Review: The Gendering of Social Theory: Sociology and Its Discontents

Author(s): Barbara Laslett

Review by: Barbara Laslett
Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 3 (May, 1996), pp. 305-309
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2077437
Accessed: 23-03-2015 13:41 UTC

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.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Contemporary
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CONTEMPORARYSOCIOLOGY 305
majorrole in bringingculturalanalysisback overlappingLogic of Practice) as the most
into the center of sociological analysisin important of the relativelyfew generaland
general.In encouragingthe attemptto see synthetic statements Bourdieuhas offered of
both actors (and thereforeactions) and his"theory"(a labelhe doesn'tlike).The rest
as shapedbyculturalschemas(to of his publicationsrange across a wide
institutions
borrowSewell'srecentterm),it also opens varietyof empiricalobjectsof analysis,from
up the possibilityof analysisof the way in museums and literatureto kinship,class,
whichthoseschemasare shapedin struggle. Algerianworkers,and Frenchhighereduca-
This is the largertaskto which Bourdieu's tion.Outlineis not a cure forthe common
accountof"symbolicviolence"speaks;it has fragmented readingof Bourdieu,but it does
alreadybeen put to use in a varietyof more go some way towards showing what is
specificanalyticcontexts.Outlinealso fore- centralto hisperspectiveand situating many
shadowed Bourdieu's developmentof the of his key concepts in relationto broader
conceptof culturalcapital,and moregener- theory.In a senseit explicatesandprovidesa
ally the theoryof how different formsof rationale for what Brubaker(1992) has
accumulatedresourcesmay have differentdescribedas Bourdieu'ssociologicalhabitus,
effects,and maybe converted.In one related his characteristicmode of improvisingin
sense, however,Outline may have misled empiricalanalysis.
readers.Bourdieu'ssociologyis aimedlargely
at an account of power relations,and
especiallyof themanywaysin whichpower References
is culturallyproduced, reproduced, and
manipulated.Partlybecause of the heavy Bourdieu,Pierre.1988. "Vivela crise!ForHeterodoxy
emphasison strategizing language,thisis not in Social Science," Theoryand Society,17(5), pp.
as manifest in Outlineas in some of the rest 773-88.
Brubaker,Rogers. 1992. "Social Theory as Habitus,"
ofBourdieu'swork. pp. 212-234 in C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, and M.
The influenceof Outline remainslarge, Postone, eds.: Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives.
partlybecause it appears (along with the Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

The Gendering of Social

Theory: Sociology and
Its Discontents
Original review, CS 8:4 (January 1979), by
Rose Laub Coser:
This book will have consequences in
sociological as well as in psychoanalytic
theorizing at the same time as it may
provide some of the underpinningsfora
theoryof feminism.
Nancy Chodorow and I have known each
otherformore than 15 years as colleagues and
as friends.Partofthatfriendshiphas developed
out of our mutualintellectualinterestsin gen-
der and familyrelationsand in social theory.In
our many conversations that have engaged
those interests,therehas been mutualcritique
BARBARALASLETT
Universityof Minnesota
TheReproduction ofMothering:
Psychoanaly-
sis and theSociologyof Gender,by NancyJ.
Chodorow. Berkeley: Universityof California
Press, 1978. 253 pp. $15.00 paper. ISBN:
0-520-03892-4.
as well as appreciation.This essay continuesin
the spiritof those conversations.
The Reproduction of Mothering: Psycho-
analysis and the Sociology of Gender (here-
after,Mothering), published in 1978 by the
Universityof California Press, was a major
intellectual event in the emerging field of
feministscholarship and in social theory.Its

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
306 CONTEMPORARYSOCIOLOGY
originalsuccess reflected,in part,the desires
of feministsto finda grand theorythatcould
address the normativequestions with which
theywere so concerned-women's subjectiv-
ity,sexuality,and constructionsof self in the
contexts of gender inequalities.It came at the
height of feministstruggles for intellectual
space and legitimacyin the academy,and also
argued for the potential of psychoanalytic
theory to be incorporated into sociological
thinking.Attentionwas almost immediate.
The intellectual contributionsof Mother-
ing were at least twofold.First,it presented
an argument that problematized women's
mothering-nurturance, child care, and so-
cialization, as well as pregnancy,childbirth,
and lactation. Eschewing a biological expla-
nation, Chodorow's central question was
"Why do women mother?"Her answer drew
on psychoanalytictheory,especially object-
relations theory, and developed it using
feminists'interest in and insightsabout the
socially constructed nature of gender rela-
tions. Focusing on the pre-Oedipal period of
development in which the primaryrelation-
ship of infants is with their mothers,
Chodorow argued that the development of
gendered personalitiesin women and men is
such that women have a deeply internalized
psychological impetus to reproduce the
intimacy of their relationship with their
mothers,their primaryand primordial care-
takers, and are able to do so through
becoming mothers themselves. In contrast,
she contended, and especially in nuclear
familiesbuilt on a division of labor in which
men are the primary breadwinners and
women are the primary homemakers and
nurturers (i.e., the Parsonian model of
Western nostalgia, to paraphrase William J.
Goode, 1963), personality development for
men fosters separation, not connectedness,
and the search for emotional distance, not
emotional intimacy.1It is thus, Chodorow
argued, that the reproduction of mothering
in women occurs at a deep intrapsychic
level, and cannot be adequately explained by
the concept of "sex roles," by socialization
theories,or by coercion in a male-dominated
culture, in male-dominated institutions,or
throughmale economic privilege.
1By providing such an abbreviated version of
Chodorow's theory,I obviouslycannot do justice to
its nuances and complexities.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Second, Chodorow connected the develop-
ment of gendered personalities in women
and men not only to the reproduction of the
desire to mother among women, but also to
problematics in the relationships between
women and men and to women's inequality.
In so doing, she presented a powerful
argument for the potential usefulness of
psychoanalytic theory for sociologists in
general, not feministsalone. In contrast to
theories of social structureand/or the gen-
dered division of labor in which women's
motheringas socially, culturally,and biologi-
cally organized behavior was takenas a given,
Chodorow raised a question to be answered,
rather than one whose answer seemed
self-evidently"natural."Gender relations,the
gendered division of labor, and gender
inequality-key concerns of feminists and
feminist scholars-became, in Chodorow's
hands, a theoretical problematic for social
theoristsin general, ratherthan a taken-for-
granteddimension of social structure.
While Motheringwas an event of moment
forsociologists of the familyand of gender as
well as for feminist scholars across many
disciplines, it became, almost immediately,
the object of criticism among sociologists,
including (perhaps especially) feminists.At
the meeting of the American Sociological
Association in Boston in 1979, I attended a
panel session in which Mothering was
discussed by prominentwomen sociologists
then identifiedwith the newly emergingfield
of feministscholarship. I no longer have the
program fromthose meetings but recall the
participantsto have been Alice Rossi, Judith
Lorber,Rose Laub Coser, and Jessie Bernard.
(Coser was the reviewer of Reproduction in
Contemporary Sociology.) If my memory
serves me, with the exception of Rose Coser,
whose commentswere both appreciativeand
critical,the commentaries were almost uni-
formly negative. Lorber argued that eco-
nomic relations, not psychoanalysis, ex-
plained women's oppressionand theirdecision
to mother. Rossi was disturbed by Chodor-
ow's rejection of biological explanations and
evidence. Jessie Bernard commented on the
need to just get on with it and test
empiricallyifand how psychoanalytictheory
mightbe useful to sociologists.2There was a
2The commentsby Rossi,Lorber,and Coser were
 CONTEMPORARYSOOOLOGY 307

way, however, in which The Reproduction of My answer-that Chodorow's theoretical

Mothering quickly became, despite (or,
perhaps, because of) its widespread recogni-
tion and influence, a book that sociologists
loved to hate. It has, nevertheless,continued
to receive attentionby scholars, both femi-
nist and nonfeminist.3
The original and continued impact of
Chodorow's theory needs to be understood
within the intellectual context in which it
developed-the Parsonian model of family
life,with its taken-for-granted set of gender
roles and relationships that were seen as
"functional"forthe society (if not necessarily
always for women) and the concerns of
contemporary feminist scholars to disrupt
precisely what that model took for granted.
But Chodorow's work posed a challenge to
feministscholarship as well. Making analytic
use of Freudian-inspiredpsychoanalyticthe-
ory,she validated its usefulnessto analyses of
gender relations, rather than relegating the
theoryin toto to the dustbin of a patriarchal
intellectual history,as some feministswere
then doing. Chodorow was not alone either
in her uses of psychoanalytictheoryor in her
questioning of the adequacy of functionalist
theories of familylife.Her rich articulationof
a feministcritique,however, came at just the
right moment to be taken up and noticed.
Having identified"gender" as a theoretical
category,Mothering became a classic work
in feministtheory, and influentialin many
disciplines-e.g., political theoryand literary
criticism.Ironically,although Chodorow is a
sociologist, it has been more resisted than
embraced in thatfield.
Should Chodorow's psychoanalyticallyfo-
cused theory of gender relations be of
sociological interest now, in 1996, espe-
cially since she has revised some of her
ideas since the publication of Mothering?4
publishedin Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand
Societyin the Springof 1981 (vol. 6: 482-514) and itnomicsis everywhere, and thatto differenti-
is to those I have referredin preparingthis essay. ate the economic and symbolic,treating
Chodorow's publishedresponse in the Signs sympo-
sium meritsreadingtodayas it did then.
3 As editorof Signs:Journal of Women in Culture
and Society between 1990 and 1995, I know that
Motheringremainsa major focus of debate among
feministscholars; recently, however, it is being
consideredin more positive,althoughnot uncritical,
lights.(See, forinstance,Seguraand Pierce 1993).
4 In Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory, rejected her earlierimplication"thatwomen's moth-
Chodorow discusses some of the ways in which her ering was the cause or prime mover of male
thinking has changedover time;she has,forinstance, dominance."(See Chodorow 1989:1-19.)
workcontinuesto have majorcontributions
to make to sociology-reflectscurrentthe-
oreticaldebates thatare not about person-
alityor microlevelsocial relationships, but
about macrohistoricalprocesses of social
changeand social reproduction, i.e.,debates
about social structures,humanagency,and
theirintersections under concreteand his-
toricallyspecific conditions.(See Abrams
1981.) Quite simply,Chodorow's theory
providesa way to theorizehuman action
and the linkbetweenindividualagentsand
largersocial structures.She does so not by
relyingon a simplisticlogic of market
relationsas unmediatedby the subjective
and interpretive capacitiesof social actors,
but by directingattentionto the power of
emotions,to familyrelationships, to gen-
dered culturesand experiences,and to the
sociologicalrelevanceof sexualityand sex-
ual identitiesas they are constructedby
personswithinpatriarchal societies.Chodor-
ow's attention to the ways in which
personalitydevelops and to the place of
emotion in the constructionof meaning
contributesto our understanding of how
and whypeople act as theydo more richly
thanthetheorieseitherof "rationality" or of
socializationthatinfusemanycontemporary
sociologicalmodelsof action.She also gives,
appropriately in myview,intellectual weight
to genderrelations, sexuality,and emotional
life in ways that can informthe kinds of
political,economic,cultural,and organiza-
tional questions with which sociologists
have traditionallybeen concerned.Pierce's
(1995) analysisof the genderedemotional
dynamicsin contemporarylaw firms,for
instance,and my own work on the history
of Americansociology (Laslett 1990) use
Chodorow'stheoryto understandorganiza-
tionaland historicaldynamics.
PierreBourdieu(1977) arguesthateco-
them as qualitativelydifferentrealms of
social experienceand activity, is to partici-
pate in a mystificationof the linksbetween
them in all social formations. Chodorow's
theoryof "mothering" is a similarlyradical

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
308 CONTEMPORARYSOCOLOGY

and demystifying argument:"Gender" is and constraints to constructtheirown lives

presentin all social relationships.5
We carry and become actors on as well as in
and construct"gender" in our multiple societies. (See Chodorow 1994 for fur-
realmsofexperienceandactivity through the therelaborationofher argument in "Individ-
emotionsthatenergizeour actions,through uality and Difference. . ."; for another,
the symbolsand meaningswe constructto related,theoreticalstatementsee Mahoney
make sense of those actions,throughour and Yngvesson1992; for empiricalexam-
explanations-to ourselves and others-of ples, see Lawrence-Lightfoot 1994.) Her
how and whywe become the social actors case studies also illustratehow situations
thatwe do. beyond the realm of personal life can
For all theirrichpotentialto engagewith become infused with meaning and the
contemporary social theory, however, power of feeling.And her theoryallows us
Chodorow's interestshave remained fo- to understand how jobs can become sitesof
cused on, indeed have become more firmly struggleover masculinityand femininity
attached to, theorizingthe person, not (Pierce 1995), how sports and locker
linkagesto social structure.This is, in my rooms can become sites of struggleover
view, a limitationof her work,althoughit sexuality,and how both can become sites
does not by itselfinvalidateits sociological forstrugglesover control(Disch and Kane
relevance,especially as it has developed 1996).
over the last 25 years.Yet she has,perhaps Yet, some of the critiquethatRose Coser
not surprisingly,givenher fascination with articulatedin the original Contemporary
psychoanalysis "forits own sake" (1989:6), Sociology review of Mothering-that
become even more focusedon persons as Chodorowdoes notpay enoughattention to
creative actors. In one of her recent structure-remains. Although, fromthe out-
publications,"Genderas Personaland Cul- set, Chodorow has clearlyrecognizedthat
turalConstruction" (Chodorow 1995), part meanings,actions, and relationshipsare
of a book-lengthproject on which she is constructedwithin particularsocial con-
currentlyworking,Chodorow expands on texts, her fascinationwith persons has
themesthathave been presentin her work resultedin an inattention to how personal
since the beginning, but thatalso reflecther action and society connect. Drawinglink-
recentpsychoanalytic trainingand her cur- ages betweenthequestionsthatintrigueher
rent work as a clinician as well as an and other approaches to social theory,
academician. however, is not necessarilyChodorow's
In this work,Chodorow is more exclu- responsibility alone, althoughnot doing so
sively concerned with how persons con- may limitrecognitionof the relevanceof
structmeanings,in thisinstancethe mean- her work to social theorists.Like us,
ings of gender,withinthe highlyspecific she needs to be free to pursue her
contexts of individuallives and clinical intellectualinterestsand sociologicalimagi-
experiences. But she does not, unfortu- nation where they take her. The chal-
nately, explicitlylink insightsfrom her lenge-to draw out the implicationsof
present location at the intersectionof Chodorow's contributionsto social theo-
sociologyand psychoanalysis eitherto socio- ry-is also ours. In 1996, it continuesto
logical analysisor to social theory.Her serve our intellectualintereststo take that
currentfocus,however,whateverits limits, challengeseriously, as did thepublicationof
has importantthingsto say to those of us Motheringin 1978.
interestedin understanding humanagency,
in learninghow people use the available
social,cultural,and organizational resources Works Cited

5While gender relationsare present in all social
situations-indeed, gender is present even when
women are not (see Scott 1988)-it does not follow
that gender is uniformlysalient in all times and
places; see "SeventiesQuestionsforThirtiesWomen:
Gender and Generationin a Studyof EarlyWomen
Psychoanalysts" in Chodorow 1989.
Abrams,Philip. 1981. Historical Sociology. Ithaca,
NY: CornellUniversityPress.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of
Practice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Chodorow,NancyJ. 1989. Feminismand Psychoan-
alytic Theory.New Haven:Yale University Press.
. 1994. Femininities,Masculinities, Sexuali-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CONTEMPORARYSOCIOLOGY 309
ties: Freud and Beyond. Lexington:Universityof Mahoney, Maureen and Barbara Yngvesson. 1992.
KentuckyPress. "The Constructionof Subjectivityand the Paradox
. 1995. "Gender as a Personal and Cultural of Resistance:Reintegrating FeministAnthropology
Construction."Signs 20:516-44. and Psychology."Signs 18:44-73.
Disch,Lisa and MaryJo Kane. 1996. "Whena lookeris Pierce, Jennifer.1995. Gender Trials: Emotional
reallya bitch:Lisa Olson, Sport,and the Heterosex- Lives in ContemporaryLaw Firms. Berkeley:
ual Matrix."Signs 21:278-308. University of CaliforniaPress.
Goode, William J. 1963. World Revolution and Scott,Joan W. 1988. "Gender:A UsefulCategoryof
Family Patterns.New York:Free Press. HistoricalAnalysis."Pp. 28-50 in Genderand the
Laslett,Barbara. 1990. "UnfeelingKnowledge: Emo- Politics of History.New York:ColumbiaUniversity
tion and Objectivityin the Historyof Sociology." Press.
Sociological Forum 5:413- 433. Segura, Denise A. and JenniferPierce. 1993. "Chi-
Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara. 1994. rve Known Rivers: cana/o Family Structureand Gender Personality:
Lives of Loss and Liberation. New York: Penguin Chodorow,Familism,and Psychoanalytic Sociology
Books. Revisited."Signs 19: 62-91.

What's Race Got To Do

With It?*
ALDON MORRIS
Northwestern
University
Originalreviews,CS 9:1 (January1980), by
The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks
ThomasF. Pettigrewand Cora BagleyMar-
and Cbanging American Institutions, by
rett.FromCora BagleyMarrett'sreview: William Julius Wilson. Universityof Chicago
The positionof[theblackmiddleclass]may Press [1978] 1980. 204 pp. $9.95 paper. ISBN:
be far more precarious than Wilson sug- 0-226-90219-7.
gests... [The Bakke]case and similarchal-
lenges to special minorityprogramsindi- DSR was importantto his election as only the
catetomanyobserversthataffirmative action second Black president of the century-old
programsare notfirmly entrenched... The American Sociological Association. Wilson's
progressofthemiddleclassmaybe shorter- staturehas also made him a valued consultant
livedand less sweepingthantheWilsonpre- to President Clinton.
sentationmightimply. Why did DSR have such an impact?I argue
In 1978 the University of Chicago Press here that this book had a huge impact
because 1) it carried a message that was
published WilliamJ. Wilson's book, The
Declining Significance of Race (hereafter enormously appealing to manyAmericans;2)
its title skillfullyalerted the public to its
referred to as DSR), whose provocativetitle
conveyed its stunningnew message. The message; 3) Wilson's race and institutional
book's popular and scholarlyimpact was affiliationlegitimizedthe message; and 4) the
immediateand widespread,and it has re- message developed in the book allowed
mainedon thepress'stop 100 bestsellers list. America's race problem to be conceptualized
Thanks to its success, Wilson became froma differentangle of vision.
DSR is theoreticallyambitious. It attempts
famous,securingmillionsof researchdollars
and winninga MacArthur"genius"award. by way of a macrohistorical argument to
explain how racial stratificationhas worked
in America, from slavery to the 1970s. For
* Numerous colleagues provided criticalfeedback the modern period, Wilson argued that only
on thisessay and I thankthemall. I especiallythank some Blacks were at the bottom of the
ChristopherJencks,CherylJohnson-Odim,Michael stratificationsystem, and what kept them
Schwartz,Charles Willie, Donald Brown, and Terry there was not their skin color or current
Murphy.I thank Clarence Page for agreeing to be
interviewed.My greatestdebt is to WilliamJ.Wilson racial discrimination. For Wilson, a brand
who agreed to lengthyinterviewsand graciously new phenomenon had emerged in modern
providedrelevantsources. America that fundamentallychanged racial

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions