and whether the goals of representation are to transform or uphold the status quo. I offer several illuminations of policies where different men have distinct gendered needs, and offer an extended example using educational outcomes in the United Kingdom to illustrate how privileged men are not effective representatives of disadvantaged men. This article builds the normative case and offers the theoretical tools for addressing an important gap in the study of representation.

In addition to immigration grievances, research shows that radical right voters grieve societal developments regarding gender equality and sexual freedom. Adding to research treating these grievances separately, this article advances a joint understanding of these grievances. I analyse interviews with voters of the German radical right Alternative für Deutschland for perceptions about discrimination and (dis)advantages of natives versus immigrants, men versus women and cis‐hetero versus LGBTQI+ people. I find similar argumentations about these social groups: Most interviewees do not perceive existing structural discrimination. They further perceive zero‐sum dynamics between advances for outgroups and losses for ingroups. In doing so, they consider different ingroup and outgroup characteristics, resulting in perceptions of different material and symbolic (dis)advantages for different groups and a hitherto under‐researched perception of legal (dis)advantages. Additionally, some interviewees jointly refer to various social groups in an expression of ‘multidimensional’ grievances, and some refer to the intersections between several ingroup and outgroup identities in determining a person's (dis)advantages. The parallels in argumentation and the perceptions of multidimensional and intersectional grievances highlight the importance of jointly studying different kinds of cultural grievances.

Over the past twenty years, the field of “gender and politics” has flourished in European political science. An example of this is the growing number of “gender and politics” scholars and the increased attention paid to gender perspectives in the study of the political. Against this backdrop, we take stock of how the “gender and politics” field has developed over the years. We argue that the field has now entered a stage of “consolidation”, which is reflected in the growth, diversification and professionalization of the subfield, as well as in the increased disciplinary recognition from major gatekeepers in political science. But while consolidation comes with specific opportunities, it also presents some key challenges. We identify five such challenges: (1) the potential fragmentation of the field; (2) persisting hierarchies in knowledge production; (3) the continued marginalization of feminist political analysis in “mainstream” political science; (4) the changing link between academia and society; and (5) growing opposition to gender studies in parts of Europe and beyond. We argue that both the “gender and politics” field and political science in general should address these challenges in order to become a truly inclusive discipline.

Care for older relatives is central in ageing societies, and the timing of caregiving onset significantly shapes caregivers’ health, social and employment trajectories. However, differences in the age at which family caregiving begins and their potential social and intersectional stratification have not been sufficiently explored. Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), we analysed individuals becoming daily caregivers between Waves 1 and 9 (ages 50–95). We explored intersectional inequalities in the age of caregiving onset, distinguishing intra- (partner, siblings) and intergenerational (parents, in-laws) caregiving. Intra-generational caregiving onset had a maximum 11-year difference between strata, while intergenerational caregiving had a four-year maximum difference. Across both types of care, women with low-skill occupations and high education had an earlier caregiving onset in the lifecourse. This was particularly pronounced for intra-generational care, with unique intersectional differences that could not be explained by single social factors alone. These findings highlight large inequalities in the age of caregiving onset between intersectional strata for both intra- and intergenerational care, demonstrating that becoming a care-giver is a socially stratified lifecourse transition. This contribution identifies who enters caregiving earlier, informing more targeted policy and practitioner support to prevent the accumulation of disadvantage in older ages. Mapping the social heterogeneity and intersectional nature of caregiving onset is critical to further understanding the prerequisites, meaning and consequences for family caregivers across the lifecourse.