[Stevi Jackson Heterosexuality Heteronormativity And Gender Hierarchy

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Hanne Rylaarsdam

unread,

Jun 11, 2024, 12:41:46 PM6/11/24

to wardtefarab

Stevi Jackson (1999) 'Feminist Sociology and Sociological Feminism: Recovering the Social in Feminist Thought'
Sociological Research Online, vol. 4, no. 3, To cite articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessaryReceived: 3/9/1999 Accepted: 28/9/1999 Published: 30/9/1999AbstractWhereas others have considered the interrelationship between feminism and sociology in terms of the impact of the former on the latter, this paper focuses on the influence of sociological thought on feminist theory. Sociological perspectives were much in evidence within feminist thought in the 1970s, but the shifting disciplinary hierarchies associated with the 'cultural turn' of the 1980s have since undermined sociology's influence within feminism - and especially in feminist theory. One consequence of this, I suggest, has been the erasure of some important sociological insights and perspectives from the map of feminist theory. In particular the origins of social constructionism have been forgotten, along with much that was distinctly social in this approach. In charting the course and assessing the effects of the 'cultural turn', I make it clear than not all feminists have followed that route. I argue for the recovery of the social from its eclipsing by the cultural and for the continued importance of a sociologically informed feminism into the 21st century. In making the case for a distinctly sociological approach to central feminist concerns, I will take sexuality as a case study. Here I seek to demonstrate that sociology has more to offer feminism than the cultural focus of queer theory.Keywords:Cultural Turn; Feminism; Feminist Sociology; Queer Theory; Sexuality; Social Constructionism. Introduction1.1The interrelationship between feminism and sociology has usually been discussed in terms of the impact of the former on the latter, with a number of writers arguing for a feminist transformation of sociology, assessing the extent to which sociology has taken feminist ideas on board and identifying areas left largely untouched by feminism (e.g. Stacey and Thorne 1985; Maynard 1990; Abbott 1991; Allen and Leonard 1996; Laslett and Thorne 1997). Here I consider the interrelationship from the other end, focusing on the influence of sociology on feminist thought. While endorsing others' arguments for a feminist sociology, my aim is to state the case for a sociological feminism. I wish to draw attention to the contributions sociology has made to feminist scholarship and to argue that it still has much to offer, specifically as a corrective to the over-emphasis on the representational and symbolic deriving from the so-called 'cultural turn'.

1.2A sociology journal might seem an odd context in which to make this case. I am presumably addressing an audience which does not need to be convinced of the utility of sociology. Yet even while identifying themselves as sociologists, many newer scholars seem unaware of their disciplinary heritage and assume that long-established sociological insights are recent innovations deriving largely from non-sociological sources. I have lost track of the number of times I have heard it confidently asserted, during recent BSA conferences, that social constructionism began with either post-structuralism or post-modernism. That the origins of so basic a sociological idea have been forgotten, even by sociologists, should give us pause for thought. The effect is to obliterate sociology's past contributions from the collective scholarly memory and therefore from the genealogies of ideas passed on to new generations of students. It is not only in Women's Studies that this is happening, but also in related interdisciplinary fields such as the study of sexuality. Gayle Rubin, for example, has commented on the common misapprehension that social constructionism originated with Foucault, with the result that the work of earlier theorists is 'completely erased' (Rubin and Butler 1994: 82), while a number of writers have lamented the eclipsing of specifically sociological perspectives on sexuality (Epstein 1996; Seidman 1996; 1997; Stein and Plummer 1996; Jackson 1999).

stevi jackson heterosexuality heteronormativity and gender hierarchy

Download ✺✺✺ https://t.co/w1B4En1pNz

1.3For the record, I would suggest that the idea of social constructionism, even if it was not named as such, can be dated back to the first half of the twentieth century to, for example, G. H. Mead's idea of the social self and C. Wright Mills's arguments for a sociology of motives (Mead 1934; Mills 1940). The term came into wide usage in the 1960s with the publication of Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality (1967) and it was during this decade that sociologists began to argue for the social construction of sexuality (McIntosh 1968; Gagnon 1965; Simon and Gagnon 1969). A little later it was feminist sociologists, such as Ann Oakley (1972), who adopted the concept of gender (which originated elsewhere) and used it to argue that masculinity and femininity were socially constructed and distinct from biological sex differences. That this entailed only a partial social constructionism, leaving 'sex' outside the social was subsequently noted and challenged by other feminist sociologists such as Liz Stanley (1984) and Christine Delphy (1981; 1984), thus presenting arguments for a radically anti-essentialist understanding of gender which pre-date the more widely celebrated deconstructive efforts of Denise Riley (1987) and Judith Butler (1986; 1987; 1990).[1]

