gilman’s multidimensional explanation of gender inequality
DESCRIPTION
Gilman’s multidimensional explanation of gender inequality. Nonrational. A C T I O N. Shared symbolic codes and gender norms. Differential socialization (internalized attitudes). Sex ‘principles’ (biology) . Collective. Individual. ORDER. Patriarchal institutions. Rational. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Gilman’s multidimensional explanation of gender inequality
Nonrational
Rational
Individual Collective
ACT IONSex ‘principles’ (biology)
Shared symbolic codesand gender norms
ORDER
Differential socialization(internalized attitudes)
Patriarchal institutions
2
GEORG SIMMEL
3
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) Born in 1858 in Berlin, son of successful
businessman who died when GS was an infant
Historical context: Berlin at the time was a crossroads of Europe, of western civilization even, a cosmopolitan center
GS was the quintessential Berlin intellectual - tied into intellectual circles, café culture
Marginalized from academic life, due to eclectic nature of work and institutional anti-semitism, as Simmel was Jewish GS was unable to secure a professorship until
the end of his life, at (mediocre) Strasbourg GS’s marginalized position led to
appreciation of social position and its importance in society
4
Intellectual influences & core ideas Simmel’s work went against two prominent currents of European
thought: Historicsm and Organicism
Historicism emphasizes fundamental differences b/w natural and social worlds natural sciences seen as the proper domain of objectivity whereas social
sciences, if science at all, require interpretive methods, subjectivity Organicism sees natural & social realities as continuous and models
social processes on biological ones employs organic metaphors, sees world as one chain of being from
simple, natural phenomena to the most complex social patterns archetypal figures: Durkheim, Spencer, Comte
Simmel rejected historicism b/c it precluded scientific and generalizing approach to social life and rejected organicism for its reification of social facts, its vision of life as a thing
5
Society According to Simmel,
“Society is merely the name for number of individuals connected by interaction….It is not a ‘substance,’ nothing concrete, but an event: It is the function of receiving and affecting the fate and development of one individual by another”
6
Society Sociation Simmel prefers the term “sociation” over
“society” “Society” is a reification, “sociation” is
not Sociation emphasizes relation and
process Insofar as we speak of “society,” we do
so only in shorthand
7
Sociology Sociology’s goal is description and analysis of
particular forms of interaction and their crystallization in group characteristics Proper subject matter for sociology is the formal aspects of
social life, not the particular content Content refers to the drives, purposes, interests, or
inclinations that individuals have for interacting with one another Such motivations, in themselves, are not social but rather are
isolated psychological or biological impulses Actions in concert with others to fulfill drives or realize interests
are social a geometry of social life: specifying regularities in
diverse content
8
Sociology: against reification
Reification means “thingification,” making something that is a process or a concept, something abstract, into a thing, e.g.
1) Relationship: when two people become romantically involved, they have a “relationship,” it becomes a thing, tangible force – but really it’s a process of relating
2) Nation: we assume there’s some “essence,” “Americanness,” but it’s really a way of relating
America, Americans, are constructed through ongoing interaction
3) Organization: we treat it as a thing rather than a process, a set of relations among people
4) Class, race, gender, etc.
9
Sociology: against categories
“Sociology asks what happens to men and by what rules do they behave not insofar as they form groups and are determined by their group existence in their totalities but insofar as they form groups and are determined by the group existence because of interaction” Usual tendency is to reduce people to categorical
memberships: e.g., women, white, sociologist… It’s not the individual attributes that are of interest, it’s
how they’re instanciated (come into being) through action The concepts are only realized via interaction
Categorical identities do not determine action, they only exist through action/interaction
10
The individual in modern society Society and the individuals that compose it constitute
an interdependent duality, the existence of one presupposing the other duality: being twofold; dichotomy; a classification into two
opposed parts or subclasses Urban societies allow individuals to cultivate unique
talents and interests but also leads to a tragic “leveling” of the human spirit Weber observed a similar tendency in bureaucracies
Tragedy of culture: objective culture - the ideas and products of human creativity - comes to dominate individual will and self-development or subjective culture
11
Toward a formal sociology Diverse social phenomena – content & contexts - can be
understood in terms of formal similarities Analyze all different kings in terms of kingship Analyze kings and presidents in terms of leadership
Forms of interaction among members of different groups (varied content) are importantly shaped by the structural similarities of those groups
Focus on formal characteristics of social processes allows GS to preserve historicist emphasis on uniqueness of different moments, events and places, while nonetheless seeing underlying uniformities In other words seeing a structural similarity b/w kingship &
presidency is not same as saying all kings and presidents are the same…it allows you to abstract some dimension without losing the content
12
Quantitative features of social life
GS divides the social world into 3 basic forms: Solitary individual Dyad (two persons)
each individual can present themselves to the other in a way that maintains their identity
either party can end the relationship by withdrawing from it
Triad (3 or more people) enables strategies that lead to competition, alliances,
or mediation often develops a group structure independent of the
individuals in it, whereas this is less likely in the dyad
13
“Sociability” (1910) sociability: the “play-form of association,”
driven by, "amicability, breeding, cordiality and attractiveness of all kinds" interacting with others for the sake of the
connection itself Sociable conversations have no significance or
ulterior motive, talking is an end in itself for pure pleasure of association not that all serious topics must be avoided, but point is
that sociability finds its justification, its place, and its purpose only in the functional play of conversation as such
14
Resolving the solitariness of the individual
Every play or artistic activity has a common element: “a feeling for, or a satisfaction in associating with others, resolving the solitariness of the individual into togetherness, union with others” Depends on “good form,” interaction of the elements
through which a unity is made “Since sociability in its pure form has no ulterior
end, no content, and no result outside itself, it is oriented completely about personalities.” (297) “But personalities must not emphasize themselves too
individually…or with too much abandon and aggressiveness”
15
The “superficial” nature of sociability
To the extent that it’s a form of interaction free of the tensions of “real” life, sociability establishes an “artificial” world, a world without friction or conflict
“Inasmuch as sociability is the abstraction of association – an abstraction of the character of art or of play – it demands the purest, most engaging kind of interaction – that among equals….It is game in which one ‘acts’ as though all were equal.” (294)
16
Coquetry Coquetry or flirtation: a kind of sociability or
erotic play in which an actor continuously alternates between denial and consent Idea is to lead the other on “without letting
matters come to a decision, to rebuff him without making him lose all hope”
“Coquetry is the teasing or even ironic play with which eroticism has distilled the pure essence of its interaction out from its substantive or individual content” It’s not individual behavior, it’s interaction