Feminist Social Theory Research Articles

Moral Sensibilities for the Social Economy: The Challenges Facing Social Economists in the Twenty-first Century—A Philosopher’s Perpective

Social economists are those minority of the profession who persist in holding with Aristotle and Adam Smith, among others, that economics is fundamentally moral philosophy. They are well aware that to define economics as science of pure means, as L. Robbins and the mainstream of the discipline along with him have done, is to debase the discipline into mere handmaiden of power-politics left free to set its own ends, and while the mainstream persists in trying to separate facts from values, social economists realize that such cannot be done completely, because all factual claims assume at least the value of truthfulnes and the selection of what facts are deemed relevant entails value assumptions. The task before the social economist, in attempting to dislodge the deeply entrenched philosophical assumptions of the dominant theories, is herculean one, as I indicated in an earlier article in the Review of Social Economy: The overthrow of classical economics requires less the overthrow o the metaphysics of Newtonian mechanics, the epistemology of British empiricism, the Hobbesian philosophy of the human, utilitarian ethics, classical liberal social theory, and the Deistic theology of the invisible hand. All this must be replaced by new metaphysics, new epistemology, new philosophical anthropology, new ethics, new theory of community, and new theology, and all these new theories must be well integrated into comprehensive world-view. What needs to be done in order once again to think economics within the context of moral philosophy? As philosopher looking at the future of social economics I wish to identify what I take to be the very deepest assumptions, or what philosophers term the ontology, underlying the edifice of conventional economics. I wish to focus on two fundamental attitudes, or sensibilities, toward the world, toward reality itself, that need to be dislodged and transformed in order to reconnect economics and ethics. Abstractionism Social economists need to wage relentless war against in the discipline. By abstractionism I do not mean the healthy, productive use of abstract concepts, or even abstract thinking in general, but that perversion of abstract reasoning that somehow has lost touch with the concrete, human experience from which it grew. Two aspects of I especially want to identify. First, symbols are taken as what they signify. Examples of such confusion abound in our present-day thinking: patriotic zealot take the flag to be more fundamental the ideals it represents and thus sacrifice the latter to protect the former; students take their grades as the essence of their education; policy analysts take gross national product figures as constituting the real wealth and well-being of nation; corporate accountants equate large net profits with healthy enterprise. In every one of these instances produces and conceals seriously harmful social consequences. A second feature of is that it is reductionistic: viz., all reality tends to get reduced to some priori set of conceptual categories, all experience is forced into them, and what does not fit is conveniently ignored. Some common reductionisms of the human person are the following: a person is more bunch of chemicals; a person is more complex machine; a person is more highly evolved animal; a person is more an utility maximizer. It is this nothing more than that surely marks the extreme examples of reductionism. Such extremes are perhaps straw men, but I do believe, however, that they remind us of some actua reductionist tendencies with which we are all familiar. Reductionist tendencies in economics are epitomized by the very notion of homo economicus, viz., an abstraction that reduces persons to economic functions, viz., utility maximizers. …

Resisting the Canon: Feminist Cultural Studies, Sport, and Technologies of the Body

In this paper, I argue that contemporary critical theories as well as shifts in culture have produced a crisis in sport studies by displacing and challenging the "object of knowledge" as it has been traditionally understood by the field. From a feminist standpoint, I initiate one response to this "crisis" by proposing a theoretical apparatus generated at the intersection of socialist-feminist theory, British cultural studies, and the work of Michel Foucault - feminist cultural studies. Following an overview of these positions, I examine several issues raised by this framework in an effort to decipher the relation between technologies of gender, "sport," and everyday bodybuilding and their tendencies to normalize bodies and identities that work to undermine the development of a community and oppositional politics. I consider the matrix of bodily-surveillance technologies legitimated through sport, how they have been used to probe "suspicious" bodies for impurities, and their implications for women in age dominated by new reproductive technologies and the "logic of epidemic." Finally, I briefly discuss the consequences of the Human Genome project (in terms of gender and race) and the issues it poses in terms of its neo-eugenic potential. In conclusion, I suggest a series of questions that might serve as the structuring impulse for the study of sport, understood as a discursive category and a dispersed set of knowledges and practices that structure our everyday lived experiences (bodies/identities, pleasures, and struggles).

