Week 3: Galanter, Caldwell and Seron/Munger -- Everything Intersects

"Why the 'Haves' Come out Ahead"--Marc Galanter

Let me say first off that...I'm not even really sure I'm supposed to be commenting on this one, since I'm pretty sure we were all supposed to read this one (plus I haven't seen anyone else comment on it yet). In any case, let's just go with it and see what happens, yeah?

The article is a massive overview of the legal system and is mostly an examination of who has and does not have the power within the context of the legal system. In other words, who is more likely to win a case? Who is more likely to make a claim at all? How difficult is it to instigate change in one form or another? Galanter gives a thorough examination of the four aspects of the legal system--Rules, Courts, Lawyers and Parties--and divides the different sort of cases that take place (in terms of who is versus who) and separates them into boxes. Finally, he takes a look at how the system can be changed, gives some examples, and suggests the best way to go about it.

Something struck me right away his suggestions for change. His main argument is that one-time court players (the individual criminal who is convicted once) will inevitably be at a disadvantage against repeat players (firms, insurance companies, organizations that end up in court relatively often) because RPs, as he calls them, have more resources, more experience, better standing in the community, and stronger relationships with other people/aspects of the legal system as opposed to OSs. His argument, then, is that the best way for the OS to succeed in changing the rules (laws) to be more equal is to, essentially, become an RP. In short, his suggestion is "organize."

Which is all good and fine. Anyone will tell you that people who get organized have a better chance of succeeding at whatever they're doing; that whole "one voice becomes ten becomes a hundred becomes a thousand" thing. But I think Galanter is attacking a symptom of the problem and not the cause. Organization only covers so many people; alcoholics can band together in terms of sponsors and AA programs, mistreated blacks can band together within the context of organizations like the NAACP and so on. But some people are barred from organizing. Think of the battered woman who kills her husband and is sent to jail--she might not be aware of the various organizations who could help her, might not have the means to contact them, might not have the financial means to hire a good lawyer and so on and so forth. If her case stays out of the media, the feminist organizations that could have helped her might not even find out about her plight until she's already in jail.

The power still rests in the hands of large groups of people, and the individual ends up lost in a very David vs. Goliath kind of situation. It sounds like kind of a "duh" statement, and honestly I would probably recommend organizing to anyone who asked. But I think it needs to be pointed out that just organizing isn't enough. It doesn't cover everyone, and it still neglects the individual, no matter how good the organization's intentions are.


"A Hair Piece"--Paulette M. Caldwell

This was a surprisingly enjoyable read. Caldwell here is talking about a specific case, Rogers vs. American Airlines, which seems harmless on the surface but actually has massive implications for the intersection of race and gender. The case upheld the dress code policy of American, saying that American could continue to fire or not hire people if they braided their hair. The case was brought on racial and sexist grounds, but the court upheld it, citing the biological aspects of race as well as pointing out that sexism and racism were unrelated. Caldwell goes on to talk about the true implications of the case--she's clearly an intersection theorist, and points out that the case is just as harmful to blacks as it is to women, due to the underlying racism and due to the objectification of women, among other things.

I quite liked this piece, as I consider myself something of an intersection theorist myself. I agree with her that the court needs to start considering the intersection of all the isms, and needs to look a lot deeper into things (I was particularly disgusted by American bringing up that the claimant in the case had started the hairstyle after seeing the movie 10, since, as Caldwell goes on to say, it assumes that black women contribute nothing to culture but instead just rip off "white" fads). The trouble is that the courts establish completely different systems for dealing with sexism and racism and treat them as completely separate, when you have only to look at the different way that black women are treated compared to black men to see that the two are intertwined.


"Law and Inequality"--Carroll Seron and Frank Munger

Much like Caldwell's essay, this article was another look at intersection theory, with particular examination of class. It covers the history of the sociology of law, and looks at how class was systematically excluded from the study. The pair then go on to include reasons why class is important when looking at the sociology of law, and how to re-include it in the study.

I find this to be a little outdated. A lot of people these days take it as a given that, of course class is intrinsically connected to the system of law. It's all a matter of looking at who has the power and who doesn't, in terms of class. Intersection theory has gained a lot more strength recently, and people are really starting to consider class in terms of the legal system and in the study of the sociology of law. However, I do agree that class still takes a backseat to the other isms in our society. America likes to pretend that class doesn't exist in this country, as sort of a throwback to our need to separate ourselves from England way back in the day. Class still manages to be rather invisible, although things have gotten better recently--although seeing it as intersected with the other isms may still take some time.