Beyond the Master/Subject Model: Reflections on Carole Pateman's Sexual Contract

Author(s): Nancy Fraser

Source: Social Text, No. 37, A Special Section Edited by Anne McClintock Explores the Sex
Trade (Winter, 1993), pp. 173-181
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466266 .
Accessed: 30/05/2014 11:26

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.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beyond the Master/SubjectModel
REFLECTIONSON CAROLEPATEMAN'S

SEXUALCONTRACT

I take enormouspleasurein the boldnessand originality of Carole Pate- Nancy Fraser

man's Sexual Contract.Yet I am ultimately not persuadedby severalof its
centralclaims.In tryingto understandwhy,I havefoundmyselfreturning
again and again to thebook's core conceptionof dominanceand subordi-
nation.As I read her,Patemanconceivesdominanceand subordination on
the model of masteryand subjection.Women's subordinationis under-
stood firstand foremostas the conditionof being subjectto the direct
commandof an individualman. Male domination, then,is a dyadicpower
relationbetweentwo individualsin which a (male) superordinatecom-
mands a (female)subordinate.It is a master/subject relation.
This, at any rate, is the conception I find explicit in Pateman's
account of whatshe calls "the sexual contract."That idea appears in two
different guises in her analysis,but,in both,the master/subject model is
In
presupposed. one guise,thesexual contractis theshadow mythbehind
classicalsocial contracttheory'sofficialaccountofthefoundationofpolit-
ical power-or, as I would preferto say,it is the suppressedgendersub-
textofthattheory.Here it is associatedwithPateman'sclaimthateven as
apparentlyantipatriarchal contracttheoristslikeLocke rejected"paternal
right"as the model for"politicalright,"theycontinuedto assume hus-
bands' conjugalrightsoverwives,whileredefining such rightsas "non-
political."The sexual contract,in thisguise,then, establishes and democ-
ratizes "male sex-right,"the right of individual men to command
individualwomen-in labor and especiallyin sex. It institutes a seriesof
male/female master/subject dyads.
The sexual contractalso appears in anotherguisein Pateman'sbook,
in real-lifecontractsin contemporary society.The contractsin question
involve"propertyin the person" and thus include the wage-laborcon-
tract,the marriagecontract,the "surrogatemotherhood"contract,and
what Pateman calls "the prostitution contract."All such contracts,she
claims,necessarily establishrelationsof subordination, since theyinvolve
odd commoditiessuch as "labor power,""sexual services,"and "gesta-
tionalservices,"whichare not detachablefromthepersonsoftheir"own-
ers." The use of these commoditiesthus requiresthe presence,and the
subordination,of theirowners,the latters'subjectionto a user's com-
mand. Contractsinvolvinglaborpower,etc.,thusestablishmaster/subject
dyads; the boss acquiresthe rightof commandoverthe worker,thehus-
band over the wife,the john over the prostitute,and so on. When the