A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship

A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship

Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory

Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory

The Uses and Abuses of French Discourse Theories for Feminist Politics

This essay grows out of an experience of severe puzzlement. For several years now I have been watching with growing incomprehension as increasing numbers of feminist scholars have been trying to use or adapt the theory of Jacques Lacan for feminist purposes. I myself have felt a deep disaffinity with Lacan, a disaffinity as much intellectual as political. So while many of my fellow feminists have been using Lacanian ideas to theorize the discursive construction of subjectivity in film and literature, I have been relying on alternative models of language to develop a feminist social theory. Until now, I have avoided any explicit, metatheoretical discussion of these matters. I have explained neither to myself nor to my colleagues why it is that the footnotes in my recent papers contain some positive or quasipositive references to Foucault, Bourdieu, Bakhtin, Habermas, and Gramsci but not positive references to Lacan, Kristeva, Saussure, and Derrida.2 In this essay, I want to begin to provide such an explanation. I will try to explain why I think feminists should have no truck with Lacan and why we should have only the most minimal truck with Julia Kristeva. I will also try to identify some places where I think we can find more satisfactory alternatives.

CASTE, CLASS, AND VIOLENT CRIME: EXPLAINING DIFFERENCE IN FEMALE OFFENDING*

During the past decade, criminological research has targeted gender as an important discriminator of criminal participation and persistence. Yet, the research question too often contrasts the criminality of males and females without taking into account key differences among female populations. In this paper, race and class combine to produce uniquely situated populations of females (e.g., “underclass” black females) who, when compared with their gender and racial counterparts, also appear to have unique patterns of criminality. Using the extant literature, black female violent crime is juxtaposed against that of white females and black males in order to show how crime varies across groups and the potential sources of those differences. Three theoretical perspectives (neo‐Marxian, powercontrol, and socialist‐feminist theory) are reviewed and evaluated for their intragender/racial inclusivity. Directions for further empirical research and theoretical development are suggested.Class‐oppressed men, whether they are white or black, have privileges afforded them as men in a sexist society. Similarly, class‐oppressed whites, whether they are men or women, have privileges afforded them as whites in racist society… . Those who are poor, black, and female have all the forces of classism, racism, and sexism bearing down on them (Mantsios, 1988:66–67).

Life without Father and Ford: The New Gender Order of Post-Fordism

The coincidence of a set of economic changes in new industrial areas in advanced capitalist societies has initiated a tremendous debate about the features of post-Fordism, flexible accumulation and new industrial spaces. While the distinguishing features of the new production methods and the new industrial geography are widely debated, far less attention has been paid to gender divisions. This paper examines the assumptions made about gender relations in variants of restructuring theory, draws out the similarities and differences between these and socialist-feminist theory and argues that both sets of theories rely on a particular view about the relationship between the spheres of production and reproduction. Despite the assumed marginality of women's labour in conventional approaches to restructuring and its centrality in the work influenced by feminist theory, it is argued here that both perspectives misconstrue current changes. A new gender order is emerging with post-Fordism.

The Uses and Abuses of French Discourse Theories for Feminist Politics

This essay grows out of an experience of severe puzzlement. For several years now I have been watching with growing incomprehension as increasing numbers of feminist scholars have been trying to use or adapt the theory of Jacques Lacan for feminist purposes. I myself have felt a deep disaffinity with Lacan, a disaffinity as much intellectual as political. So while many of my fellow feminists have been using Lacanian ideas to theorize the discursive construction of subjectivity in film and literature, I have been relying on alternative models of language to develop a feminist social theory. Until now, I have avoided any explicit, metatheoretical discussion of these matters. I have explained neither to myself nor to my colleagues why it is that the footnotes in my recent papers contain some positive or quasipositive references to Foucault, Bourdieu, Bakhtin, Habermas, and Gramsci but not positive references to Lacan, Kristeva, Saussure, and Derrida.2 In this essay, I want to begin to provide such an explanation. I will try to explain why I think feminists should have no truck with Lacan and why we should have only the most minimal truck with Julia Kristeva. I will also try to identify some places where I think we can find more satisfactory alternatives.

The Gender of Audience Building: Televised Coverage of Women's and Men's NCAA Basketball

This article, based upon a comparative analysis of televised coverage of the “Final Four” of the women's and men's 1993 NCAA basketball tournaments, sheds light on some of the mechanisms through which an “audience preference” is socially constructed for men's sports over women's sports. First, we examine the temporal framing of the women's and men's tournaments by the sports/media complex. Next, we present a comparative description of the visual and verbal televised presentation of the women's and men's games. On the basis of these comparisons, we argue that the sports/media complex actively constructs audiences that are likely to see the men's Final Four as a dramatic, historic event that they simply “must” watch, while fans are likely to see the women's Final Four as a nonevent or, at best, as just another game. This, we argue, serves to situate viewers of men's sports at a nexus of power and pleasure, while simultaneously containing the potential challenge that female athleticism poses to hegemonic masculinity. Finally, we discuss, in light of socialist-feminist theory, the potentially contradictory outcomes of recent hints of increased televised coverage of women's basketball.

Feminist Social Theory Needs Time. Reflections on the Relation between Feminist Thought, Social Theory and Time as an Important Parameter in Social Analysis

This paper explores the relation between feminist concerns, social theory and the multiple time aspects of social life. It is suggested that while feminist approaches have been located in classical political philosophy, the same imposed classification has not occurred with respect to social theory perspectives. Rather than seeing this as an academic gap that needs filling, it was taken as an opportunity to take note of the wide variety of feminist approaches to methodological and theoretical issues and to relate these to concerns arising from a focus on the time, temporality, and timing of social life. It is argued that a feminist social theory, as an understanding of the social world through the eyes of women, is not only complemented by such a focus on time but dependent on it for an opportunity to transcend the pervasive vision of the ‘founding fathers’.

The Discourse of Gender and Sport: From Femininity to Feminism

The argument presented here is that the sociological discourse of gender and sport, in other words the way the topic is approached, the assumptions surrounding its investigation, and the ways in which new knowledge is generated has been determined without sufficient recognition of its own ideological foundations. Gender, it is argued, is a major social and theoretical category that, along with social class, race, age, ethnicity, and others, must be incorporated into all theoretically based social analyses of sport. The paper reviews the development of the gender and sport discourse from its origins in social psychological research that focused on the supposed conflict between femininity and athleticism, to the more sophisticated yet functionalist notion of “sex roles” and its application to sport, and finally to the emerging feminist paradigm that is informed by a growing body of feminist social theory. The final section argues for a transformation of the gender and sport discourse toward a truly emancipatory one and provides some concrete suggestions as to how to bring this about.

State Socialism, the "Woman Question," and Socialist—Feminist Theory

State Socialism, the "Woman Question," and Socialist—Feminist Theory

The Dilemma of Socialist Feminism: A Case for Black Feminism

The purpose of this letter is not to go through the article 'Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory' with a fine tooth-comb, analysing the shortcomings of its content. I have closed the journal and put it away, so that what I have to say comes from the heart as a black woman a 'gut' reaction if you like. The paper's sole purpose seemed to be a self-indulgent exercise, exorcizing the guilt socialist-feminists feel about the myopia of their past analyses. The 'we-know-we've-been-wrong-in-the-past' tone of this article has been an attitude viewed with much scepticism among black people: and not without just cause. It has been a powerful ideological scapegoat, used to avoid real change. The acknowledgement of racism as 'wrong' has led in the past to patronizing liberal policies, which locked any formative radical movement for black liberation into a nightmare of dead-end channels. Unwittingly, Michele Barrett and Mary McIntosh are guilty of perpetuating this tradition of inhibiting black women's progress by trying to accommodate an understanding of our differences within the rigid theoretical framework of socialist-feminism. We do not need to be reassured that white feminists are recognizing that their own and others' analyses have rendered black women invisible. Quantifying and calculating the extent of this 'oversight' is meaningless (I felt that if I had to digest another PSI statistic, I would choke). Are we expected to feel gratitude toward the benevolence shown toward us by socialist-feminists? No. To allow ourselves to be patronized would lead us deeper into our sociologically acceptable ghetto, qualifying as a subject of interest only by virtue of blatant omission. What we as black women need to do is to move beyond the levels of analysis that have tolerated us so far, such as socialist-feminism, liberal 'race-relations' sociology and radical black male-dominated socialogy, where our only notable contribution seems to be that we are to be found continuously 'out of line with theoretical expectations' (Fuller, 1982). Our experience as black women has led us to develop a new and radical theoretical perspective with as much academic credibility as any other theoretical school. The theoretisal framework of black feminism combines the reality of our personal experience within the context of a definite economic and political overview. A black feminist analysis does not have to be about black women only, and (in time) we hope that it does not have to be written only by black women. In its theoretical capacity, there should be no reason why it

Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory: A Response to Barrett and McIntosh

They are cautious in presenting their conclusions where they hope that recognizing 'elements of ethnocentrism' in their previous work, their previous failure to consider ethnicity and racism, and the importance of reconsidering concepts such as patriarchy, ideology and reproduction, will contribute to 'an atmosphere of more constructive dialogue' (1985:44). It is not an easy task to try to come to terms with one's own ethnocentrism. It is not easy to take personally, as Barrett and McIntosh have done, black criticisms of white feminism. Nevertheless my response to this article was one of deep disappointment that reasoned self-criticism could come to no more than a vehicle for defensive arguments pitched at a level of academic debate which is far removed from the daily reality of racism, and which can be intimidating in its impact. This level of tightly defended 'autocritique' seems too complacent to be appropriate in a feminist journal as a means of opening up the dialogue that they seek between the exponents of white feminism and the anger and frustration which have been widely expressed by black women. If we are going to beat our breasts in public shouldn't we unbuckle the armour-plating f1rst? By concentrating on defending themselves so carefully, Barrett and McIntosh seem to lose sight of the seriousness of the divisions between women which black women have brought to light.

Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory: A Response to Barrett and McIntosh

Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory: A Response to Barrett and McIntosh

Some Theoretical coordinates of radical Liberalism

Abstract. The term radical liberalism is frequently used to describe a particular branch of liberal social theory. However, a great deal of ambiguity normally surrounds the use of this term. A working definition of radical liberalism can be constructed by first isolating the key principles of liberalism These are individualism, private property, and political democracy. The initial impulse of radical liberalism comes from its critique of these principles. In particular, radical liberals see a contradiction between political democracy, which extends human rights, and private property, which abridges human rights. Finally, radical liberalism can best be defined to represent six theoretical propositions: pluralism, developmental (as opposed to possessive) individualism, solidarity, egalitarianism, participatory democracy, and social transformation.

