You are on page 1of 25

Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory

Author(s): Janet Saltzman Chafetz


Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 97-120
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952545 .
Accessed: 02/12/2012 15:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu.Rev.Sociol. 1997 23:97-120
? 1997 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved
Copyright

FEMINIST THEORY AND


SOCIOLOGY: Underutilized
forMainstream
Contributions Theory
JanetSaltzmanChafetz
Department
ofSociology,University
ofHouston,Houston,Texas77204

KEY WORDS: varieties


offeminist feminist
theories, theory theory
ghettoization, canon
ubiquity
revision, ofgender,critiques
offeminist
theories

ABSTRACT
Feministtheoriesin sociologyreflecttherichdiversity of generaltheoretical
orientationsin ourdiscipline;thereis no one formof feminist theory.The de-
velopment of thesetheoriesoverthelast 25 yearshas onlyrecently begunto
influencethemainstream theorycanon,whichhas muchto learnfromtheirin-
sights.This chapterdemonstrates whyfeminist versionsof thefollowing the-
orytypesshouldbe morefullyintegrated intomainstream sociologicaltheory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural,
exchange, rationalchoice,network, statusexpec-
tations,symbolicinteractionist,
ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feministstandpointtheory, an epistemological
critiqueof mainstream so-
ciology,is discussedat thebeginning, and thechapterconcludeswitha brief
accountofthenewlydeveloping efforttotheorizetheintersectionofrace,class,
andgender.

INTRODUCTION
The term"feministtheory"is used to referto a myriadof kindsof works,pro-
duced by movementactivistsand scholars in a varietyof disciplines; these are
notmutuallyexclusive and include: (a) normativediscussions of how societies
and relationshipsoughttobe structured,theircurrentinequities,and strategiesto
achieve equity;(b) critiquesof androcentricclassical theories,concepts,episte-
mologies, and assumptions;(c) epistemologicaldiscussions of what constitute
appropriateforms,subjectmatters,and techniquesoftheorizingfroma feminist
perspective;and (d) explanatorytheoriesoftherelationshipbetweengenderand

97
0360-0572/97/081
5-0097$08.00

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 CHAFETZ

varioussocial,cultural, economic,psychological, andpoliticalstructures and


processes.Muchofthisworkis explicitly interdisciplinary in inspirationand
intended audience.To complicate matters further, thereis no consensuson the
exactmeaningof theword"feminist," whichmakesit difficult to distinguish
withprecision betweentheoretical material thatpertains togender(e.g.Parsons
1949,1955,whichno one wouldlabelfeminist) andgender-related theorythat
is specifically "feminist." Finally,thereis littleconsensusamongfeminist so-
ciologistsaboutthebasictheoretical questionsthatrequirean answer, resulting
in theproliferation oftheories ata lowlevelofabstraction thatexplainspecific
phenomena (e.g. payinequity), in additiontomoreabstract, generalworks.
To remainwithinthelimitsof one chapter, I confinethisreviewin several
ways,beginning byexcluding feministtheory thathasnotbeenproduced orused
extensively bysociologists.Whilefeminist theory is oftendefined as "women-
centered" (e.g.Lengermann & Niebrugge1996:436;Smith1979,1987;Alway
1995),I use a definition thatfocusesmorebroadlyongender, yetmaintains the
normative all
emphasisimpliedby definitions ofthetermfeminist, whichthus
enablesone to distinguish feminist fromothergender-relevant theory.Earlier
(Chafetz1988:5),I defined itintermsoffourcriteria, whichguidemyselection
of theoriesto be reviewedin thischapter:(a) "gendercomprisesa central
focusor subjectmatter of thetheory";(b) "genderrelationsare viewedas a
problem... . [F]eministtheoryseeks to understand how genderis related
to social inequities, strains,and contradictions"; (c) "genderrelationsare not
viewedas. . . immutable"; and(d) feminist theory "canbe used... tochallenge,
counteract, or changea statusquo thatdisadvantages or devalueswomen."I
focusmostof myattention on explanatory theoriesbuteschewdiscussionof
thenumerous, moresubstantively narrowones. Finally,I limitthisreviewto
writings producedsincethebroad-scale reemergence offeminist consciousness
andactivism inthelate1960s,whichbegantoaffect sociologicaldiscourseafter
about1970. Thislimitation does notmean,however, thatno worksthatcould
be consideredfeminist theorywereproducedby sociologistsbeforethistime
(see Fitzpatrick 1990,Deegan 1988,Donovan1985,Rosenberg1982).
A decadeago,Stacey& Thorne(1985; also Laslettetal 1992,Alway1995)
bemoanedthefailureofsociologyingeneral,andsociologicaltheory inpartic-
ular,toincorporate feminist insightsas centralcomponents ofitswork.During
thelasttwodecades,a significant amountoffeminist sociologicaltheoryand
epistemology has beenproduced, as reflectedin twobooksthatprovidebroad
overviews(myundergraduate text,Chafetz1988; a moresophisticated book
editedbyEngland1993a),andonelesscomprehensive collectionoftheoretical
papers(Wallace1989). Severalinterdisciplinary feminist theory books,which
incorporate some sociologicaltheory, have also appeared(e.g. Tong 1989,
Gergen1988,Rhode1990). Recenttheory textbooks in sociology(e.g. Ritzer

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 99

1996,Etzkowitz& Glassman1991,Waters1994,Wallace& Wolf1995) have


beguntoincludesomediscussionoffeminist theory,buttheyvarywidelyinthe
extentand natureoftheircoverageofthetopic.Thesetextstypically confine
discussionoffeminist theory to itsownchapteror chaptersection.Thisprac-
ticeis problematic bothbecauseit allowsscholarsand students to easilyskip
thetopicand becauseit makesthecontributions of feministtheorists appear
morenarrow andhomogeneous thantheyare. In addition, manytextsstillomit
feminist theory anda number
altogether, ofimportant contemporary theorists
(e.g.,JamesColeman,Jeffrey Alexander, PeterBerger, Anthony Giddens)have
ignoredbothfeminist theoreticalinsightsandtheverytopicofgenderin their
"general"theories(Seidman1994:304).
Some feminists focuson thosecontemporary theoriesandtextsthatignore
thecontributions offeminist theoriesandthetopicofgenderandconcludethat
feministcontributionsremainlargely ghettoizedwithin ourdiscipline(e.g.Ward
& Grant1991,Alway1995). My viewis that,whileprogresshas beenmade
in integratingfeminist concernsand insightsintothediscipline'stheoretical
discourse,muchworkremainsto be done. This chapterdemonstrates the
abundanceandvariety offeminist theoreticalinsightsthatcanandalreadyhave
to someextentcontributed toa morerobusttheoretical understanding ofsocial
life,one whichreflects thecentrality of genderin virtuallyall sociocultural
contexts.Italso demonstrates thatfeminist theoriesemanatefrom, and
critique,
revisethericharrayof theoretical traditionsthatdefineourdiscipline.Space
limitationsprecludemuchdiscussionofprecisely howfeminist theories canbe
betterintegrated withmainstream ones. Rather,I focusattentionprimarily on
reviewing thecentralinsightsoffeminist theoriesinordertobetter inform those
sociologistswhomaybe unfamiliar withmuchofthisbodyofworkaboutthe
richarrayoftheoretical ideasthatareat theirdisposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Muchoftheliterature thatis labeled"feministtheory"consistsofepistemology
andepistemological critiques of"malestream" reflect
sociology.Itsfoundations
severalnonfeminist traditions,especiallyMarx'sandMannheim'sdiscussions
ofideology,Foucault'sworkon knowledge andpower,andphenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, theexactmixof influences varyingby
author.Whilethisworkmakesimportant contributions for
to thesetraditions,
tworeasonsI believethatitis a misnomertocallthisworkfeministepistemology
(or theory).First,theissuesraisedare notin anyfundamental waydifferent
fromthoseraisedbymanyscholarswhohaveworkedinthesetraditions buthave
notbeeninterested specificallyinwomenorcommitted tofeminism. Feminists
extendtheirinsightsin important a uniquely
ways,butthisdoes notconstitute

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 CHAFETZ

feministapproachto sociology. Second,manywomenin sociology,whose


scholarshiptheyand othersconsideras well withinthefeminist tradition,do
notagreewiththisperspective.
Feministscholarsin a numberof disciplinescritiquewhattheydefineas
mainstream, "masculinist," "objectivist,"and "positivist" social science,and
developa "feminist" alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology,the
twomostwidelycited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990,also 1979,
1989)andPatriciaHill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989),whosebasic
ideasconstitutethefocusofthissection(see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smithfocusesondeveloping a "woman'sstandpoint," Collins' work is directed
at an Afrocentricfeminist standpoint epistemology. Smithexplicitly locates
the originsof herideas in Marx, Foucault, and ethnomethodology, Collins
primarilyinMannheim, severalwell-known contemporary feministtheorists in
diversedisciplines
(Chodorow 1974,1978, Gilligan 1982,Harding 1986, Jaggar
1983,hooks1981,Smith1987,Harstock1983,1985),anda myriadofmostly
female,African-American thinkers. Theideasexpressed bythesetwoscholars
incorporatethoseofa largenumber ofothers(see Sprague& Zimmerman 1993
fora sympathetic yetcriticaldiscussionof standpoint theory,andLaslettet al
1992 fora reviewofSmith'swork).