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 commodityis attachedto a woman'sbody,moreover,the specifically sex-
ual contractis in play.Then the contractestablishesa real-liferelationof
"male sex-right." An individualman commandsthelaborand/orsex of an
individualwoman.He is master,she is subject.
What linksthese two aspects of "the sexual contract,"I think,is its
culturalcontentand symbolicmeaning.The sexual contract,Pateman
claims,establishesthepatriarchalmeaningof sexual difference. It defines
as and as
masculinity mastery femininity subjection,paradigmatically with
respectto sexuality.What it means to be a man, then,is to commanda
woman sexually,to have rightof access to some individualfemalebody.
What it means to be a woman,correlatively, is to be sexuallysubjectto
some man. Thus, in Pateman's view,the dyadic master/subject model
constructsthe meaningsof masculinity, femininity, sexuality,and sexual
difference. It is the symbolictemplateof patriarchalculture.
As I read her,then,Patemanconceivesof male dominance-both in
societyand in culture-on themaster/subject model.Not onlyis thisview
presupposedin her discussionsof contracttheoryand of real-lifecon-
tracts,but it is centralto her historicalthesisas well. Patemancontends
that contractis not reallyantipatriarchal and thatmodernsocietiesare
"fraternal,contractualpatriarchies." She also holdsthat"subordination,"
not exploitation, is the crux of unfreedomin capitalistwage labor and in
othercontractsinvolvingpropertyin theperson;and by "subordination"
she means subjectionto a master'scommand.One wayto read TheSexual
Contract, then,is as an argumentthatlate-capitalist contractualrelations
are reallydisguisedmaster/subject relations.What appears to be a major
historicaltransformation in the mode of dominationis actuallythe same
old wine of male sex-right in new,contractual,bottles.
Several importantquestionsfollowfromthisreadingof The Sexual
Contract.Is the master/subject model adequate for analyzinggender
inequalityin contemporarylate-capitalistsocieties?Are contemporary
relationsof marriage,wage labor, prostitution, and "surrogacy"most
fruitfullyunderstoodin these terms?Does this model obscure larger
structuralor systemicprocesses thatunderlieand supporthierarchical
dyads? Does it obscure genderedconstraintson women'slives thattake
the formnot of the authoritative will of a superior,but of processes in
whichtheactionsofmanypeople are abstractly or impersonally mediated?
In anycase, how usefulis themaster/subject modelforanalyzingcontem-
poraryculturalmeaningsof sexualdifference? Do notionsofmasteryand
subjectionexhaustthefullmeaningsof masculinity and femininity?
In what follows,I shall attemptto address these questionsby reex-
aminingthreeof the real-lifecontractsdiscussedin Pateman'sbook: the
marriagecontract,the employmentcontract,and the prostitution con-
tract.I shallarguethatnone is adequatelyunderstoodon a master/subject

174 NancyFraser

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
model. In my discussionof prostitution, I shall also considerthe sexual
contractas a modelforanalyzingtheculturalmeaningsof sex and gender
in contemporarysociety, and I shall identifyits shortcomingsand
strengths. Throughout,I shallargueagainsttheassimilationof contractto
subjection,of commodification to command. My aim is not to defend
contractas inherently emancipatorybut ratherto open a space formore
nuanced thinkingabout desirablealternatives to contemporary modes of
domination.
Let me beginwithmarriage.Patemanis rightand illuminating about
the anomaliesof "the marriagecontract,"whichis unlikemost commer-
cial contractsin thatit establishesa long-term, hierarchicalstatusrelation
whose termsare predeterminedand unalterable,and whose roles are
assignedaccordingto sex. She is also rightand illuminating on the per-
sistencein thelate twentieth centuryof wives' legal disabilities,including
nonrecognition in manyjurisdictionsof rape withinmarriage.Yet forall
that,it stillseems misleadingto understandhusbands' poweroverwives
today solelyor primarilyin the master/subject termsof the sexual con-
tract.Equally importantare the sortsof structuraland processualcon-
straintsthatSusan Okin has characterizedas "a cycle of sociallycaused
and distinctly asymmetric vulnerabilityby marriage."'1
In Okin's cycle, women's traditionalresponsibility for childrearing
helps shape labor marketsthatdisadvantagewomen;theresultis unequal
powerin the economic marketplace,whichin turnreinforces, and exac-
erbates,unequal powerin thefamily.Women,thus,are renderedvulner-
able, first,by anticipationof marriage,since the expectationof primary
domestic and child-careresponsibilitiesburdens theirdecisions about
education,training,and degree of commitmentto employment.Next,
womenare renderedvulnerablewithinmarriage,since theyenterit with
inferiorlabor-marketopportunitiesand, hence, withless leveragethan
theirhusbands;vulnerability in marriageincreasesovertime,moreover,as
the gap in spouses' earningpower,and thusin exitoptions,widens.And
finally,women are renderedvulnerableby separationor divorce,which
usuallybringsa precipitousdrop in women'sand children'sstandardof
living,ifnot outrightdestitution.2
I findthis account more useful in accountingforpower dynamics
withinmarriagetoday than Pateman's appeal to "the sexual contract"
and "male sex-right."The reason is thatOkin looks beyondthe marital
dyad itself,as legallyconstituted,to the largerinstitutionalcontextin
whichit is situated.If marriagestilltoo oftenresemblesa master/subject
relation,thisis due in largemeasureto itssocial embeddednessin relation
to sex-segmentedlabor markets,gender-structured social-welfarepolicy
regimes, and the gender division of unpaid labor. Althoughthe legal
reformoftheinstitution remainssignificantly incomplete,marriagetoday