Class, Patriarchy and Community Studies

Claire Williams' book1 on working-class life in a Queensland mining town is the fruit of an ambitious research project. Her aim was to 'explore the nature of exploitation under capitalism, particularly in paid pro duction, the nature of resistance to such exploitation and, above all, the limitations which circumscribe the possible forms of resistance'. What is particularly original (and perhaps most controversial) about Williams' approach is the central role that she assigns to 'patriarchy' in circum scribing resistance. Patriarchy 'underpins both capitalism itself and re sistance to it, thus ultimately inhibiting a universally liberating counter hegemony from emerging' (p. 36). In order to examine the process of class struggle in capitalist production and patriarchy's effects on it, Williams conducted a 'sociological study of work and family relation ships among the working class associated with two open-cut coal mines in central Queensland'. A book of such scope should attract the attention of those with in terests in community studies, industrial relations, class and class consciousness and feminist social theory. Perhaps inevitably it will not please them all and it may well be those whose interest was alerted by the promise of an empirical study integrating marxist and feminist questions who are the most disappointed. They should at least be directed at the outset to the Appendix on Methodology where Williams describes how her work actually evolved and was modified by experiences 'in the field'. Most importantly it is clear that the work broke up into two distinct empirical studies of specific aspects of capitalism and patriarchy: a 'work study', in which non-work factors became a secondary consideration, with the main focus shifting to the issue of deprivation of job control and a 'marriage study'. The structure of the book clearly reflects these developments, with chapters 3-5 reviewing the work study findings and chapters 6-8 the marriage study findings. These two parts of the book could be read in isolation and each would provide much food for thought and discussion. However, since one of the original features of the project was the attempt to posit a particular determining relationship between the patriarchal structure of working class families and levels of class struggle, it is important to understand how the separation of material came about. And here the most immediately striking factor is Williams' methodology, for despite her claim that the work 'deliberately breaks with the tradition of naive empiricism common to British and American positivistic sociology' (p. 193), much of her material was gathered, and is presented, in a form determined by precisely that tradition. Thus the work study and marriage study are based on necessarily separate interviews and questionnaires from which sets of attitudes to key issues are constructed and then correlated with particular attributes of the interviewees. While this approach generates evidence to support Williams' hypotheses concerning some of the causes of militant attitudes at the work-place, it is mani festly less successful in providing evidence for her hypotheses on the role

Psychoanalysis and feminist social theory of gender

(1982). Psychoanalysis and feminist social theory of gender. Politics: Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 52-64.

Feminism and Science

Over the past fifteen years, a new dimension to the analysis of science has emerged. Feminist theory, combined with the insights of recent developments in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, has raised a number of new and important questions about the content, practice, and traditional goals of science. Feminists have pointed to a bias in the choice and definition of problems with which scientists have concerned themselves, and in the actual design and interpretation of experiments, and have argued that modern science evolved out of a conceptual structuring of the world that incorporated particular and historically specific ideologies of gender. The seventeen outstanding articles in this volume reflect the diversity and strengths of feminist contributions to current thinking about science.

The Material of Male Power

A skilled craftsman may be no more than a worker in relation to capital, but seen from within the working class he has been a king among men and lord of his household. As a high earner he preferred to see himself as the sole breadwinner, supporter of wife and children. As artisan he defined the unskilled workman as someone of inferior status, and would 'scarcely count him a brother and certainly not an equal' (Berg, 1979:121). For any socialist movement concerned with unity in the working class, the skilled craftsman is therefore a problem. For anyone concerned with the relationship of class and gender, and with the foundations of male power, skilled men provide a fertile field for study. Compositors in the printing trade are an artisan group that have long defeated the attempts of capital to weaken the tight grip on the labour process from which their strength derives. Now their occupation is undergoing a dramatic technological change initiated by employers. Introduction of the new computerized technology of photocomposition represents an attack on what remains of their control over their occupation and wipes out many of the aspects of the work which have served as criteria by which 'hot metal' composition for printing has been defined as a manual skill and a man's craft.' In this paper I look in some detail at the compositors' crisis, what has given rise to it and what it may lead to in future. Trying to understand it has led me to ask; questions in the context of socialist-feminist theory. These I discuss first, as preface to an account of key moments in the compositors' craft history. I then isolate the themes of skill and technology for further analysis, and conclude with the suggestion that there may be more to male power than 'patriarchal' relations.