Sociology
TheCritiqueofMainstream
SmithandCollins(also Cook & Fonow1986,Farganis1986,Haraway1988,
in additionto thosecitedabove)beginwiththeidea thatall knowledgeabout
thesocial worldreflects thesocialposition(s)oftheknowerand,therefore, at
bestcanresultinnomorethana partialunderstanding ofthatworld;thereis no
Archimedian perspectiveoutsideofone's sociallyconstituted standpoint.Un-
likesomefeminists whoargueforthesuperiority ofa woman'sstandpoint as dis-
empowered SmithandCollinsexplicitly
"outsider," recognizethata woman's
or a feminist standpointis no less situatedandpartialthanthosetheycritique.
For Marx and Mannheim,the"standpoint" of a knoweris definedin terms
of social class. Smithadds genderandCollinsaddsrace and genderto class
in defining thechiefdimensions of thosestandpoints.Theybegintheircri-
tiqueof acceptedsociologicalknowledgeon thebasisthat,untilrecently, the
knowershadone commonstandpoint-that ofwhite,middleclassmale;other
standpoints havebeeneffectively silencedas contributorsof"credible"social
scientificknowledge.Virtually all feministscholars(and manyothers)agree
thatbydiversifying thekindsofknowers insociology,newquestionsareraised
aboutsociallife,newdatasoughttoanswerthem,andnewinterpretations ofre-
ceivedwisdomareproffered. In short,different
standpointsleadtodifferences
inwhatscholarsthinkabout.However, forCollinsandSmiththisis merelythe
startingpointin theircritiqueofmainstream sociology.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 101

CollinsandSmithrecognizethediversity ofexperiences, hencestandpoints,


amongwomen.Nonetheless, theirlogicsassumethateachgenderhas a stand-
pointandthatitresultsinprofound differences betweenthewayswomenand
menthink, in additionto whattheythinkabout.Smith(1990) refers to "male-
createddiscourse"andtalksaboutmalethinking as "objectifying" experience,
thereby creating "linesoffault"betweenwomen'ssubjective experiences and
theway womensociologistswriteaboutthem(if theyconform to thestan-
dardsof thediscipline),resulting in a "bifurcated consciousness."Women's
everyday worldis alienatedandobjectified bytheverycategoriesof analysis
that,as sociologists,theyaretaughtandexpectedto bringto theirwork,cate-
goriesthatreflect andsupport the"socialrelations ofruling"thatoppressthem.
Collins(see also Dill 1979,1983,King1988)speaksofa "distinctive Afrocen-
tricwomen'sculture"ofresistance (p. 11) whichrepresents "thesimultaneity
ofrace,class andgenderoppression" in a "matrix ofdomination." Thisleads
themto rejectwhitemale "either/or" thinking,rather optingfora "both/and"
orientationto intellectual(as well as practical)life. Collinsdescribes"posi-
tivism"as "a Eurocentric masculinist epistemology" thatis highlyproblematic
forunderstanding African-American women'slives.She defines positivism as
attempts to produce"objectivegeneralizations" (p. 205): "[Scientists] aimto
distancethemselves fromthevalues,vestedinterests, and emotions... [and
thus]decontextualize themselves [inordertobecome]detachedobservers and
manipulators of nature."She criticizesthisepistemology notonlybecauseit
treatsthesubjectsofresearchas objects(as does Smith),butalso becauseof
theabsenceofemotion,ethics,andvalues,andbecauseof thepreferred style
of"adversarial debate"in establishing knowledge claims.Like Smith,Collins
concludesthatthismodeofthinking bysociologistsfosters a systemthatop-
pressesBlackwomen.
To Smithand Collins,thetaken-for-granted concepts,languageand style
of writingand of makingtruth claimsin sociologyaremale-created, aliento
women,and function to supportpatriarchy, specifically,"relationsof ruling"
(Smith)or"thematrixofdomination" (Collins)moregenerally. It is herethat
otherfeminist sociologists(including thisauthor) partcompany withstandpoint
theory,unconvinced thatmen'sand women'swaysof thinking categorically
differor thatthedominant waysof doingsociologyareinherently masculine
andnecessarily antitheticaltofeminists' concerns(see especiallyCoser1989).

TheProposedAlternative
SmithandCollinssharea radicalempiricism;feministsociologistsshouldes-
chewthestandard,"masculinist"conceptualtoolsof thefieldand beginwith
immersioninwomen'sexperiences ofeverydaylife.ForCollins,anAfrocentric
feminist usesthescholar's"ownconcrete
epistemology experiencesas situated

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 CHAFETZ

knowers inordertoexpressa Blackwomen'sstandpoint" (p. 16). Smithrecom-


mendsthatwe exploretheworldas "insiders"bymaking"theeveryday world
problematic" (1990,p. 26). In a tour-de-force examination oftextualmaterial,
Smith(1990) demonstrates howthedatausedbysociologists areprepackaged
byagenciesandotherprofessionals (e.g. physicians, policeandcourts,social
workers)in waysthatexpressandreinforce therelationsofrulingand there-
foremustbe eschewedinfavorofexamination ofthedirectexperiences ofthe
peoplewhoseliveswe seektounderstand.
Smithappearstoassumethattheprocessofthoroughly critiquinganddecon-
structingtextualmaterial createdbysociologists andotheragentsoftheruling
system,based on thefemalesociologist'sownlivedexperience, will suffice
to lead to new conceptsand general(theoretical) understandings thatreflect
woman'sstandpoint. Whileshe explicitly rejectsa completely "subjectivist"
sociologythatavoidsall abstraction, she does notexplicateanymethodfor
movingfromtherealmof personalexperienceto a moreabstract, systemic
levelofunderstanding, a levelshepresupposes bytalkingaboutpatriarchy and
capitalism.
Collinsgivessomewhat moreconcrete advicebyoutlining threespecific com-
ponentsofanAfrocentric feminist epistemology, inadditiontotheemphasison
beginning withexperience. First,knowledge claimsshouldarisefromdialogue
and stressconnectedness betweenand activeparticipation of researchers and
theirsubjects,notfromadversarial relationsbetweenknowersand theobjec-
tificationof researchsubjects.Second,"personalexperience, emotions,and
empathyare centralto theknowledgevalidationprocess"(p. 215); emotion
is notseparatefromintellect (a pointsecondedbySmith).Third,Collinscalls
foran ethicofpersonalaccountability amongsociologists;knowledgeclaims
shouldbe evaluatedin termsofwhatone knowsaboutthe"character" (values
andethics)oftheknower(p. 218). Nonetheless, itremainsunclearinCollins'
workexactlyhowtheAfrocentric feminist sociologist shouldmovefromthede-
scriptivelevelofwomen'severyday experience tothemoreabstract, theoretical
levelshepresupposes bytalkingaboutAfrican-American women'soppression
withina systemthatis patriarchal, racist,andclassist.
Ultimately, theirrejectionof abstraction as a masculineactivity prevents
Collins,and especiallySmith,fromproposingan epistemology thatcan in-
formfeminist conceptual andtheoretical development, beyondtheprescription
thatit mustbe thoroughly inductive.This shortcoming theysharewithnon-
feministsociologistswhosharetheircritiqueof"positivism" in sociologyand
opt forthorough immersion in theworldof everydayexperience(e.g. most
ethnomethodologists and somesymbolicinteractionists). However,wherever
these"male"approachesarediscussedin thesociologicalcanon,Smith'sand
Collins'sworkdeserveseriousconsideration as well. Theyaddrichdiscussions

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 103

oftheimportance ofthepreviouslysilencedstandpoints
of(African-American)
womenforunderstanding thetaken-for-grantedaspectsof everydaylife. In
addition,theoretical
discussionsof ideologyandthesociologyof knowledge
needto includetheirworks,inasmuchas theyclearlydemonstrate theneces-
sityof broadening concernfromfocusingon class to includinggenderand
in understanding
race/ethnicity thesocial-rootednessof thoughtsystemsand
theintellectual
rootsofsocialpower.

TheIssue ofEssentialism
Feminist standpoint theory,whichis highlyattuned toreification committed by
mainstream sociologists,cannotavoidreifying thegenders.WhileSmithand
Collins explicitlyrecognizeconsiderablevariationamongwomen(and pre-
sumablymen)in theirexperiencesand consciousness, theirown logics,and
manytimeswording, makeitclearthattheyassumethatthereareoverarching,
gender-specificstandpoints;theycouldnototherwise talkabouta "masculine"
formof discourse. In addition,Collinsexplicitlycitessuch feminist theo-
ristsas Gilligan(1982) and Chodorow(1978, also 1974),who arguethatthe
gendersare fundamentally different in theirmoralreasoningand capacities
for/commitments to interpersonalrelationships.
Positingdichotomous genderdifferences thataretreated as transcultural
and
transhistoricalis termed"essentialism," a view thathas substantial currency
amongfeminists in a varietyof disciplinesbutis hotlycontested in ourown
(e.g. Lorberetal 1981,Coser1989,Epstein1988). The empirical evidencefor
itis flawed,oftenbasedonsmall,nonrandom, American samples,andtypically
findsonlymodestdifferences, alongwithextensive overlap,betweenthesexes.
Essentialistthinking convertsdifferences ofdegreeintodifferences ofkind.The
presumed butoftenunstated originofessentialdifferences includespsychody-
namicsrootedintheparental divisionoflabor(Chodorow1978)andbiological
sex (Rossi 1977,1984). Ithasbecomecommonforfeminist scholarstorecog-
nizewithin-gender categorical differences (e.g.race,class),butthisawareness
ofdifference has oftenfailedtoprecludeessentialist thinking aboutbasicper-
sonalityand value orientations (e.g. theassumption that,regardlessof other
differences, womenare nurturant and oriented towardpersonalrelationships,
whilemenare individuating and orientedtowardabstractmoralprinciples).
Giventhattheevidencesuggestsmodestbetween-sex andconsiderable within-
sex differences on virtuallyall individual-level traits,a dichotomous gender
variableis theoreticallyuselesswhenspeakingofindividual-level phenomena.
Explanationsthatbeginby categorically attributingdifferent characteristics
to womenandmen-cognitive,emotional, relational,and/or behavioral-not
onlyexaggerate differencesinthedistribution ofsuchtraits bygender, theyalso
implicitly treatthesevariablesas dichotomous ratherthancontinuous.They

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 CHAFETZ

reflectthe"either/or"
thinking inher
rejectedbyCollins,yetimplicit
explicitly
talkaboutaveragedifferences
logic. One canlegitimately betweenfemalesand
variables,
maleson individual-level butcaremustbe takento avoidreification
bydelineating theaveragedifferencesinexperiences/opportunities/constraints
thataccountforthemandbyexplicitly recognizingtherangeofwithin-gender
variationandbetween-gender overlap.Moreover,a dichotomousconceptualiza-
tionofgendercanbe a theoretically
meaningful such
aspectofsocialstructure,
as whenonetalksaboutthedegreeofmale-female occupational or
segregation
theextenttowhichan ideologydevaluesfemalesrelativetomales.