BeyondtheMaster/Subject
Model 175

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 is probablybetterunderstoodas an unequal partnership in which"voice"
correlatesinverselywithopportunities for"exit" thanas a master/subject
relation.3
If themaster/subjectmodeldoes notfitthemarriagecontract,stillless
does it fitthe othereveryday-lifecontractsPatemandiscusses.The latter
are all unlikemarriagein thecrucialrespectof involvingdirectcommod-
ification.Whereasthemarriagecontractinvolvesthewithdrawal ofmajor
aspectsof social reproductionfromthe cash nexus,wage labor,prostitu-
tion,and "surrogacy"are preciselymarkettransactions.They therefore
involvea different, more abstractformof social mediationor coordina-
tion,whichis further removedfromthemaster/subject model.4
Consider first"the employmentcontract."It seems closestto Pate-
man's viewof marriage,sinceittoo establishesa relatively long-term rela-
tionshipin whicha subordinateagrees (under structuralconstraints)to
take ordersfroma superordinatein exchangeforthe means of subsis-
is renderedin cash, as opposed to in
tence. But the latter,significantly,
kind,and thusin a formthatconferssome leveragein spheresoflifeout-
side the place of employment.Pateman,however,focuseschieflyon the
employmentrelationitself,viewed in abstractionfromthe surrounding
context.Thus, she stressesthe boss's power to command the worker,
whichbelies the ideologicalview of thewage contractas a freeexchange
among equals. She is rightabout that,I think,and also about the deeper
pointthat"labor power" is not detachablefroma worker'sperson,and
hence is an odd sortof commoditywhose use requirestheworker'spres-
ence and subordination.But her decontextualized master/subject focusis
too limitedto permitan adequate critique.It leads herto judgmentsthat
are in some respectstoo severeand in otherstoo lenient.
Patemanis too severein holdingthatcapitalistemployment is akinto
To
"wage slavery." be sure,itwas painfully experiencedin justthatwayby
some earlynineteenth-century proletarianized (male) artisansand yeoman
farmerswho were losingnot onlytangiblepropertyin tools and in land
but also priorcontrolovertheirwork.But theirresponsewas contextually
specificand gendered.Consider,by way of contrast,the verydifferent
experienceof the youngsinglewomenwho leftfarms-and open-ended
workhours,pervasiveparentalsupervision,and littleautonomous"per-
sonal life"-for milltowns,whereintensesupervisionin themillwas com-
bined withrelativefreedomfromsupervisionoutside it, as well as the
increasedautonomyin personal life conferredby cash earnings.From
theirperspective,the employment contractwas a liberation.5
The millgirls'perspectivealertsus to importantfeaturesoftheinsti-
tutionof wage labor thatare obscuredin Pateman'sanalysis.Even as the
wage contractestablishestheworkersas subjectto theboss's commandin
theemployment sphere,it simultaneously constitutesthatsphereas a lim-

