Recent decades have witnessed an explosion of new scholarship depicting the diverse experiences of men and women from different classes, races, and ethnicities. This article examines the implications of this new scholarship by comparing and contrasting its core assumptions with those of both Marxism and postmodernism. Particular attention is paid to its potential as a scholarship of liberation.Within this new scholarship of difference, two types of identity politics are critically examined those that privilege the knowledge of the oppressed and those that focus on multiple realities and polyvocality. Shortcomings of this scholarship are discussed, including the naive pluralism of idealist multiple realities approaches, the underdevelopment of analyses of social class, and the problems that arise from rejecting scientific realism and from ignoring the importance of theory for analyzing structural relations of oppression. Of this new scholarship I ask: Whither social structure? Whither truth? And whither social class?This paper examines and critiques some of the underlying assumptions of the new scholarship of difference that arose in the last decades of the twentieth century. In sociology this scholarship depicting the diverse experiences of men and women from different classes, races, and ethnicities is often referred to as race, gender, and class analysis. This new approach was spawned, in part, by the civil rights movement, the modern women's movement, and the rise of the New Left with the anti-Vietnam War movement. Not only did these social movements heighten awareness of race, gender, and class oppressions locally and globally, but they also called for scholarship that had emancipatory goals, highlighting the relationship between theory and political praxis.However, both the relationship between knowledge and power and the relationships among these various forms of oppression proved far more complicated than was initially apparent. In the 1960s and 1970s conflict theory was the major sociological paradigm that tried to address these inequalities by race, gender, and class. However, by the 1980s many conflict theories came under attack for their tendency to hierarchicalize oppressions and to view one form of oppression as more fundamental than others. For example, Marxist theorists were accused of treating racial and gender oppression as simply derivative of social class (Hartmann 1981). Similarly, radical feminists' focus on gender as the most