1.4If we succumb to the collective amnesia through which sociological insights are erased from the record we risk continually re-inventing the wheel and depriving feminism of vital critical, analytical tools. We need to recover some of the core insights of our discipline, as well as more confidence in its continuing relevance for feminism, and become more assertive in our advocacy of sociological perspectives within feminist academic arenas. Hence although I am committed to interdisciplinarity in Women's Studies, I am concerned about the submerging of sociological perspectives within its interdisciplinary mix , and particularly in what counts as feminist theory. This state of affairs is, I believe, detrimental to feminism.

1.5How is it that sociological perspectives, once central to feminist thinking, have been displaced and rendered marginal? One of the purposes of this paper is to account for this change. While it may, in part, simply reflect the rapid growth and diversification of feminist scholarship, it is more specifically attributable to the shifting disciplinary hierarchies and changing intellectual fashions associated with the 'cultural turn' (Barrett 1992). In charting the origins of this 'turn' I will argue that it was neither total nor irrevocable. I will identify signs of recent reversals in these trends within feminist theory, in particular a revitalisation of materialist perspectives within which distinctively sociological perspectives have a role to play. Given that most of these debates have taken place around 'macro' theories of social structure, I will then say something about other forms of social theory which are worth recovering for feminism and from which many of the basic insights of social constructionism derived. This will lead me on to a discussion of the 'social' and, more particularly, of the concept of social construction. Here I will take the field of sexuality as my main case study, an area in which the shifts I am discussing have been clearly manifested, and will consider what sociology can contribute to current feminist and queer theorising on sexuality.

2.1Feminist theory has become too vast an enterprise for anyone to have a complete overview of it, let alone in-depth knowledge of all its diverse forms. The pressures to keep up with the latest trends, many of which originate outside sociology, can easily lead us to over-look what is going on within the discipline, or to place sociological thinking outside the boundaries of Theory (with a capital 'T'). Hence even feminist sociologists frequently genuflect towards Theory deriving from other disciplines while forgetting, or remaining ignorant of, equally important insights which have been yielded by sociologically informed feminism. For less established scholars, the need to publish and to appear 'up to date' leaves little time to read more widely than is strictly necessary (Allen and Leonard 1996); they certainly not have the space to explore the history of the concepts and theories they draw upon in their work.

2.2Scholars inducted into feminist thought over the last decade or so have often acquired their theoretical maps from textbooks or key articles written by non-sociologists. One such is Chris Weedon's best-selling Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (1987) which has undergone several reprints, remained in the book shops for over a decade and is widely read for its admirably accessible account of poststructuralism. Weedon's representation of other forms of feminism is, to say the least, partial and most of the insights she identifies with post-structuralism are hardly news to those with sociological memories reaching back to the 1960s and 1970s. Sociologists have long been aware, for example, that there is no essential pre-social self, that language is not a transparent medium of communication, that meanings shift as they are contested and re-negotiated, that knowledge is a social construct rather than a revelation of absolute truth. Newer scholars, however, may never have been exposed to sociological variants of these arguments and hence believe the accounts they have read in their student texts.

2.3Moreover, the period of feminism in which sociology made a more visible contribution, particularly the 1970s, is frequently associated with theories which sought explain the totality of women's oppression. This stage of feminist theorising has been dismissed, especially by postmodernists, as inevitably tainted by univeralism, foundationalism, essentialism, racism and heterosexism (see for example, Flax 1990). Although it is often not specifically sociological perspectives which are the target of such attacks, the overwhelming impression created is that most 'pre-postmodern' feminist theory can be safely ignored since it is riddled with erroneous assumptions which have since been transcended. Much valuable sociological thinking is thereby lost. Hence, while sociology is still very much there in Women's Studies as it is taught, it often does not count when it comes to teaching theory - except in over-views of the past.