176 NancyFraser

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ited sphere.The boss has no rightof directcommandoutsideit. "The
outside"hereincludesbotha marketin consumercommoditiesintowhich
the wage buys entryand a noncommodifieddomesticsphere in which
much of the workof social reproductionis performedwithoutpay by
women. In those arenas,whichare themselvespermeatedby powerand
inequality,the wage functionsas a resourceand source of leverage.For
some women,it buysa reductionin vulnerability throughmarriage.
The moral is that assessing the wage contract requires looking
beyondtheboss/worker dyad. At theveryleast,one mustbalance subor-
dinationin paid workagainstthepotentialforrelativefreedomfromsub-
ordinationoutsideit. The latterwillvarywithpeople's social location,as
determinedin partby theirplace in the genderdivisionof unpaid labor.
Pateman,certainly, wantsto includesuch considerations.That is why,I
think,she claimsthatwomenare not and cannotbe workersin the same
sense as men,thatthesexual contractunderliesthe employment contract.
But I do not findthese formulationssatisfactory. For one thing,they
implytoo seamless a fitbetween maritalpower and capitalistpower,
therebymissingthe possibilityof trade-offs.For another,theysuggest
that the terms "woman" and "worker" are given once and for all as
monolithically patriarchal,thattheyare neithercontestednor alterable.
Finally,by claimingthatthe sexual contractunderliesthe employment
contract,Patemanredoubles,but does not transcend,the master/subject
model of domination.
To see this, consider that although Pateman's assessment of the
employment contractis too severein one respect,it is simultaneously too
lenientin another.If theinstitution of wage laborwereat base a seriesof
dyadic master/subject relations,the remedyfor capitalistdomination
would be workplacedemocracyat the levelof the firm.Desirable though
thatis, it would leave unaddresseda numberof problems.Pateman is
aware of one of these: the disproportionate benefitto full-timeworkers
with few unpaid domesticresponsibilities, usually men, as opposed to
homemakers,part-timeworkers,and full-timeworkerswitha "double-
shift,"forwhom meetingattendanceis especiallyonerous,nearlyall of
whom are women. But othermajor problems,too, are unresolvedby
workplacedemocracyand obscured by Pateman's master/subject focus.
First, workplacedemocracy is androcentric in its neglect of sites for
democratic participationthat are associated with "reproduction" as
opposed to "production,"forexample,neighborhoods,childcare,health
care, and education;withrespectto such public goods, public services,
and publicspaces, it is notjustworkers,but also parents,consumers,and
citizenswho deserverightsof representation and participation.Second,
workplacedemocracyat thelevelofthefirmfailsto remedythewholesale
of an economic systemin which profitability,
irrationality ratherthan

Beyond the Master/SubjectModel 177

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 human need and environmentalintegrity,dictates the use of social
resources.Finally,it does not overcomethe undemocraticcharacterof a
social orderin which many of the most importantsocial questionsare
removedfromcollectivedeliberationand decided behindcitizens'backs
throughmarketmechanisms.If none of theseproblemswould be reme-
died by workplacedemocracyat the level of the firm,the reason is that
none is rootedin a dyadicrelationof masteryand subjection.All,rather,
are problemsthatescape thatconceptualgrid,since theyinvolvemore
abstractformsof social mediationand impersonalmechanismsof action
coordination.
So farI have been consideringPateman'ssexual contractas a model
foranalyzinginstitutionalized powerrelations.And I have arguedthatitis
insufficientlystructuralto account forgenderinequalityin late-capitalist
society.There is anotherway of understandingher model, however,
namely,as a templatefor the culturalmeaningsof sex and gender.It
remainsto determinewhetherthe sexual contractilluminatescontempo-
raryculturaldimensionsof male dominanceand femalesubordination.
Recall thatforPateman the sexual contractestablishesthe cultural
meaning of sexual difference-hence,of masculinityand femininity,
whichit definesin termsof sexual masteryand subjection.These mean-
ings,she claims,are institutionalized in contemporary practicessuch as
prostitutionand "surrogatemotherhood."Her analysesofthesepractices,
then,can be read on twolevels:theliterallevelof powerrelationsand the
symboliclevelof culturalmeanings.An analysisthatfailsto persuadeas
an account of powerrelationsmay be more successfulas an account of
culturalmeaning.
To explorethese possibilities,consider "the prostitution contract."
Along with "surrogatemotherhood,"prostitution analyzedby Pateman
is
as a real-lifecommercialmanifestation of the sexual contract,a case of
"male sex-right"gone public. To speak of "the sale of sexual (or gesta-
tional) services"is a distortion,she claims,since the prostitute'ssexual
parts,like the "surrogatemother's"womb, cannotbe used withouther
presence,norwithouther subordination.6 The contractthusestablishesa
master/subject relationin which a man commands a woman's body. It
therebyenactsthepatriarchalmeaningsof masculinity as sexual mastery
and femininity as sexual subjection.Far frombeinga simplefree-market
exchange,then,prostitution institutionalizes
male sex-right.
Pateman's use of the master/subject model here is both literaland
symbolic.On the literallevel,she appears to hold thatin prostitution the
john acquires the rightof command over the prostitute.But thereare
good reasonsto doubtthisis so. For one thing,as Patemannotes,prosti-
tutioninvolvesa "contractof specificperformance," nearlya simultaneous
exchange; unlike marriage, it does not establisha long-termrelationof