ConceptualProblems
Treating differencesofdegreeas differences ofkindis also manifest inmacro-
levelconceptsemployedby manyfeminist theorists,especially"patriarchy,"
and"oppression:'Onerarely
"exploitation," readsstatements thatcontainvary-
ing levelsof thesephenomena(e.g. societyA is less patriarchal/oppressive/
exploitativethanB). Theyareusuallytreated as constants,andtheemphasisis
placedon understanding theparticular formofpatriarchy/oppression/exploita-
tionin a giventime,place, and/orwithina specificsocioeconomicstructure
(usuallycapitalism).Yettheempiricalliterature clearlydemonstrates consid-
erablecross-societalvariation onthosedimensions thatcanbe takenas indica-
torsofthelevel(notsimplyform)ofgenderinequality (e.g.Martin& Voorhies
1975,Sanday1974,1981,Blumberg1978,1984,Chafetz1984).
These termsare infrequently defined, and whentheyare,theirdefinitions
are oftentoo broad,thereby obscuring thedynamicsof genderstratification
systems.Patriarchy, forexample,has been used to referto some combina-
tionofthefollowing:a typeoffamilystructure, an ideology(religiousand/or
secular),and one or moreproperties oftheeconomyand/or polity.Thiskind
definition
oftruth-asserting obscuresquestionsoftheextenttowhichandhow
thesevariousphenomena arerelatedtooneanother byassuming theirempirical
isomorphism. "Patriarchy" is oftenreifiedby theuse of an activeverb,as in
"patriarchycauses/creates/requires... ." Whenthishappens,theexplanatory
contentevaporates completely. Regardlessofconceptualproblems, in there-
mainderofthischapter I use thevocabularies employed bythetheorists whose
worksarebeingreviewed.

NEO-MARXIST THEORIES
feminist
Marxist-inspired theory,mostofwhichtodayis calledsocialist-femin-
ist,differs Marxism(andorthodox
fromorthodox Marxistfeminism) byinsist-
ingthatthenonwagedlaborthatmaintainsandreproducesworkers,andis done
overwhelmingly as wagedlabor,and that
by women,is equallyas important

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 105

oppression forwomenresultsequallyfrompatriarchy andfromclass structure,


notsimplyas a by-product ofclassrelationships. It differsfromotherfeminist
theories byinsistingthat,whilenotsufficient tobringaboutthedemiseofpatri-
archy,theabolitionofcapitalism is a necessary condition, inasmuch as capital-
ismderivesnumerous advantages, hencesupport frompatriarchal institutions,
ideology,and practices.Whilerecognizing thatpatriarchy predatedcapital-
ism,and scarcelydisappeared in twentieth century socialistnations, Marxist-
inspired feministsarguethat within capitalist systems, patriarchy assumes
unique forms thatare interwoven with capitalism in mutually supportive ways.
Withincapitalistsystems, the division of labor by gender makes women re-
for
sponsible theunwaged maintenance and reproduction of the current and
futurelaborforce,variously termed domesticwork,production ofuse value,or
necessarylabor.Womenmayalso be involvedinwhatis variously termed pro-
ductionof exchange value,social labor, or surplus value through waged work,
as aremen. The nonwagedworkdonebywomenis crucialandprofitable for
capitalists,who getitsbenefitsfor free,and, therefore, such labor is exploitative
and oppressive forwomen.Although earlierin thehistory ofcapitalismmost
womenweredeniedtheopportunity tobecome"socialadults"through waged
labor(Sacks 1974), morerecently theyhavebeen soughtby capitalistsas a
sourceof cheaplaborin a highlygender-segregated labormarket(Eisenstein
1979). Thegenderinequities womenexperience inthelabormarket arelinked
bothpractically andideologically totheirresponsibility fornonwageddomestic
work(Eisenstein1979,Vogel1983,Shelton& Agger1993). Thedualexploita-
tionofwomenwithin thehouseholdandinthelabormarket meansthatwomen
producefargreater surplusvalueforcapitalists thando men(Shelton& Agger
1993).
An ideologyof patriarchy, or male supremacy, fostered by capitalists, un-
dergirds andsustainsbothformsoffemaleoppression.Thisideologyjustifies
women'snonwageddomesticresponsibilities withreference to biologically
rootedreproductive differences betweenmenandwomenandjustifiesgender-
basedlabormarket inequitieswithreference to women'sdomesticobligations
(Eisenstein1979). In turn,working classmenderiveadvantages bothwithin the
household(freedomesticservicesandsubservience fromtheirwives,resulting
fromtheireconomicdependence)andinthelaborforce(better payingjobs are
reserved formen).No orlowwagestiewomentotheirbetter paidhusbandsina
subordinate position,andtherefore todomesticlabor,whichinturnsuppresses
theirwages (Hartmann1984,Sacks 1974). Sacks (1974) arguesthatin this
mannercapitalists "compensate" menfortheirsubordination tocapitalist dom-
ination,whichimpedesthedevelopment ofclassconsciousness amongworkers,
reinforcing domination
capitalist (also Shelton& Agger1993,Sokoloff1980).
Wives'economicdependence alsotiesmenmoresecurely towage-earning jobs,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 CHAFETZ

furtherservingtheinterests of capitalistsby undermining potential rebellion


againstthesystem(Eisenstein1979,Vogel1983,Hartmann 1984).
Feminist scholarshaveextended Marxist-based worldsystems theory (andits
cousin,dependency theory) bydemonstrating how penetration
capitalist by core
nationsofperipheral ones usually reduces the status of women, thereby exacer-
batingmanyproblems(e.g. highfertility rates,poverty, andincomeinequality)
in theperipheral nations (Ward 1984, 1990, 1993, Blumberg 1989). Ward
(1993:48) criticizesworld systems theory for assuming thatwomen participate
in themodernworldeconomyonlyas members of households in whichthe
male"head"is incorporated, thereby ignoring women's directrole in theglobal
economyandtheireconomiccontributions inthe informal labor market as well
as inthehousehold.A massiveresearch literature on women and development
demonstrates theusuallywidelydisparateeffects of socioeconomicdevelop-
mentformenandwomen, tothe detrimentof women. Thesefindings arelargely
ignoredby world systems theorists,who assume that household members have
unitaryinterests(see also Blumberg 1988, 1989). As a corrective, Ward (1993)
emphasizestheneedtofullyincorporate thecrucialcontributions womenmake
tothefoodsuppliesandgeneraleconomiesofpoornations(see alsoMies 1986).
Earlier,Ward(1984) proposedthatthespecific, localeffects on women'swork
and status of Western capital penetrationmust be understood in termsofpre-
existingpatternsof "patriarchal including
relations," ideology and institutional-
izedpatterns ofmaledominance.In addition, thegender-based presuppositions
ofWestern (male)capitalists affectthedistribution ofnewresources andoppor-
tunitiesbetweenmenandwomenin peripheral nations.Wardconcludedthat
thelevelofforeign investment inperipheral nationsandtheirtradedependency
on corenationsarepositively relatedtothelevelofgenderinequality.
By extending Marxistanalysistoincludenonwagedmaintenance andrepro-
ductivelabor,andbroadening theMarxianconceptofideologyto encompass
patriarchal thought,Marxist-inspired feminists demonstrate thatgenderis as
centrala component as class in understanding exploitation/oppression within
capitalistsystemsandin understanding howcapitalistsystemsaremaintained
andstrengthened. Thesecontributions meritseriousattention in anyscholarly
discussionofneo-Marxist thought.

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL MACROSTRUCTURAL


THEORIES
Themacrostructural thatarenotexplicitly
theories
feminist neo-Marxist divide
mostlyintotwocategories:thosethatemphasizethecausalprimacy ofculture
and ideology,and thosethatemphasizethecentralityof socioeconomicfac-
Collinset al (1993)
tors(fora reviewofbothsee Dunnet al 1993). Recently,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 107

attempted a grandsynthesis of extantgendertheoriesthatemphasizessocial


structuralconstructs butincludeselements frommostothertypesofgenderthe-
ory(see also Chafetz1990,fora slightly ambitious
less effort to do likewise).
The socialstructural theoriesaresufficiently complex as to defy briefexplica-
tion,beyonda listing of central constructs. What macrostructural theories have
incommon is their
goal: to explain variation inthe levelof gender stratification
acrosstime/space, and/or toexplainhowa givenlevelismaintained andchanged
(see Chafetz1984:4-7 for a conceptual definition of"gender stratification").
Virtuallyall feminist scholarsagreethatideologiesandrelatedsymbolsand
ritualsthatdevaluewomenandexplainandjustifydifferent andunequaltreat-
mentbygenderconstitute an important component ofgenderstratification sys-
tems.A fewanthropologists makea cultural construct centralintheirexplana-
tions(e.g. Rosaldo1974,Ortner1974,andespeciallySanday1981,also 1974).
Ortner's (1974) andRosaldo's(1974) arguments arerelatively simple:Because
ofwomen'sreproductive functions in birthandlactation, andthegendereddi-
visionof laborwithinthehouseholdand broadersocietythatare typically
constructed basedon them,womenbecomemoreidentified with"nature"and
domesticity, menwith"culture" andthepublicsphere.In turn, cultureandthe
publicspherearemorehighlyvaluedsociallyand,therefore, themorestrongly
differentiated andsegregated thetwospheres, thegreater thelevelofgenderin-
equality.In a morenuancedandfullydevelopedtheory, Sanday(1981) argues
thateach societyhas itsown"sex-roleplan"thatdelineateshowrelationships
betweenmenandwomenoughttobe structured. Theseplansariseoutofoneof
twooverarching cultural orientations: an "inner," inwhichnatureis sacredand
the"femalecreativeprinciple" is emphasized, andan "outer," in whichnature
is seenas dangerous, humansareseenas superior tonature, andmen'sactivities
(as hunters and warriors) arerevered.Theseorientations aregroundedin the
levelofenvironmental threat andembodiedincreation myths, whichemphasize
male,female,orbothsourcesofpowerin theuniverse.Enhancedthreat leads
to an outerorientation, theprimacy ofmaledeities,andmaledominance.The
degreeofgenderinequality is thusa directfunction ofthetypeofsex-roleplan
as itreflects thegeneralculturalorientation.
Macrostructural social theoriesof genderstratification are typicallysys-
temicinnature, oftenincludefeedbackloops,andemphasizeas primary causal
mechanisms one ormoreofthefollowing:environmental, demographic, tech-
nological,economic,and politicalvariables.Intervening constructs include
thegenderdivisionof labor,ideology,and familystructure. Lenski's(1966)
societaltypology, based on dominanttechnology and theresulting level of
economicsurplus, constitutes thestarting pointforseveraltheories (e.g. Huber
1988,R Collins 1975,Chafetz1984,Blumberg1978). The extentto which
theenvironment-physical andsocial-is dangerous orthreatening constitutes

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 CHAFETZ

anotherindependent construct in some (e.g. Chafetz1984, Sanday 1981, as


discussedabove,andespeciallyHarris1978,whoemphasizestheroleofwar-
fare). Demographic variablesthatare consideredimportant includesex ratio
(especiallybyGuttentag & Secord1983,also Chafetz1984,1990),population
density(Harris1978,Chafetz1984, 1990), and fertility rates(Huber1991).
The size of theeconomicsurplus,contingent upontechnological base, is re-
latedto thelevelofgenderstratification in a curvilinearfashionthatpeaksin
agrarian/pastoralsocietiesinthehighest levelsofinequality. The levelsoffer-
tility,
population density,environmental harshness, warfare, andsex ratiosare
generallypositively relatedto thelevelof genderinequality.One finalinde-
pendent construct concerns politicalstructure,specifically,Collin's(1975,also
1972) thesisconcerning theextentto whichthepoliticalorganization of the
society(nation-state), ratherthanthehousehold,monopolizesthelegitimate
use offorce.He arguesthat(alongwithwomen'slevelofeconomicopportu-
nity)theextentto whichthepoliticalstructure grantsindividual mentheright
tophysically coercewivesconstitutes themostimportant independent variable
explaining thelevelofgenderstratification. Whilemanyfeminist scholarshave
exploredtheroleofmaleviolenceagainstwomeninproducing ormaintaining
genderinequality, Collinsis alone in makingmale coercivepowercentralto
sucha theory bylinkingitto a typology ofpoliticalstructure.
Theseindependent constructs aretypically linkedto thelevelof genderin-
equalityprimarily through theirimpacton threeintervening constructs. Like
theMarxist-inspired feminists, virtuallyall macrostructural feminist theories
focuson thekeyroleofthegenderdivisionoflabor-withintheeconomyand
betweentheeconomicand domesticrealms. The moreequal theaccess of
womento economicrolesin thenondomestic sphere(especiallywherethey
controltheproducts of,and/or incomederivedfromtheirwork),thelowerthe
level of genderinequality, and themoreresponsibility womenhave forthe
domesticsphere,theless equal theiropportunities in theeconomicrealm(es-
peciallyBlumberg1978,1984,1988,Collinsetal 1993,Chafetz1984,1990).
Besidesthedomesticdivisionof labor,familystructural variablesof lineality
andlocalityarealso important intervening constructs(Martin& Voorhies1975,
Blumberg1979,Chafetz1984). Womenfareworstwherethesetwoaspects
offamilystructure favorthemaleside(patrilineage andpatrilocality). Finally,
liketheMarxist-inspired feminists, butwithless emphasisthanthatgivenby
theculturaltheorists, macrostructural socialtheories recognizetheimportance
of religiousand seculargenderideologiesin buttressing systemsof gender
(Blumberg1978,1984,1988,Chafetz1984,1990).
stratification
Macrostructural feministtheoriesrarelyattempt to demonstrate theimpact
ofgenderstratification on otheraspectsofsocialstructure (exceptas feedback
loops). However, theydo demonstrate thatvirtuallyall aspectsofsociocultural
structurein all typesofsocietiesareimplicated inthegendersystem.Theories

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 109

concerning technology,work,ideology,familystructure,politicaleconomy,
demography, thatignoretheubiquitousphe-
notto mentionsocialinequality,
nomenonof genderare radicallyincomplete, to
as are theoriesthatattempt
explainsocialchangeand/or reference
without
stability togender.Macrostruc-
turalfeminist provideimportant
theories insightsconcerningthelinkagesbe-
andothermacrolevelstructures
tweengenderstratification andprocessesthat
shouldbe incorporated theories.
intogeneralstructural

RATIONALCHOICE AND EXCHANGE THEORIES


Rationalchoicetheory hasbeena target ofcriticismbyseveralfeminist schol-
ars, mostnotablyEngland(1989, 1993b,England& Kilbourne1990, also
Zelizer1994). Feminist critiquesofitarerootedsubstantially inan essentialist
logic,inasmuchas theyaccuse rationalchoicetheoryof assuminga selfish,
separative, and non-emotional actorwho is masculine,thereby ignoringthe
connective, altruistic,andemotionalmotivations, claimedto be characteristi-
callyfeminine.This andrelatedfeminist criticismsofrationalchoicetheory
arediscussedandrebutted byFriedman & Diem(1993). Theyalsodemonstrate
theutility ofthisperspective forunderstanding genderinequalitybyexamining
theimplicit rationalchoiceanalysesinvolvedinseveralfeminist studies.Their
generalpointis thatthestudiestheyexamineutilize"threemechanisms relied
uponbyrational-choice toexplainvariation-institutional
theorists constraints,
opportunity costs,andpreferences . . ." (Friedman & Diem 1993:101). Rational
choicethinking is also usedinsomerecentdiscussionsoffamily changeinin-
dustrialnations, whichfocusonchangesinwomen'srolesanddecision-making
processesconcerning numberof children, marriageand birth,di-
age of first
vorce,andlaborforceparticipation (e.g. Chafetz& Hagan 1996). Notonlyis
rationalchoicetheory usefultoanalysesofgenderissues,feminist critiquesof
itfocusattention onweaknessesandgapsthatrequirefurther attention.Specifi-
cally,thefurther development ofthistheory shouldincludeselfishness/altruism
as a variable,considertheroleofemotion, andexplicitlyincludeinterpersonal
preferences (Friedman& Diem 1993).
Social exchangetheory, whichreflects thesameutilitarian traditionas ratio-
nal choicetheory, has notbeenthetargetofexplicitfeminist criticism(foran
exception, see Harstock1985),although thesamecriticisms applyto both.It
has beenemployedbya fewfeminist theorists(e.g.Parker& Parker1979,Bell
& Newby1976,Chafetz1980,Curtis1986) and is implicitin manyfeminist
empiricalstudiesofhusband-wife relationships. Thegeneralthemeofthisper-
spectiveis that,giventhetraditionally greater resourcesavailabletomenfrom
sourcesoutsidethefamily, wivesbalanceexchangeswiththeirhusbandsby
providing complianceanddeference inreturn forfinancialsupportandaccess
to otherexternally generatedresources.Husbandsalso garnera considerable,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 CHAFETZ

self-reinforcingpoweradvantage overtheirwivesbecauseofwhatCurtis(1986)
definesas a contractualinequalitybasedonthehusband'sprovision ofgiftsand
favors.Theseincura debtforthewifewhichis unspecified, diffuse,and"can
ineffect"
be infinite (p. 179.) However,as Parker& Parker(1979; also Chafetz
1980) note,as thegenderdivisionof laboroutsidethefamilychanges,men's
resourceadvantageand therefore thenatureof spousalexchangesdo as well.
Unlikesome usesofexchangetheory, inthehandsoffeminist scholarsthemacro
which the
levelenvironment, shapes distribution ofresourcesandtherefore the
opportunities/constraintsofexchangepartners, is takenas theexplicitstarting
pointin understanding thenatureofmicrolevel exchanges, which,in turn,are
oftenanalyzed in terms of their
feedback impact on macrolevelphenomena.
The use ofexchangetheory byfeministsthereforeexemplifieswhatRisman&
Schwartz(1989) refer toas a microstructural
approachtounderstanding gender
inequality.

NETWORK AND STATUSEXPECTATIONSTHEORIES


Althoughrepresenting verydifferent theoretical feminist
traditions, versions
ofstatusexpectations and network theoriesboth focus on how interactive
rela-
are
tionships shapedalong structured gender lines and resultin genderdiffer-
entiationand inequality.Theirlogicsaretherefore similarto thosediscussed
in thelastsectionin thattheyalso represent microstructural approachesto the
studyofgenderinequality.
Thefeminist theory mostcarefully developedintandemwitha systematic re-
searchprogram dealswiththerelationship betweengender, statusexpectations,
andpower/influence ingoal-oriented groups(see reviewchapterbyRidgeway
1993,Ridgeway& Berger1986,Meeker& Weitzel-O'Neill1977,Lockheed
1985,Foschi 1989). The theoryhas implications forsame-sexgroupsbutis
mostfullydevelopedand testedon mixed-sexgroups(Ridgeway1993). The
centralthesisis that,giventhehighersocial statusthataccruesto males,both
womenandmentypically entermixed-sex groupswithgender-based expecta-
tionsthatmalememberswillbe morecompetent thanfemalesin movingthe
grouptowardtaskachievement, i.e. "performance expectations" arehigherfor
men.However, thesalienceofgenderstatusis situationally inducedandthere-
forecontext-specific(e.g. performance expectations mayadvantagewomenif
thetaskis traditionallyconsidered feminine). In theabsenceofa setofspeci-
fiedfactorsthatreducethesalienceofgender-based performance expectations,
theybecomeself-fulfilling propheciesthatfunction to reducewomen'sself-
confidence, prestige,power,and influence in groupinteractions. Moreover,
because gender-based expectations are definedby groupmembersas legiti-
mate,individual women'sattempts tocounteract themwillbe rejectedbyother

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 111

groupmembersas inappropriate (Meeker& Weitzel-O'Neill1977). The out-


comes of mixed-sexgroupswill therefore usuallyreflectthepreferences of
itsmale members.Moreover,theprocessof groupinteraction willtypically
enhancethestatusandpowerofthemalemembers, whichis often"thebasis
on whichmanyof thesociety'srewardsof power,position,and respectare
distributed" (Ridgeway1993:193),thatis,thebasisofgenderstratification.
Smith-Lovin & McPherson (1993:223)assert:"Inonesense,itis impossible
to havea network theory ofgender"becausethetheory is concernedwiththe
natureofrelationships betweenactors,notactorcharacteristics. Nonetheless,
in theonlyexplicittheoretical discussionof genderdifferences and inequal-
ityfroma network theoryperspective, theseauthorsconvincingly arguethat
gender-related usuallyviewedas essentialdifferences
characteristics, devel-
oped through in factresultfromthelong-term
socialization, impactof seem-
inglyinconsequentially smalldifferences inthenetwork positionsandstructures
in whichboysand girlsare typically located. Beginningwithan analysisof
single-sex childhoodnetworks, theycallupona wealthofempirical literature
to
demonstrate howgenderhomophilous networks cumulateoverthelifecourse
tocreateevengreater genderdifferences inadultnetworks, whichfoster gender
differences in aspirations,opportunities, and behaviors.Because theyreflect
ongoingnetwork phenomena, theseoutcomesare amenableto changein re-
sponseto changesin thenatureof,and locationswithin,network structures
forwomenandmen,andtherefore to publicpolicyintervention. The authors
also reviewsomeofthecurrent inadequaciesofthenetwork literature
forun-
derstanding gendersegregation and inequality,weaknessesthat,ifaddressed,
wouldstrengthen thegeneraltheory. Theseinclude:a focuson "small,unrep-
resentative populations" thatarealmostentirely single-sex;a focuson "elites"
thatarealmostalwaysmale;a focuson"egonets"thatlosessightoftheorgani-
zationalcontextwithinwhichnetworks evolve;anda focuson one network in
isolationfromothersinwhichactorsaresimultaneously involved (pp.243-44).
Together, feministversionsofrational choice,exchange, statusexpectations,
and network theoriesemphasizetheimportance of socioculturalstructurefor
understanding thegendered natureofinteraction andindividual choice,andthe
patterned genderdifferences andinequalities thatresultfromsuchinteractions
andchoices.Theythereby contributeimportant insightsintothegeneraltheo-
reticalissueofthenatureofmacro-micro linkages.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISTAND
ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL THEORIES
Feministversionsofsymbolicinteraction
theory focus
andethnomethodology
on genderas an ongoingaccomplishment thatemergesduringinteraction

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 CHAFETZ

processes,bothbetweenand withinthesexes. Thisperspective is succinctly


capturedinWest& Zimmerman's term(1987) "doinggender," whichrefersto
theworkdoneduringinteractions in orderto constantly recreatethepartners'
sense of theirown and theother'sgender(also West& Fenstermaker 1993,
Fenstermaker et al 1991,Fenstermaker Berk 1985,Goffman1977). Gender
is an "emergent featureofsocialsituations" (West& Fenstermaker 1993:151),
nota staticfeature ofstructureorsetofindividual-level traits.
Genderis "omnirelevant" inthatanyactioncanbe interpreted as exemplify-
ingit(West& Fenstermaker 1993). Giventhetaken-for-granted viewthatthere
aretwoandonlytwosexes,andeveryone belongsin(only)oneofthem, people
characterizeselfandothersbysex("genderattribution") andtheninterpret and
respondtovirtually anykindofbehavior according toitsnormative gender"ap-
propriateness." Thenatureofmasculinity andfemininity varies,butthenotion
thatmenandwomenarefundamentally different doesnot.Peopleareconstantly
creating thesenseofgenderdifference anddefining selfandothersthrough that
lens(Kessler& McKenna1978,Goffman 1977). West& Fenstermaker (1993:
157) assert:"personsengagedin virtually any activity can holdthemselves
accountableandbe heldaccountable fortheirperformance ... as womenoras
men... ." andwillbe legitimated ordiscredited accordingly. A majorcorollary
is that,whilethespecificrelevanceof genderis alwayscontingent uponthe
interaction context inwhichbehavioroccurs(Fenstermaker etal 1991),itis no
less relevant to single-sexthantocross-sexinteractions (Gerson1985).
"Doinggender"notonly(re)produces genderdifference, it(re)produces gen-
derinequality. Oneveryimportant mediumthrough whichgender-construction
workoccursis conversation. Numerousanalysesofmale-female conservation
andlanguageusagehavebeenconducted (e.g. Fishman1982,Mayo& Henley
1981,McConnell-Ginet 1978,West& Zimmerman 1977,Lakoff1975). They
concludethatconversation between menandwomenreinforces genderinequal-
ity,primarily because"thedefinition of whatis appropriate conversation be-
comesmen'schoice.Whatpartoftheworld[they]... maintain therealityof,
is his choice.. ." (Fishman1982:178). Men dominateconversations; women
workhardto keepthemgoing;womenuse verbalandbodylanguagein ways
thatweakentheirabilitytoassertthemselves and,therefore, reducetheirpower
(McConnell-Ginet 1978, West& Zimmerman 1978, Lakoff1975, Mayo &
Henley1981).
Another majormechanism bywhichgenderinequality is reproduced through
interactionis scripting (West& Fenstermaker 1993). Thesocialscripts formany
tasksare specifically associatedwithgender,andpeople"do gender"as part
andparcelofdoingthem.Fenstermaker Berk(1985,also DeVault1991)shows
howthedivisionof householdlabor,whichnumerous studiesdemonstrate is
highlyinequitable, providestheopportunity forbothspousesto "do gender"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 113

and reinforce theirown and theirpartner's genderedidentities.Hochschild


(1983) developstheconceptof "emotionallabor,"whichrefersto theneedto
hideorfakeone'sfeelingsinordertopleaseothers, indiscussing thegendered
scriptsassociatedwithmanytraditionally femalejobs. Kasper(1986) expands
uponthisconcept,seeingit as integral to thescriptsforfemalebehaviorin a
variety ofinteractioncontexts andas functioning todenywomenan "integrated
autonomous of
identity their own" In
(p.40). turn, thisimpedeswomen'sability
to achievein thepublicsphere.
Schur(1984) uses an offshoot of symbolicinteractionism, labelingtheory,
to demonstrate thatfemaleness constitutes a devaluedand stigmatized master
statusthatresultsinwomenbeingselectively perceived andreactedtoprimarily
intermsofstereotypes aboutfemaleness (p. 25). Thisleadstoobjectification
of
women,ortheirtreatment as things rather thanas persons,whichallowsothers
to treatthemin degrading andexploitative ways.Theresultis a self-fulfilling
prophecy, wherebywomencome to see themselves as inferior
and to suffer
fromlowself-esteem, passivity, in-group hostility,andidentificationwiththeir
(male) oppressors.
In an applicationof GeorgeHerbertMead's concepts,Ferguson(1980)
arguesthatmenpossessthepowerto definebothspecificsituations and the
generalizedother.Women,therefore, "are defining themselves by reference
to standards thatbrandthemas inferior" (p. 155), thereby undermining their
self-identityandproducing self-blame fortheirproblems.In addition, power-
lessnessforceswomento becomehighlyadeptat takingtheroleofthe(male)
other,anticipatingmalewantsin orderto avoidnegativesanctions;itprompts
womentoplease,flatter, andacquiescetomenforthesamereason(pp. 161-62).
The resultis thatmalepoweris buttressed.
Feministversionsofethnomethodology and symbolicinteractionism focus
on themicrolevelprocessesby whichgenderdifferences and inequalityare
constantly (re)createdin everyday life.By demonstrating thatbothcross-and
same-sexinteractions normally entail"doinggender," theysuggestthatgender
is a fundamentalfeature andoutcomeofall interaction, onethatshouldcomprise
a centralcomponent ofgeneralinteraction theories.

NEO-FREUDIAN AND ROLE THEORIES


No thinkersweremorethoroughly criticized
byfeministsduringthe1960sand
1970s thanParsonsandFreud. Nonetheless, thenewspecialtydevelopedby
feministsociologistscalleditselfbytheParsonianterm,thesociologyof sex
roles;bythelate1970s,oneofthemostinfluential feminist insociology
theories
was Chodorow's(1978,also 1974)neo-Freudian accountofgenderdifferentia-
tionandinequality.The term"sex (gender)role"has sincebeenabandonedby

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 CHAFETZ

feminist scholarsbecauseitobscurespowerinequities, thereby depoliticizing


gender(Stacey& Thorne1985), and becauseit failsto articulate situational
variationin role enactment (Lopata & Thorne1978, West& Fenstermaker
1993:154-55). However,roleanalysisremainsan important partof feminist
theorizing becausemanyspecificsocialrolesareentirely (e.g. wife/husband)
or largely(e.g. numerousoccupations)playedby membersof onlyone sex.
Feminist Freudiantheory continuestobe developed(see reviewsbyKurzweil
1989andbyWilliams1993;also Chodorow1989).
The earliersex/gender roleperspective focusedprimarily on delineating the
processesofchildhoodsocialization(especiallymodeling, positiveand nega-
tivesanctions)through which,beginning boysandgirlsaretaughtby
at birth,
parents, andlaterpeers,schools,media,etc,"sexappropriate" genderidentities
(said to be all butimmutable byaboutage 3) andgendernormative behaviors
(whicharepresumably trans-situationalandtherefore applicablein all interac-
tions)(e.g. Cahill 1983,Lever1976,Constantinople 1979,Lewis & Weinraub
1979,Coser 1986, 1975,Sattel1976). Thisperspective is primarily rootedin
cognitive development andsymbolic interactiontheories.Besidestheproblems
mentioned above,thesex/gender roleperspective also makesitall butimpossi-
bletoexplaingender-related changesattheindividual orcollectivelevel.To the
extentthatchildhoodengenderment strongly shapesall subsequent behavior,it
is difficult
to explainhowadultscouldchange,andtherefore, hownewgener-
ationsof childrencouldbe taughtdifferent genderconceptions.Katz (1979)
introduces a life-cycleperspectivetoissuesofgendersocialization, anapproach
thatcan betteraccommodate change.This approachis elaboratedby Lopata
(1994), whoexaminesspecificsocialrolesassociatedwithwomen,rather than
generalsex/gender roles.She focuseson howthemajorsocialrolesplayedby
women(especiallywife,mother, relative,homemaker, andemployee)change
overthelifecourseandhowandwhytheyhavechangedwithsocietalmodern-
ization,thereby reducing thehypothesized impactofearlychildhoodlearning.
Likewise,Johnson (1989, 1993)revisits Parsonstoshowhowonecanrevisehis
evolutionary theory andanalysisoffamilyrolesusefully to accountforrecent
changesin women'sroles.
Likemostsocialization theoriesofengenderment, feminist neo-Freudian the-
oryarguesthat,ata veryearlyage,thetwosexesdevelopgenderidentities and
genderdifferentiated personalitiesthatare highlystableoverthelifecourse.
The twotheory typesdifferin theprocessesbywhichthispresumably occurs.
Thebestknownneo-Freudian feminist scholarsareFrench, buttheonewhohas
mostinfluenced feminist sociologistsin theUnitedStatesis NancyChodorow
(especially1978). Incorporating objectrelationstheoryintoherrevisionsof
Freudianthought, Chodorowarguesthat,becauseearlychildrearing is over-
whelmingly a femaletask,children ofbothsexeshavea womanas theirprimary
loveobject.However, boys'andgirls'Oedipalstageexperiences andoutcomes

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 115

arevastlydifferentbecauseonlygirlssharethesexoftheirprimary loveobject.
Because girlsneednotseparateformtheirmothers to attaina genderediden-
tity,theygrowintowomenwhoseprimary concernis withconnection toother
people. Givena different-sex primary love object,boysdevelopa gendered
identitythrough separation, inmenwhofocuson individuation
resulting anda
denialofaffect.Thegender-specific psychologicalorientationsthatresultfrom
thefactthatwomenmother childrenofbothsexesunderpin malemisogyny and
dominance.Gilligan(1982) usesChodorow'stheory torefute Kohlberg's levels
of moralreasoning.She arguesthatwomen'smorality is differentfrom(not
at a lowerlevelthan)men'sbecauseitis basedon personalrelationships and
obligationsratherthanabstract principles
(whichKohlbergprivileges).These
twoworksarewidelycitedbyfeminist sociologists,
despiteextensive critique
oftheiressentialistlogic,psychological
reductionism,andotherproblems(see
Williams1993 fora reviewof thosecritiques,and see Lorberet al 1981).
Like socializationexplanations,feministneo-Freudian theorymakesgender-
relatedchangesall butimpossibleto explain.A different kindof criticism of
Chodorow'stheoryis developedbyJohnson (1988), who concludesthatit is
fathers,notmothers, whoreproduce genderdifferentiationinchildren andgen-
derinequalityamongadults.Childrenofbothsexesbecome"human"through
interactionswiththeirprimary loveobject,a motherfigure, whotendsto min-
imizegenderdifference. Fathersdifferentiate
theirchildren muchmoreon the
basis of gender.In addition,childrenobservetheirmothers playingthewife
role,whichmodelsgenderinequality inrelationship
totheirhusbands.

CONCLUSION
TheNewestTrendinFeminist
Theorizing
The"hottopic"inthe1990samongfeminist scholarsis "theintersection
ofrace,
class andgender."Editedbooks(e.g. Anderson& Collins1995a,Rothenberg
1992), specialjournalissues,programsessions,and a new sectionof ASA
havebeendevotedto it. The centralcontention ofthisemerging focusis that
thethreeformsof oppressionare notseparateand additive,butinteractive
and multiplicative in theireffects.However,to date,verylittletheoryhas
been producedon thetopic;thegrowingliterature remainsoverwhelmingly
and too oftendescriptive
descriptive, ofa sampleof womenof onlyone race
andclass (orevenspecificoccupation).
One exceptionis Collins(1990),whosuggests severalinteresting
ideasabout
howtotheorize "oneoverarching structureofdomination" thatincludesage,re-
ligion,andsexualorientation inadditiontorace,class,andgender(p. 222). She
arguesthatpeoplecan simultaneously be oppressedandoppressor, privileged
andpenalized;thatno oneformofoppression is primary, althoughindividuals
andgroupsoftendefineoneas morefundamental andothersas lesser;andthat

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 CHAFETZ

thematrixofdomination has severallayers(e.g. persons,grouporcommunity


culture, all ofwhicharesitesofpotential
socialinstitutions), resistancetodom-
ination.Moreover, differentsystems ofoppression may relyon varyingdegrees
ofsystemic versusinterpersonal mechanisms of domination (pp. 226-27).
West& Fenstermaker (1995) rejectthemathematical metaphor involvedin
Collins's(also Almquist 1989, Glenn 1985,Anderson & Collins 1995b)idea
of intersectingsystemsof inequality.Theypointout thatno one can expe-
riencegenderwithout simultaneously experiencing theirotherstatuses,so all
outcomes aresimultaneously "gendered," "raced," and "classed."Usinganeth-
nomethodological approach, they argue thatthese areall ongoingaccomplish-
mentswhose relevance cannot be determined apart from thecontextin which
theyareaccomplished. Collins et al (1995) respond thatWest & Fenstermaker
reduceoppression to difference and lose sightofthestructural inequitiesthat
arefundamental tothesestatuses.
Theseeffortsconstitute thebarestbeginnings oftheorizingabouthowvarious
formsofinequality relatetooneanother. Therecently developing queertheory
(e.g. see Seidman et al 1994), which deals with the social constructionof
sexualidentity and preference labels,especiallythosethatare "marginal," is
also interwoven withfeminist theories.It is,however, beyondthescopeofthis
chapterto discussthetheory.Bothof thesenewissuesreflect theperception
by manyfeminists thatpriortheoretical effortshave been too middleclass,
white,andheterosexist, andthatfeminist theory mustrecognize among
diversity
womenandtherefore accountforthemultiplicity offorms ofoppression,notjust
thatexperienced by otherwise privileged whitewomen.Theoretical progress
on thetopicofhowvarioussystemsofinequality interactcouldrevolutionize
thesociologicalunderstanding ofsocialstratification, which,fortoolong,has
theorized narrowly aboutinequality in termsofsocialclass/status.

Theoryand Mainstream
Feminist Sociology
Sociologistshavealwaysassumedthat,as Lorberstates(1994:36), "For hu-
mans,thesocialis thenatural."However, untilrecentlysociologistsexempted
genderfromthisassumption andlargelyignored thetopic.Themostfundamen-
talcontributionsoffeminist theorieshavebeento demonstrate thethoroughly
nature
sociocultural ofall aspectsofthegendersystem andtheomnirelevance of
genderto sociallife.Thiscorpusofworkdemonstrates thedaily"hardwork,"
conductedat themicro-and macrolevels byindividuals and social collectivi-
ties,thatgoesinto(re)producing genderas a fundamental ofsociallife,
feature
indeed,a moreubiquitous featurethansocialclass.
Feministtheoristshaveusedvirtually all theoretical in sociology
traditions
as springboardstounderstand thegendered natureofsociallife.In theprocess,
theyhaveoffered richandimportant critiquesoftheinadequaciesoftraditional

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 117

theoriesthathaveresulted
fromthemasculineblinders theirauthorshaveworn.
Theyhavedevelopedrevisionsofthosetraditions thatbroadenanddeepenthe
of social life. Gradually,
discipline'sunderstanding albeittoo slowly,these
perspectivesarebecomingincorporated intothemainstream theorycanon. It
is myhopethatthisreviewmayhastenthatprocess.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am gratefulto thefollowingpeopleforfeedbackon a draftof thischapter:


mydepartmental colleaguesHelenRose Ebaugh,JosephKotarba,and David
Klinger;also Dana Dunn,Paula England,RandallCollins,RuthWallaceand
an anonymous reviewer.

VisittheAnnualReviewshomepage at
http://www.annurev.org.

Literature
Cited

AlmquistE. 1989.Theexperiences ofminority genderstratification anddatafromtheThird


womenintheUnitedStates:intersections of World.J.Fam.Iss. 9:51-84
race,gender,and class. In Women:A Femi- Blumberg RL. 1989.Towarda feminist theory
nistPerspective,ed. J.Freeman,pp.414-45. ofdevelopment. See Wallace1989,pp. 161-
MountainView,CA: Mayfield 99
AlwayJ. 1995. The troublewithgender:tales CahillS. 1983.Reexamining theacquisitionof
ofthestill-missingfeministrevolutionin so- sexroles:a symbolic interactionist
approach.
ciologicaltheory.Soc. Theory13:209-28 SexRoles9:1-15
AndersonM, Collins PH, eds. 1995a. Race, ChafetzJS. 1980. Conflictresolutionin mar-
Class and Gender:AnAnthology. Belmont, riage: towarda theoryof spousalstrategies
CA: Wadsworth and maritaldissolutionrates.J. Fam. Iss.
Anderson M, CollinsPH. 1995b.See Anderson 1:397-421
& Collins1995a,Preface Chafetz JS. 1984. Sex and Advantage:A
Bell C, NewbyH. 1976. Husbandsand wives: Comparative,Macro-Structural Theoryof
thedynamics ofthedeferential dialective.In Sex Stratification.
Totowa,NJ:Rowman&
Dependenceand Exploitation in Workand Allanheld
Marriage,ed. DL Baker,S Allen,pp. 152- ChafetzJS. 1988. FeministSociology: An
68. London:Longman Overview ofContemporary Theories.Itasca,
BergerJ, ZeldichM Jr.,eds. 1985.Status,Re- IL: Peacock
wardsandInfluence.San Francisco:Jossey- ChafetzJS. 1990.GenderEquity:A Theoryof
Bass Stabilityand Change. NewburyPark,CA:
BlumbergRL. 1978. Stratification: Socioeco- Sage
nomicand SexualInequality.Dubuque,IA: ChafetzJS,HaganJ.1996.Thegenderdivision
Brown oflaborandfamily changeinindustrial soci-
Blumberg RL. 1979.A paradigm forpredicting eties:a theoretical accounting.J.Comp.Fam.
thepositionof women: policyimplications Stud.27:187-219
andproblems. InSexRolesandSocialPolicy, Chodorow N. 1974. Family structureand
ed.JLipman-Blumen, JBernard,pp. 113-42. feminine personality.See Rosaldo & Lam-
BeverlyHills,CA: Sage phere1974,pp. 43-66
Blumberg RL. 1984.A generaltheory ofgender ChodorowN. 1978.TheReproduction ofMoth-
In SociologicalTheory,1984,
stratification. ering:Psychoanalysis and theSociologyof
ed. R Collins,pp. 23-101. San Francisco: Gender Berkeley, CA: Univ.Calif.Press
Jossey-Bass ChodorowN. 1989.Feminism and Psychoana-
BlumbergRL. 1988.Incomeunderfemalever- lyticTheory.NewHaven: Yale Univ.Press
susmalecontrol:hypotheses from a theory of Collins PH. 1986. Learningfromthe outside

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 CHAFETZ

within:thesociologicalsignificance ofblack England P, ed. 1993a. Theoryon Gender!


feministthought. Soc. Probl.33:514-30 Feminism on Theory.NewYork:AldineDe-
Collins PH. 1989. The social construction of Grutyer
blackfeminist thought. Signs14:745-73 EnglandP. 1993b.The separative self: andro-
Collins PH. 1990. Black FeministThought: centricbias in neoclassicalassumptions.In
Knowledge,Consciousnessand thePolitics BeyondEconomicMan: Feminist Theory and
ofEmpowerment. Boston:UnwinHyman Economics,ed. M Ferber, JNelson,pp. 37-
CollinsPH,MaldonadoLA, TakagiDY,Thorne 51. Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress
B, WeberL, WinantH. 1995. Symposium EnglandP, KilbourneBS. 1990. Feministcri-
on Westand Fenstermaker's "DoingDiffer- tiqueoftheseparative modeloftheself:im-
ence."GenderSoc. 9:491-513 plicationsforrationalchoicetheory. Ration.
Collins R. 1972. A conflicttheoryof sexual Soc. 2:156-71
In Family,Marriage,and the EpsteinCF. 1988.DeceptiveDistinctions:
stratification. Sex,
StruggleoftheSexes, ed. HP Dreitzel.New Gender,and theSocial OrderNew Haven:
York:Macmillan Yale Univ.Press
CollinsR. 1975.Conflict Sociology:Towardan EtzkowitzH, Glassman R. 1991. The Re-
Explanatory Science. New York:Academic nascence(f SociologicalTheory:Classical
CollinsR, ChafetzJS,Blumberg RL, Coltrane and Contemporary. Itasca,IL: Peacock
S, TurnerJ. 1993.Towardan integrated the- Farganis S. 1986.Socialtheory andfeminist the-
ory of genderstratification. Soc. Perspect. ory:theneedfordialogue.Soc.Inq.56:50-68
36:185-216 Fenstermaker BerkS. 1985. The GenderFac-
Constantinople A. 1979. Sex-roleacquisition: tory.New York:Plenum
in searchof theelephant.Sex Roles 5:121- Fenstermaker S, WestC, Zimmerman D. 1991.
33 Genderinequality:new conceptualterrain.
Cook JA,FonowMM. 1986. Knowledgeand In Gender, Family, andEconomy:TheTriple
women'sinterests:issues of epistemology Overlap, ed. RL Blumberg,pp. 289-307.
andmethodology infeminist sociologicalre- Newbury Park,CA: Sage
search.Soc. Inquiry56:2-29 FergusonK. 1980. Self Society,and Woman-
Coser RL. 1975. Stayhome,littleSheba: on kind.Westport, Conn:Greenwood
placement, displacement and social change. FishmanP. 1982.Interaction: theworkwomen
Soc. Probl.22:470-80 do. In Women and Work: ProblemsandPers-
CoserRL. 1986.Cognitive structureandtheuse pectives, ed. R Kahn-Hut,AK Daniels, R
ofsocialspace.Soc. Forum1:1-26 Colvard,pp. 170-80. New York: Oxford
CoserRL. 1989.Reflections onfeminist theory. Univ.Press
See Wallace1989,pp. 200-7 Fitzpatrick E. 1990.EndlessCrusade: Women
CurtisR. 1986.Householdandfamily intheory Social Scientistsand ProgressiveReform.
on inequality.Am.Soc. Rev.51:168-83 New York:OxfordUniv.Press
Deegan MJ. 1988. JaneAddamsand theMen Foschi M. 1989. Statuscharacteristics, stan-
of the Chicago School, 1892-1918. New dards,andattributions. In SociologicalThe-
Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books oriesin Progress:NewFormulations, ed. J
DeVault M. 1991. Feedingthe Family: The Berger,M Zelditch,B Anderson, pp. 58-72.
Social Construction of Caringas Gendered Newbury Park,CA: Sage
Work.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress FriedmanD, Diem C. 1993. Feminismand
Dill BT. 1979.The dialecticsofBlackwoman- thePro(Rational) choiceMovement; rational
hood.Signs5:545-55 choice theory, feminist critiques,and gen-
Dill BT. 1983. Race, class, and gender: derinequality. See England1993a, pp. 91-
prospectsfor an all-inclusivesisterhood. 114
Fem.Stud.9:131-48 GergenMM, ed. 1988. FeministThoughtand
Donovan J. 1985. FeministTheory: The In- theStructure ofKnowledge.New York:NY
tellectualTraditions ofAmericanFeminism. Univ.Press
New York:Ungar GersonJM. 1985.Boundaries, negotiation,con-
Dunn D, AlmquistE, Chafetz JS. 1993. sciousness: reconceptualizing genderrela-
Macrostructural perspectives on genderin- tions.Soc. Probl.32:317-31
equality.See England1993a,pp. 69-90 GilliganC. 1982. In a Different Voice.Cam-
EisensteinZ. 1979.Introduction. In Capitalist bridge,MA: HarvardUniv.Press
Patriarchy and theCase forSocialistFemi- GlennEN. 1985.Racialethnicwomen'slabor:
nism,ed. Z Eisenstein, pp.5-55. NewYork: theintersection ofrace,genderandclass op-
Monthly Rev. pression.Rev.Radic.Polit.Econ. 17:86-108
EnglandP. 1989.A feminist ofrational- Goffman
critique I. 1977.The arrangment betweenthe
choicetheories:implications forsociology. sexes.TheorySoc. 4:301-31
Am.Sociol.20:14-20 GuttentagM, Secord P. 1983. Too Many

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMINIST THEORY AND SOCIOLOGY 119

Women? The Sex Ratio Question.Beverly sciousness:thecontext ofblackfeministide-


Hills,CA: Sage ology.Signs14:42-72
HarawayD. 1988. Situatedknowledges:the KurzweilE. 1989. Paychoanalytic feminism:
sciencequestionin feminism and thepriv- Implicationsfor Sociological theory.See
ilege of partial perspective.Fem. Stud. Wallace1989,pp. 82-97
14:575-99 LakoffR. 1975.Languageand Woman'sPlace.
HardingS. 1986. The Science Questionin New York:HarperColophon
Feminism. Ithaca,New York:CornellUniv. LaslettB, ThorneB, LemertC, ConnellRW,
Press CollinsPH. 1992. Symposiumon Dorothy
HardingS. 1991. Whose Science? Whose E. Smith.Soc. Theory10:60-87
Knowledge?Thinking fromWomen's Lives. Lengermann PM, Niebrugge J. 1996.Contem-
Ithaca,New York:CornellUniv.Press poraryfeminist theory. See Ritzer1996,pp.
HarrisM. 1978.CannibalsandKings:TheOri- 436-86
gins 'fCultures. London:Collins LenskiG. 1966.PowerandPrivilege:A Theory
HarstockN. 1983.Thefeminist standpoint:de- ofSocial Stratification.
NewYork:McGraw-
velopingthegroundfora specifically fem- Hill
inisthistoricalmaterialism.In Discovering LeverJ.1976.Sex differences inthegameschil-
Reality:Feminist PerspectivesonEpistemol- drenplay.Soc. Probl.23-24:478-87
ogy,Metaphysics, Methodology andPhiloso- Lewis M, WeinraubM. 1979. Originsof early
S MB
phyofScience,ed. Harding, Hintikka, sex-roledevelopment. SexRoles5:135-53
pp. 283-310. Boston:Reidel LockheedM. 1985.Sex andsocialinfluence: a
HarstockN. 1985. Money,Sex and Power. meta-analysis guidedby theory. See Berger
Boston:Northeastern Univ.Press & Zeldich1985,pp.406-29
Hartmann H. 1984. The unhappymarriageof Lopata HZ. 1994. Circlesand Settings:Role
Marxismandfeminism: towards a morepro- ChangesofAmericanWomen. Albany,New
gressiveunion.InFeminist Frameworks: Al- York:SUNY Press
ternative TheoreticalAccountsof theRela- LopataHZ, ThorneB. 1978.On theterm"sex
tionsBetweenWomen and Men, ed. A Jag- roles."Signs3:718-21
gar,P Rothenberg, pp. 172-89. New York: LorberJ. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender.New
McGraw-Hill Haven: Yale Univ.Press
HochschildA. 1983. The Managed Heart: LorberJ,CoserR, RossiA, ChodorowN. 1981.
Commercializationof Human Feeling. On thereproduction ofmothering: a method-
Berkeley, CA: Univ.Calif.Press ologicaldebate.Signs6:482-514
hooksB. 1981.Ain'tI a Woman?BlackWomen MartinMK, VoorhiesB. 1975. Femaleof the
and Feminism. Boston:SouthEnd Species.New York:ColumbiaUniv.Press
HuberJ.1988.A theory offamily,economyand MayoC, HenleyN. 1981.Nonverbal behaviour:
gender.J.Fam.Iss. 9:9-26 barrier oragentforsexroleschange?In Gen-
HuberJ. 1991. Macro-micro linksin gender der and NonverbalBehavior,ed. C Mayo,
stratification.In Macro-MicroLinkagesin N Henley,pp. 3-13. New York: Springer-
Sociology,ed. JHuber,pp. 11-25.Newbury Verlag
Park,CA: Sage McConnell-Ginet S. 1978.Intonation ina man's
JaggarAM. 1983.Feminist PoliticsandHuman world.Signs3:541-59
Nature.Totowa,NJ:Rowman& Allanheld MeekerB, Weitzel-O'NeillP. 1977. Sex roles
JohnsonMM. 1988. StrongMothers,Weak and interpersonal behaviorin taskoriented
Wives: The Searchfor GenderEquality. groups.Am.Sociol.Rev.42:92-105
Berkeley, CA: Univ.Calif.Press MiesM. 1986.Patriarchy andAccumulation on
JohnsonMM. 1989. Feminismand thetheo- a World-Scale. London:Zed
riesofTalcottParsons.See Wallace1989,pp. Ortner S. 1974.Is femaletomaleas natureis to
101-18 culture?See Rosaldo& Lamphere1974
JohnsonMM. 1993. Functionalism and femi- ParkerS, ParkerH. 1979. The mythof male
nism:Is estrangement necessary?See Eng- superiority: riseanddemise.Am.Anthropol.
land 1993a,pp. 115-30 81:289-309
Kasper A. 1986. Consciousnessre-evaluated: ParsonsT. 1949.Thesocialstructure ofthefam-
interpretivetheoryandfeminist scholarship. ily.In The Family: Its Functionand Des-
Soc. Inq. 56:30-49 tiny,ed. RN Asher,pp. 173-201.New York:
Katz P. 1979.The development offemaleiden- Harper
tity.SexRoles5:155-78 ParsonsT. 1955.TheAmerican family:itsrela-
Kessler S, McKenna W. 1978. Gender:An tiontopersonality andtothesocialstructure.
Ethnomethodological Approach.New York: In Family, SocializationandInteraction Pro-
Wiley cess,ed.T Parsons, RF Bales,pp.3-33.Glen-
KingD. 1988.Multiplejeopardy, multiple con- coe, IL: FreePress

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 CHAFETZ

RhodeD, ed. 1990.Theoretical Perspectiveson Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.Boston:


Sexual Difference.New Haven: Yale Univ. Northeastern Univ.Press
Press SmithDE. 1989.Sociologicaltheory:methods
RidgewayC. 1993.Gender,status,andtheso- ofwriting patriarchy. See Wallace1989,pp.
cialpsychology ofexpectations.See England 34-64
1993a,pp. 175-97 SmithDE. 1990. The ConceptualPracticesof
RidgewayC, BergerJ. 1986.Expectations, le- Power:A Feminist SociologyofKnowledge.
gitimation,and dominancebehaviorin task Boston:Northeastern Univ.Press
groups.Am.Sociol.Rev.51:603-17 Smith-Lovin L, McPhersonJM.1993.You are
RismanB, SchwartzP. 1989. Beinggendered: whoyouknow:A network approachtogen-
a microstructuralview of intimaterelation- der.See England1993a,pp. 223-51
ships. In Genderin Intimate Relationships, SokoloffN. 1980. BetweenMoneyand Love:
ed. B Risman,P Schwartz,pp. 1-9. Belmont, TheDialecticsof Women'sHomeand Mar-
CA: Wadsworth ketWork. New York:Praeger
RitzerG. 1996.SociologicalTheory.NewYork: SpragueJ, Zimmerman MK. 1993.Overcoming
McGraw-Hill dualisms:a feminist agendaforSociological
RosaldoMZ. 1974.Woman, Culture,and Soci- methodology. See England1993a,pp. 255-
ety.See Rosaldo& Lamphere1974 80
RosaldoMZ, LamphereL, eds. 1974. Women, StaceyJ,ThorneB. 1985.Themissingfeminist
Cultureand Society.Stanford, CA: Stanford revolutionin sociology.Soc. Probl.32:301-
Univ.Press 16
RosenbergR. 1982.BeyondSeparateSpheres: TongR. 1989. FeministThought:A Compre-
Intellectual
RootsofModernFeminism. New hensiveIntroduction.Boulder,CO: Westview
Haven: Yale Univ.Press VogelL. 1983. Marxismand theOppression
RossiAS. 1977.A biosocialperspective onpar- of Women:Towarda UnitaryTheory.New
enting.Daedalus 106:1-31 Brunswick, NJ:RutgersUniv.Press
Rossi AS. 1984. Genderand parenthood. Am. WallaceR, ed. 1989.Feminism and Sociologi-
Sociol.Rev.49:1-19 cal Theory. Newbury Park,CA: Sage
RothenbergPS, ed. 1992. Race, Class and WallaceR, WolfA. 1995. Contemporary Soci-
Genderin theUnitedStates.New York:St. ological Theory: Continuing the Classical
Martins Tradition.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice
Sacks K. 1974. Engelsrevisited:women,the Hall
organization ofproduction,andprivate prop- WardK. 1984.Women intheWorld-System: Its
erty. See Rosaldo & Lamphere1974, pp. Impacton Statusand Fertility. New York:
207-22 Praeger
SandayPR. 1974. Femalestatusin thepublic WardK. 1990.Women Workers and GlobalRe-
domain.See Rosaldo& Lamphere1974,pp. structuring. Ithaca,New York:ILR
189-206 WardK. 1993. Reconceptualizing worldsys-
Sanday PR. 1981. Female Power and Male temtheoryto includewomen.See England
Dominance: On the Originsof Sexual In- 1993a,pp. 43-68
equality.Cambridge:Cambridge Univ.Press WardK, Grant L. 1991.Ona wavelength oftheir
SattelJ.1976. The inexpressive male: tragedy own?Womenandsociologicaltheory. Curr.
orsexualpolitics?Soc. Probl.23-24:469-77 Perspect.Soc. Theory11:117-40
SchurE. 1984.LabelingWomen Deviant:Gen- WatersM. 1994.ModernSociologicalTheory.
der,Stigma,and Social Control.New York: London:Sage
RandomHouse WestC, Fenstermaker S. 1993.Power,inequal-
SeidmanS. 1994.Contested Knowledge:Social ityand the accomplishment of gender: an
Theoryin thePostmodern Era. Cambridge, ethnomethodological view. See England
MA: Blackwell 1993a,pp. 151-74
SeidmanS, SteinA, PlummerK, EpsteinS. WestC, Fenstermaker S. 1995. Doing differ-
1994. Symposium:queertheory/sociology: ence.GenderSoc. 9:8-37
a dialogue.Soc. Theory12:166-248 WestC, Zimmerman D. 1977.Women'splace
SheltonBA, AggerB. 1993.Shotgunwedding, in everyday talk:reflectionson parent-child
unhappymarriage no-fault
divorce?rethink- interaction. Soc. Probl.24:521-29
ingthefeminism-Marxism See WestC, Zimmerman
relationship. D. 1987. Doing gender.
England1993a,pp. 25-41 GenderSoc. 1:125-51
A for
SmithDE. 1979. sociology women. In Williams CL. 1993.Psychoanalytic theoryand
ThePrismofSex: EssaysintheSociologyof thesociologyofgender.See England1993a,
Knowledge,ed. JASherman, ET Black,pp. pp. 131-49
135-87.Madison,WI: Univ.Wisc.Press Zelizer VA. 1994. The Social Meaning of
Smith DE. 1987. The EverydayWorldas Money.New York:Basic Books

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:32:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like