Inequality without Groups: Contemporary Theories of Categories, Intersectional Typicality, and the Disaggregation of Difference
Open accessAbstract
The study of social inequality and stratification (e.g., ethnoracial and gender) has long been at the core of sociology and the social sciences. In this article, I argue that certain tendencies have become entrenched in our dominant paradigm that leave many researchers pursuing coarse-grained analyses of how difference relates to inequality. Centrally, despite the importance of categories and categorization for how researchers study social inequality, contemporary (as opposed to classical) theories of categories are poorly integrated into conventional research. I contend that the widespread and often unquestioned use of state categories as categories of analysis reinforces these tendencies. Using research on colorism as an inspiration, I highlight several components of what I call the infracategorical model of inequalit y, which urges researchers to disaggregate difference by shifting our focus from membership in (nominal) categories to the cues of categories, membership in subcategories, and perceived typicality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Wylie et al. (2010) gender expression measure only captures reflected appraisals: the respondent's perception of others' perceptions of them.
“First, it only captures what Monk (2022:19) calls 'reflected appraisals:' the respondent's perception of others' perceptions of them.”
From Homophobic Bullying as Gender Policing: Population-Based Evidence (2023) · cites this paper as Monk 2022
Cites
Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color
Crenshaw, K. (1991) · Stanford Law Review · doi:10.2307/1229039 · Cited by 29,585 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…that inequality is not simply a matter of membership in a particular superordinate social category by highlighting the complex concatenation of various superordinate categories such as race/ethnicity, gender, and class, which result in unique social positions (Collins 2002; Crenshaw 1991).”
BackgroundHill Collins, P. (2002) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9780203900055 · Cited by 1,532 · see citing works
Transcending General Linear Reality
Abbott, A. (1988) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.2307/202114 · Cited by 716 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kukkonen, I., Pajunen, T., Sarpila, O., & Åberg, E. (2024) · European Societies · doi:10.1080/14616696.2023.2210202 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“More e ff orts should be made to unpack the ‘ black box ’ of attractiveness (cf. Mears 2014), and focusing on cues of categories, as well as typicality (Monk 2022).”
BackgroundHomophobic Bullying as Gender Policing: Population-Based Evidence
Mittleman, J. (2023) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/08912432221138091 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Monk, E. P.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Monk, Ellis P.
- ORCID
- Monk, Ellis P.
- Venue
- Sociological Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-02-08
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-27
- ISSN
- 0735-2751 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9558
- OpenAlex
- W4210898400
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 55.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Sociological Theory (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Cultural Identity and Representation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
- Keywords
- social inequality, categories of analysis, categorization, intersectionality, state category, colorism, gender inequality, stratification, typicality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review