178 NancyFraser

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dependence.7For another,the transactionis oftengovernedby advance Ifthe
negotiationsover specific"services,"whichlimitthe power of the john.
(To say thisis not to denythe vulnerability of prostitutesto rape, coer- commodification
cion, and violence.) Some (feminist)ethnographersreport,moreover,
thatprostitutes at theupper end oftheoccupationalscale enjoyconsider- of women's
able controlin the sexual transactionitselfand considerableautonomy
bodies does not
outside it.8Finally,in some (thoughnot all) masculineculturestoday,
resortingto prostitution is a tokennot of poweror masterybut of shame,
bringgender
suffusedwiththe embarrassment of havingto pay for"it." For all these
reasons,the john does not usuallyhave thatmuch poweroverthe prosti- equality,the
tute;nor does he have whathe has forverylong.
To acknowledgethisis not to claim thatprostitution is liberatingfor reason is not that
women.It is, on thecontrary, to suggestthatmale dominancecan persist
evenin theabsence of master/subject ifthecom-
relations.Put differently, femaleswho
modification ofwomen'sbodies does notbringgenderequality,thereason
is notthatfemaleswho assume the stanceof possessiveindividualsmust assume the
take orders frommale superiors.It is ratherthatprostitutionencodes
stance of posses-
meaningsthatare harmfulto womenas a class.
This bringsme to thesexual contractas a templateforculturalmean- sive individuals
ings.If themaster/subject model is notveryhelpfulin analyzingprostitu-
tionon theliterallevel,it does strikea symbolicchord.CertainlyPateman musttake
is rightto stressthatcontemporaryprostitution is gendered;it is over-
whelmingly men purchasing sex from women. (She neglects,however,to ordersfrommale
consider gay male prostitutionand the ways in which both gay and
straightvarietiesare structurednot onlyby genderbut also by age and superiors.Itis
racial-ethnicstratification.)In heterosexualprostitution,the "buyer"
belongs to a higher-status genderthan the "seller,"and the "service" is ratherthatpros-
oftenpermeatedby symbolicassociationsthatlinkmasculinity withsexual
titution
encodes
masteryand femininity withsexual subjection.
To me, however,farfromimplyingthe solidityof thoseassociations,
prostitution ratherimpliestheirfragility. I suggestthatwhat is sold is a meaningsthat
malefantasyof "male sex-right,"one thatimpliesits precariousnessin are harmful
to
actuality.Far fromacquiringtherightof commandovertheprostitute, the
john getsonlythestagedrepresentation of such command.A stagedrepre- women as a class.
sentationof command,however,involvesa performative contradiction.
of
The fantasy masterythatis sold throughprostitution is undermined
even as it is enacted.
What,then,shouldbe concludedabout thevalue of Pateman'ssexual
contractconceptionas a culturaltemplate?The moralI drawis thatcon-
temporarymeaningsof masculinityand femininity do have associations
withmasteryand subjection,but Pateman'sapproachis too absolutistto
do justiceto theirinherentcomplexity.It is neitheruseful,nor right,to
assume, first,thatmasteryand subjectionexhaustthe fullmeaningsof

BeyondtheMaster/Subject
Model 179

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 masculinity and femininity;second, that the meanings of these terms are
impervious to historicalchange; and third,that theyare not subject to cul-
tural contestation. On the contrary.Far from being monolithicallypatri-
archal, the categories of masculinity and femininityare precisely sites of
cultural contestation.9 (The same holds for the concept of "the individ-
ual," which Pateman unhelpfullyclaims is inherentlypatriarchal.)
Let me conclude by summarizing my overall argument. In reconsid-
ering the marriage, employment,and prostitutioncontracts,I have offered
assessments of Pateman's sexual contract thesis at two differentlevels.
First, I have evaluated its aptness as a model for theorizing relations of
power; and I have argued that it is insufficientlystructuralto account for
male dominance in late-capitalist society. Second, I have examined the
sexual contract as a template for analyzing contemporary cultural mean-
ings of sex and gender; here I have argued that the master/subjectmodel
has significantsymbolic resonance, but that it ought not to be unitarized
and absolutized, nor treated as impervious to resistance and change. My
larger point is that male dominance today is not best viewed as old mas-
ter/subjectwine in new contractual bottles. Nor are contract and com-
modificationproperlyunderstood as command and subjection in disguise.
Rather, gender inequality is today being transformed by a shift from
dyadic relations of mastery and subjection to more impersonal structural
mechanisms that are lived through more fluid cultural forms. One conse-
quence is the (re)production of subordination even as women act increas-
ingly as individuals who are not under the direct command of individual
men. Another is the creation of new forms of political resistance and cul-
tural contestation.

Notes

1. Susan Moller Okin, Justice,Gender,and theFamily (New York: Basic

Books, 1989), 138.
2. Okin's account drawson RobertGoodin's conceptionof sociallycreated
asymmetric vulnerabilityand on AlbertO. Hirschmann'saccountof theeffectsof
people's differentialpotentialsforexiton theirpowerwithinrelationships.
3. This sort of explanationcertainlyhelps explain whywomen sometimes
enduresuch directformsof subjectionas batteryand rape withinmarriage.It is
less satisfactoryin explainingwhymen engagein such behaviors.But Pateman's
explanationfor the latterproblemis also unsatisfactory. Her appeal to "male
sex-right"or "the sexual contract"is tautologous,sinceit impliesa (given,unex-
plained) male proclivityto rape and batter.A morepromisingtack,I think,would
be to combine Okin's structuralanalysiswith an account of the culturalcon-
structionof various masculinitiesand femininities. The latter,I would argue,
need to be understoodnot as patriarchalmonoliths,but as sitesof contestation.
4. This maytemptone to concludethatcommodification-of-the-person con-

180 Nancy Fraser

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tractsbelongto a different, more modern,historicalepistemethan themarriage
contract.But, as we shall see, it is preciselytheircontemporaneity withmodern
marriage,theirco-implicationwithit in a single structuredsocial setting,that
helps explainwhythey,too, manifestgenderhierarchy-ofa non-master/subject
sort.
5. See, forexample,ChristineStansell,Cityof Women:Sex and Class in New
York,1789-1860 (Urbana: Universityof IllinoisPress, 1987).
6. It is unfortunate
thatPatemandid not compareprostitution withpornog-
raphy,where the "use" (as opposed to the production) of the "commodity"
requiresonlya representation of thewoman'sbody.
7. A more promisingapplicationof Pateman'smodel to prostitution would
treatthe pimp/prostitute relation(as opposed to the john/prostituterelation)as
the relevantmaster/subject dyad. For reasons I do not understand,Pateman
brieflyconsiders,thenrejects,thistackin TheSexual Contract.
8. See, forexample,Lizzie Borden's filmWorking Girls.
9. I owe thisformulation to JaneJenson,who used thesetermsto character-
ize Pateman'sviewthatcitizenshipis inherently masculinistand patriarchal.(Oral
remarksat conferenceon "Social WelfareTheory,"Aylmer,Quebec, September
1992.)

Beyond the Master/SubjectModel 181

This content downloaded from 99.72.106.150 on Fri, 30 May 2014 11:26:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions