Humboldt University of Berlin


Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences


Centre for Transdisciplinary Gender Studies
Seminar: American Cultural Theory 

Winter semester 2019/2020

Professor: PD Dr. Antje Dallmann
Simon Manuel Cabrera

Matriculation number: 586577

Major: Musicology

Minor: Gender Studies


Hill Collins: “Toward a New Vision. Race, Class, and

Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection”

response paper

Prof. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park
specialising in race, class and gender. In her text “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as
Categories of Analysis and Connection” she not only theorises about categories of oppression and
discrimination but also offers thoughts on how these theories can become effective for social change:

„I focus on two basic questions. First, how can we reconceptualize race, class and gender as
categories of analysis? Second, how can we transcend the barriers created by our experiences
with race, class and gender oppression in order to build the types of coalitions essential for
social exchange?“ – Hill Collins, 36.

Hill Collins argues that usually when analysing matters of social oppression or identity we deal in
categories of either/or and that this limits our understanding of the complex interconnectedness of
race, class, religion, age, gender, sexuality, … – which is more often both/and than either/or:

„In spite of the fact that we all have ‘both/and’ identities, (I am both a college professor and a
mother – I don't stop being a mother when I drop my child off at school, or forget everything I
learned while scrubbing the toilet), we persist in trying to classify each other in either/or
categories. […] Everyone has a race/gender/class specific identity. Either/or, dichotomous
thinking is especially troublesome when applied to theories of oppression because […] [the]
both/and position of simultaneously being oppressed and oppressor becomes conceptually
impossible.“ – Hill Collins, 37.

These different both/and identities and experiences amount to different levels of power and privilege
that in turn influence our ability to connect and communicate across such differences. Nonetheless, it
is essential to build coalitions with individuals of differing backgrounds and experiences, to recognise
shared goals and common causes, because coalitions around shared experiences and common enemies
are far more fragile in nature, citing June Jordan:

„It occurs to me that much organizational grief could be avoided if people understood that
partnership in misery does not necessarily provide for partnership for change: When we get
Response paper: Hill Collins S.M. Cabrera

the monsters off our backs all of us may want to run in very different directions.“ – Jordan,
cited after Hill Collins, 43.

Furthermore, Hill Collins argues that all of us only have limited understandings of the systematics and
inner workings of injustice and oppression and that only by joining forces and combining our shared
experiences and common knowledge we are able to see the whole picture and to achieve lasting
coalitions that truly bring about social change:

„None of us alone has a comprehensive vision of how race, class and gender operate […].
Our personal biographies offer us partial views. Few of us can manage to study race, class
and gender simultaneously. Instead, we each know more about some dimensions of this larger
story and less about others. […] We do not all have to do the same thing in the same way.
Instead, we must support each other's efforts, realizing that they are all part of the larger
enterprise of bringing about social change.“ – Hill Collins, 43.

Another fundamental condition for developing these kinds of coalitions and connections (according to
Hill Collins) is empathy. Building empathy (both for the less and the more privileged) is difficult for
varying reasons that Hill Collins points out, but she also appeals to each and every one of us to reflect
on the importance of doing so anyhow:

„Men who declare themselves feminists, members of the middle class who ally themselves with
anti-poverty struggles, heterosexuals who support gays and lesbians, are all trying to grow,
and their efforts place them far ahead of the majority who never think of engaging in such
important struggles.“ – Hill Collins, 43.

This closely relates to the second text we discussed in the same session (“White Fragility” by Robin
DiAngelo), which focuses on the difficulty for white people to reflect on their own privilege and
power. Both texts use situations from their own biographical experience to exemplify their ideas and
concepts, and both texts try to offer practical thoughts on how to apply their theories in real life and
urge the readers to step out of their own comfort zone and (re-)examine their own position(s), their
privilege(s), their both/and.
What I really liked about Hill Collins’ text in particular is how she writes about her own behaviour
and prejudice – which takes courage in and of itself – and how seeing race, class and gender as
categories of not only analysis but also connection has helped her overcome these differences and
form a close bond that would not have been possible before:

„For a while, I categorized all affluent White women as being superficial, arrogant, overly
concerned with material possessions, and part of my problem. But had I continued to classify
people in this way, I would have missed out on making some very good friends whose
discomfort with their inherited or acquired social class privileges pushed them to examine
their position.“ – Hill Collins, 45.

I think this helps the reader empathise with the writer and makes the reading experience feel less like
being schooled and more like a conversation at eye level – which in turn might also be less likely to
trigger some of the defensive mechanism that DiAngelo describes in “White Fragility”.

page 2 of 3
Response paper: Hill Collins S.M. Cabrera

Although some of the scenarios and concepts Hill Collins uses in her text are quite specific to the
United States of America (like the comparison of Universities to antebellum plantations) she also
points this regional specificity out:

„In certain contexts, such as the antebellum American South and contemporary South
America, racial oppression is more visibly salient, while in other contexts, such as Haiti, El
Salvador and Nicaragua, social class oppression may be more apparent.“ – Hill Collins, 45.

All of this makes the text very relatable – even for a mixed-race reader living in Germany such as
myself – and leaves you wanting to truly “examine your position” (Hill Collins, 45).

Sources
DiAngelo, R. (2018): White Fragility. Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.
Boston: Beacon Press, ix–38.
Hill Collins, P. (2007): Toward a New Vision. Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and
Connection. In: Landry, B. (Ed.): Race, Gender and Class. Theory and Methods of Analysis. New
York: Routledge, 35–45.

page 3 of 3
 Humboldt University of Berlin

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Centre for Transdisciplinary Gender Studies
Seminar: American Cultural Theory 

Winter semester 2019/2020

Professor: PD Dr. Antje Dallmann
Simon Manuel Cabrera

Matriculation number: 586577

Major: Musicology

Minor: Gender Studies


Kelleter: “Five Ways of Looking at Popular Seriality”

response paper

Prof. Dr. Frank Kelleter is Chair of the Department of Culture and Einstein Professor of North
American Cultural History at John F. Kennedy Institute, Freie Universität Berlin. In his text “Five
Ways of Looking at Popular Seriality” Kelleter states that all stories (and even culture itself) do not
just rely on formal closure but also on perpetual renewal:

„Even finished tales seek to continue and multiply themselves. Popularity and repetition have
always worked hand in hand, from the daily bedtime story to such standardized entertainment
formats as the detective novel or the TV medical drama. […] Classically, these two basic
impulses of storytelling – the satisfaction of conclusion and the appeal of renewal – are
balanced through suspense and resolution. Tension is built up to be released again. […] in
completed individual stories […] the tension curve rises again after a story has ended: What
might be different in the next monster movie […]? To study the importance of these questions
means to study the cultural work of serial narrative. It also means to study the dependency of
culture on serial reproduction.“ – Kelleter, 14f.

Although drawing broader conclusions about culture as a whole, Kelleter focuses for the most part on
popular series in literature, comics, cinema, television, and digital technologies, further explaining:

„T︎h︎e︎ t︎e︎r︎m︎ popular i︎s︎ u︎s︎e︎d︎ h︎e︎r︎e︎ i︎n︎ a︎ s︎t︎r︎i︎c︎t︎ly︎ h︎i︎s︎t︎o︎r︎i︎c︎a︎l s︎e︎n︎s︎e︎.︎ T︎h︎u︎s︎,︎ i︎n︎ t︎h︎e︎ ︎fo︎l︎l︎o︎w︎i︎n︎g︎ c︎h︎a︎p︎t︎e︎r︎s︎,︎
popular culture d︎e︎s︎c︎r︎i︎b︎e︎s︎ a︎ s︎e︎t o︎︎f social a︎n︎d︎ a︎e︎s︎t︎h︎e︎t︎ic︎ p︎r︎a︎c︎t︎i︎c︎e︎s︎ t︎h︎a︎t︎ f︎i︎r︎s︎t︎ ︎s︎u︎r︎fa︎c︎e︎d i︎n︎ t︎h︎e︎ m︎id︎︎-
n︎︎in︎︎e︎t︎e︎e︎n︎t︎h︎ c︎e︎n︎t︎u︎r︎y︎,︎ c︎lo︎︎s︎e︎ly︎ ta︎︎n︎g︎l︎e︎d︎ u︎p︎ w︎i︎t︎h︎ t︎h︎e︎ l︎o︎g︎i︎c︎ o︎f︎ in︎︎d︎u︎s︎t︎r︎i︎a︎l ︎re︎︎p︎r︎o︎d︎u︎c︎t︎io︎n︎ a︎n︎d︎ t︎h︎e︎
te︎︎c︎h︎n︎o︎l︎o︎g︎i︎c︎a︎l a︎ff︎o︎rd︎︎a︎n︎c︎e︎s︎ o︎f︎ n︎e︎w︎ m︎a︎s︎s︎ m︎e︎d︎i︎a︎ […] Th︎u︎s︎,︎ w︎h︎e︎n︎ I︎ n︎o︎w︎ a︎d︎d︎r︎e︎s︎s︎ c︎o︎m︎i︎c︎s︎,︎
n︎e︎w︎s︎p︎a︎p︎e︎r︎s︎,︎ n︎o︎v︎e︎l︎s︎,︎ f︎i︎l︎m︎ s︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎s︎, ︎Ho︎︎ll︎y︎w︎o︎o︎d︎ r︎e︎m︎a︎k︎e︎s︎,︎ t︎e︎l︎e︎vi︎s︎io︎n︎ s︎e︎ri︎e︎s︎,︎ o︎r︎ c︎o︎m︎p︎u︎te︎︎r g︎a︎m︎e︎s︎ a︎s︎
e︎︎x︎p︎l︎i︎c︎i︎t︎ly︎ c︎o︎m︎m︎e︎r︎c︎ia︎︎l p︎r︎o︎d︎u︎c︎t︎s︎, ︎th︎i︎s︎ i︎m︎p︎l︎i︎e︎s︎ n︎o︎ c︎r︎i︎t︎i︎q︎u︎e︎ o︎f︎ t︎h︎e︎ir︎ s︎o︎c︎i︎a︎l s︎t︎a︎n︎d︎i︎n︎g︎ o︎r︎ s︎u︎s︎p︎ic︎i︎o︎n︎ o︎f︎
t︎h︎e︎ir︎ i︎d︎e︎o︎l︎o︎g︎i︎c︎a︎l m︎o︎t︎i︎v︎e︎s︎.︎ ︎In︎s︎t︎e︎a︎d︎,︎ i︎t︎ a︎︎c︎c︎ou︎n︎t︎s︎ f︎o︎r︎ h︎o︎w t︎h︎e︎y r︎e︎l︎a︎t︎e︎ (︎t︎o︎)︎ t︎h︎e︎m︎s︎e︎lv︎e︎s︎ a︎n︎d︎ t︎h︎e︎i︎r
︎s︎p︎e︎c︎i︎f︎ic︎ w︎a︎y ︎o︎f d︎o︎in︎g︎ t︎h︎i︎n︎g︎s︎.“ – Kelleter, 15.

He then explains that “t︎h︎e︎s︎e︎ a︎r︎e︎ k︎e︎y a︎︎s︎s︎u︎m︎p︎t︎io︎n︎s︎ o︎︎f t︎h︎e︎ P︎o︎p︎u︎la︎︎r S︎︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎i︎t︎y R︎e︎s︎e︎a︎r︎c︎h U︎n︎i︎t” (of which he
is the director), relates this predisposition to prominent schools of thought concerning popular culture,
and elaborates on f︎i︎v︎e︎ p︎e︎r︎s︎p︎e︎c︎ti︎v︎e︎s︎ “c︎e︎n︎t︎r︎a︎l t︎o︎ s︎t︎u︎d︎i︎e︎s︎ o︎︎f ︎p︎o︎p︎u︎la︎︎r s︎︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎i︎ty” (Kelleter, 16), the last of
Response paper: Kelleter S.M. Cabrera

which represents his own theoretical model of popular seriality and builds on ︎Be︎n︎e︎d︎i︎c︎t ︎An︎d︎e︎r︎s︎o︎n︎'s︎
n︎o︎t︎i︎o︎n︎ o︎f︎ the︎ "i︎m︎a︎g︎i︎n︎e︎d︎ c︎o︎m︎m︎u︎n︎it︎︎y︎"1:

„[…] ︎se︎r︎i︎e︎s︎ a︎r︎e︎ e︎n︎t︎i︎t︎i︎e︎s︎ o︎f︎ d︎i︎s︎t︎r︎i︎b︎u︎t︎e︎d︎ i︎n︎t︎e︎n︎t︎i︎o︎n︎ t︎h︎a︎t︎ a︎r︎e︎ n︎e︎v︎e︎r︎t︎h︎e︎l︎e︎s︎s︎ u︎n︎i︎f︎i︎e︎d︎ procedurally a︎s︎
c︎u︎lt︎u︎r︎a︎l a︎g︎e︎nt︎s︎.︎ […]︎ p︎︎o︎p︎u︎la︎︎r ︎s︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎i︎t︎y︎'s︎ i︎d︎e︎o︎lo︎g︎i︎c︎a︎l d︎i︎m︎e︎n︎s︎io︎n︎ s︎e︎e︎m︎s︎ t︎o︎ b︎e︎ l︎i︎t︎t︎l︎e︎ d︎e︎p︎e︎n︎d︎e︎n︎t a︎n︎
a︎c︎t︎s︎ o︎︎f ︎e︎n︎c︎o︎d︎in︎g︎.︎ I︎n︎s︎t︎e︎a︎d︎,︎ i︎t︎ c︎a︎l︎l︎s︎ t︎o︎ m︎i︎n︎d︎ t︎h︎o︎s︎e︎ a︎c︎t︎s︎ o︎︎f c︎o︎m︎m︎u︎n︎i︎c︎a︎ti︎v︎e︎ a︎s︎s︎e︎m︎b︎l︎in︎g︎ t︎h︎a︎t︎
B︎e︎n︎e︎d︎ic︎︎t ︎An︎d︎e︎r︎s︎o︎n︎ s︎e︎e︎s︎ i︎n︎v︎o︎l︎v︎e︎d︎ i︎n︎ t︎h︎e︎ c︎r︎e︎a︎t︎io︎n︎ ︎o︎f i︎m︎a︎g︎i︎n︎e︎d︎ c︎o︎m︎m︎u︎n︎it︎i︎e︎s︎.︎ I︎n︎ o︎t︎h︎e︎r w︎o︎r︎d︎s︎,︎ t︎h︎e︎
a︎︎n︎a︎l︎y︎s︎i︎s ︎o︎f ︎s︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎i︎t︎y ︎re︎︎q︎ui︎r︎e︎s︎ a︎ ︎n︎o︎n︎s︎y︎m︎p︎t︎o︎m︎a︎t︎ic︎ m︎o︎d︎e︎l ︎o︎f ︎id︎e︎o︎l︎o︎g︎y.“ – Kelleter, 26.

According to Kelleter, this also means that popular seriality is less prone to “charismatic master
intentions” or ideologies simply by its perpetual nature and socio-economic interconnectedness:

„[…] t︎h︎e︎i︎r︎ e︎v︎o︎l︎v︎i︎n︎g︎,︎ r︎e︎c︎u︎r︎s︎i︎v︎e︎,︎ p︎r︎o︎l︎if︎e︎r︎a︎t︎i︎n︎g︎,︎ a︎n︎d︎ ︎m︎u︎lt︎i︎-︎a︎u︎t︎h︎o︎r︎e︎d︎ m︎o︎d︎e︎ o︎︎f s︎︎t︎o︎r︎y︎te︎︎l︎li︎n︎g︎ t︎e︎n︎d︎s︎ t︎o︎
n︎e︎u︎t︎r︎a︎l︎iz︎e︎ – o︎r︎ r︎a︎t︎h︎e︎r t︎o︎ m︎u︎lt︎i︎p︎ly︎ a︎n︎d︎ ︎d︎i︎f︎f︎u︎s︎e – ︎c︎h︎a︎r︎is︎︎m︎a︎t︎ic︎ m︎a︎s︎t︎e︎r︎ in︎︎t︎e︎n︎t︎i︎o︎n︎s︎ b︎y︎ s︎h︎e︎e︎r f︎o︎r︎c︎e︎ o︎f︎
d︎is︎︎p︎e︎r︎s︎io︎︎n︎.[…] p︎o︎p︎u︎l︎a︎r︎ s︎︎e︎r︎i︎a︎l︎it︎y︎ s︎e︎r︎v︎e︎s︎ t︎o︎ ︎s︎h︎a︎pe︎,︎ m︎o︎b︎i︎li︎z︎e︎,︎ a︎n︎d︎ a︎d︎a︎p︎t︎i︎v︎e︎ly︎ re︎︎a︎d︎j︎u︎s︎t︎ m︎o︎d︎e︎r︎n︎
p︎ra︎︎c︎t︎ic︎︎e︎s︎ o︎f︎ b︎e︎l︎o︎n︎g︎i︎n︎g︎ a︎n︎d︎ id︎︎e︎n︎t︎i︎t︎y︎ ︎a︎r︎t︎ic︎u︎la︎︎t︎io︎n︎ i︎n︎ f︎a︎s︎t︎-︎c︎h︎a︎n︎g︎i︎n︎g︎ m︎a︎r︎k︎e︎t︎ s︎o︎c︎i︎e︎t︎i︎e︎s︎,︎ n︎o︎t︎ l︎e︎a︎s︎t b︎y︎
e︎n︎c︎o︎u︎r︎a︎g︎in︎g︎ t︎h︎e︎s︎e︎ s︎o︎c︎i︎e︎t︎i︎e︎s︎ t︎o︎ ︎d︎e︎s︎c︎r︎ib︎e︎ t︎h︎e︎m︎s︎e︎lv︎e︎s︎ a︎s︎ p︎a︎r︎t︎ic︎i︎p︎a︎t︎o︎r︎y c︎u︎l︎t︎u︎r︎e︎s︎ o︎︎f e︎n︎g︎a︎ge︎︎m︎e︎n︎t,︎
d︎e︎b︎a︎t︎e︎,︎ a︎n︎d︎ ︎c︎h︎o︎i︎c︎e︎.“ – Kelleter, 28.

While I sympathise with the desire to distance oneself from elitist devaluations of popular culture and
seriality, I am also concerned that Kelleter tends to lean to the other extreme of romantic idealisation.
At their best, popular series may very well be “an essential democratic culture” (Kelleter, 26), but by
only highlighting this version, he loses sight of the other, more problematic side of seriality: its
capitalist nature (but also the dynamic franchise discourse) constitutes the risk of reproducing and
upholding ideas and values inherent to the socio-economic past and present, which may very well be
in conflict with the most basic matters of civil and human rights – such as the struggle for gender
equality (see Johnson2).
Also, “charismatic master intentions” or ideologies may be unlikely to be embedded in popular
seriality, but not impossible – e. g. Walt Disney, who with his media empire had (and continues to
have, beyond the grave) enormous influence on popular culture worldwide, and who embedded ideas
and values into the core of all his stories, serials and series (not only by reproducing troublesome
gender roles inherent to his cultural past and present, but even by willingly and actively making state
propaganda in the aftermath of Hiroshima, see Heumann/Köhne).
Finally, I was missing some kind of conclusion to the text. Although it is merely one chapter – it
still is the first and introductory chapter, so I would have liked to see Kelleter write one final
subchapter in which he not only summarises his initial thoughts but also relates them to (and gives a
quick overview of) the following chapters.

1 An︎d︎e︎r︎s︎o︎n︎,︎ B. (︎1︎9︎9︎1︎)︎: Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism
[︎1︎9︎8︎3︎]︎.︎ ︎Lo︎n︎d︎o︎n︎:︎ V︎e︎r︎s︎o︎.
2 “Though the serial production of media franchising is only rarely discussed in explicitly gender terms
(such as in Dirk Benedict’s Battlestar critique), underneath the surface lies a complex cultural field in
which relationships among masculinity, femininity, quality, creativity, industry, genre, and production
are constantly recast and renegotiated.” Johnson, 1091.

page 2 of 3
Response paper: Kelleter S.M. Cabrera

Nonetheless, Kelleter’s text was an interesting and inspiring read offering a comprehensible entry
point to the field of popular seriality (which is a topic very near and dear to my heart – Popular Music
Studies being one of my principal fields of interests in the study of musicology).

Sources
Heumann, I./Köhne, J. (2008): Imagination einer Freundschaft – Disneys Our Friend the Atom.
Bomben, Geister und Atome im Jahr 1957. In: Zeitgeschichte, 35(6), 372–395.
Kelleter, F. (2017): Five Ways of Looking at Popular Seriality. In: Kelleter, F. (Ed.): Media of Serial
Narrative. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 14–33.
Johnson, D. (2011): Devaluing and revaluing seriality. The gendered discourses of media franchising.
In: Media, Culture & Society, 33(7), 1077–1093.

page 3 of 3