Candace West and Sarah Fenstermaker, Doing Difference
Gender and Society, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Feb., 1995), pp. 8-37.
DOING DIFFERENCE
CANDACE WEST
University of California, Santa Cruz
SARAH FENSTERMAKER
University of California, Santa Barbara
In this article, we advance a new understanding of "dzflerence" as an ongoing interactional
accomplishment. Calling on the authors' earlier reconceptualizationof gender; they develop the
further implications of this perspective for the relationships among gender; race, and class. The
authors argue that, despite significant differences in their characteristics and outcomes, gender;
race, and class are comparable as mechanismsfor producing social inequality.
F e w persons think of math as a particularly feminine pursuit. Girls are not
supposed to be good at it and women are not supposed to enjoy it. It is interesting,
then, that we who do feminist scholarshiphave relied so heavily on mathematical
metaphors to describe the relationships among gender, race, and class.' For
example, some of us have drawn on basic arithmetic, adding, subtracting, and
dividing what we know about race and class to what we already know about
gender. Some have relied on multiplication, seeming to calculate the effects of
the whole from the combination of different parts. And others have employed
geometry, drawing on images of interlocking or intersecting planes and axes.
To be sure, the sophistication of our mathematical metaphors often varies
with the apparent complexity of our own experiences. Those of us who, at one
point, were able to "forget" race and class in our analyses of gender relations
may be more likely to "add" these at a later point. By contrast, those of us who
could never forget these dimensions of social life may be more likely to draw
on complex geometrical imagery all along; nonetheless, the existence of so many
different approaches to the topic seems indicative of the difficulties all of us
have experienced in coming to terms with it.
Not surprisingly, proliferation of these approaches has caused considerable
confusion in the existing literature. In the same book or article, we may find
references to gender, race, and class as "intersecting systems," as "interlocking
categories," and as "multiple bases" for oppression. In the same anthology, we
may find some chapters that conceive of gender, race, and class as distinct axes
and others that conceive of them as concentric ones. The problem is that these
alternative formulations have very distinctive, yet unarticulated, theoretical
implications. For instance, if we think about gender, race, and class as additive
categories, the whole will never be greater (or lesser) than the sum of its parts.
By contrast, if we conceive of these as multiples, the result could be larger or
smaller than their added sum, depending on where we place the signs.2Geometric metaphors further complicate things, since we still need to know where those
planes and axes go after they cross the point of intersection (if they are parallel
planes and axes, they will never intersect at all).
Our purpose in this article is not to advance yet another new math but to
propose a new way of thinking about the workings of these relations. Elsewhere
(Berk 1985; Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman 1991;West and Fenstermaker
1993; West and Zimmerman 1987), we offered an ethnomethodologically informed, and, hence, distinctively sociological, conceptualization of gender as a
routine, methodical, and ongoing accomplishment.We argued that doing gender
involves acomplex of perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that
cast particular pursuits as expressions of manly and womanly "natures." Rather
than conceiving of gender as an individual characteristic, we conceived of it as
an emergent property of social situations: both an outcome of and a rationale for
various social arrangements and a means of justifying one of the most fundamental divisions of society. We suggested that examining how gender is accomplished could reveal the mechanisms by which power is exercised and inequality
is produced.
Our earlier formulation neglected race and class; thus, it is an incomplete
framework for understanding social inequality. In this article, we extend our
analysis to consider explicitly the relationships among gender, race, and class,
and to reconceptualize "difference" as an ongoing interactional accomplishment. We start by summarizing the prevailing critique of much feminist thought
as severely constrained by its white middle-class character and preoccupation.
Here, we consider how feminist scholarship ends up borrowing from mathematics in the first place. Next, we consider how existing conceptualizations of
gender have contributed to the problem, rendering mathematical metaphors the
only alternatives. Then, calling on our earlier ethnomethodologicalconceptualization of gender, we develop the further implications of this perspective for our
understanding of race and class. We assert that, while gender, race, and classwhat people come to experience as organizing categories of social differenceexhibit vastly different descriptive characteristics and outcomes, they are, nonetheless, comparable as mechanisms for producing social inequality.
WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS BIAS
IN FEMINIST THOUGHT
What is it about feminist thinking that makes race and class such difficult
concepts to articulate within its own parameters? The most widely agreed upon
and disturbing answer to this question is that feminist thought suffers from a
white middle-class bias. The privileging of white and middle-class sensibilities
in feminist thought results from both who did the theorizing and how they did
it. White middle-class women's advantaged viewpoint in a racist and classbound culture, coupled with the Western tendency to construct the self as distinct
from "other," distorts their depictions of reality in predictable directions (Young
1990). The consequences of these distortions have been identified in a variety
of places, and analyses of them have enlivened every aspect of feminist scholarship (see, for example, Aptheker 1989; Collins 1990; Davis 1981; Hurtado
1989; Zinn 1990).
For example, bell hooks points out that feminism within the United States
has never originated among the women who are most oppressed by sexism,
"women who are daily beaten down, mentally, physically, and spirituallywomen who are powerless to change their condition in life*'(1984, 1). The fact
that those most victimized are least likely to question or protest is, according to
hooks (1984), a consequence of their victimization. From this perspective, the
white middle-class character of most feminist thought stems directly from the
identities of those who produce it.
Aida Hurtado notes further the requisite time and resources that are involved
in the production of feminist writing: "without financial assistance, few low-income and raciavethnic students can attend universities; without higher education, few working-class and ethniclracial intellectuals can become professors"
(1989, 838). Given that academics dominate the production of published feminist scholarship, it is not surprising that feminist theory is dominated by white,
highly educated women (see also hooks 1981; Joseph and Lewis 1981).
Still others (Collins 1990; Davis 1981; Lorde 1984; Moraga and Anzaldua
1981; Zinn, Cannon, Higginbotham, and Dill 1986) point to the racism and
classism of feminist scholars themselves. Maxine Baca Zinn and her colleagues observe that, "despite white, middle-class feminists' frequent expressions of interest and concern over the plight of minority and working-class
women, those holding the gatekeeping positions at important feminist journals
are as white as are those at any mainstream social science or humanities
publication" (1986,293).
Racism and classism can take a variety of forms. Adrienne Rich contends
that, although white (middle-class) feminists may not consciously believe that
their race is superior to any other, they are often plagued by a form of "white
solipsism''-thinking, imagining, and speaking "as if whiteness described the
world," resulting in "a tunnel-vision which simply does not see nonwhiteWest, Fenstermaker I DOING DIFFERENCE 11
experience or existence as precious or significant, unless in spasmodic, impotent
guilt reflexes, which have little or no long-term, continuing usefulness" (1979,
306). White middle-class feminists, therefore, may offer conscientious expressions of concern over "racism-and-classism," believing that they have thereby
taken into consideration profound differences in women's experience; simultaneously, they can fail to see those differences at all (Bhavani in press).
There is nothing that prevents any of these dynamics from coexisting and
working together. For example, Patricia Hill Collins (1990) argues that the
suppression of Black feminist thought stems both from white feminists' racist
and classist concerns and from Black women intellectuals' consequent lack of
participation in white feminist organizations. Similarly, Chede Moraga (1981)
argues that the "denial of difference" in feminist organizations derives not only
from white middle-class women's failure to "see" it but also from women of
color's and working-class women's reluctance to challenge such blindness.
Alone and in combination with one another, these sources of bias do much to
explain why there has been a general failure to articulate race and class within
the parameters of feminist scholarship; however, they do not explain the attraction of mathematical metaphors to right the balance. To understand this development, we must look further at the logic of feminist thought itself.
Mathematical Metaphors and Feminist Thought
Following the earlier suggestion of bell hooks (1981; see also Hull, Scott,
and Smith 1982). Elizabeth Spelman contends that, in practice, the term
"women" actually functions as a powerful false generic in white feminists'
thinking:
The "problem of difference" for feminist theory has never been a general one about
how to weigh the importance of what we have in common against the importance
of our differences. To put it that way hides two crucial facts: First, the description
of what we have in common "as women" has almost always been a description of
white middle-class women. Second, the "difference" of this group of women-
that is, their being white and middle-class-has never had to be "brought into"
feminist theory. To bring in "difference" is to bring in women who aren't white
and middle class. (1988.4)
She warns that thinking about privilege merely as a characteristic of individuals-rather than as a characteristic of modes of thought-may afford us an
understanding of "what privilege feeds but not what sustains it" (1988.4).
What are the implications of a feminist mode of thought that is so severely
limited? The most important one, says Spelman, is the presumption that we can
effectively and usefully isolate gender from race and class. To illustrate this
point, she draws on many white feminists who develop their analyses of sexism
by comparing and contrasting it with "other" forms of oppression. Herein she
finds the basis for additive models of gender, race, and class, and "the ampersand
problem":
de Beauvoir tends to talk about comparisons between sex and race, or between
sex and class, or between sex and culture . . . comparisons between sexism and
racism, between sexism and classism, between sexism and anti-Semitism. In the
work of Chodorow and others influencedby her, we observe a readiness to look
for links between sexism and other forms of oppression as distinct from sexism.
(1988, 115)
Spelman notes that in both cases, attempts to add "other" elements of identity
to gender, or "other" forms of oppression to sexism, disguise the race (white)
and class (middle) identities of those seen as "women" in the first place. Rich's
"white solipsism" comes into play again, and it is impossible to envision how
women who are not white and middle class fit into the picture.
Although Spelman (1988) herself does not address mathematical metaphors
based on multiplication, we believe that her argument is relevant to understanding how they develop. For example, take Cynthia Fuchs Epstein's (1973)
notion of the "positive effect of the multiple negative" on the success of Black
professional women. According to Epstein, when the "negative status" of being
a woman is combined with the "negative status" of being Black, the result is the
"positive status" of Black professional women in the job market. Baca Zinn and
her colleagues contend that the very idea of this "multiple negative" having a
positive effect "could not have survived the scrutiny of professional Black
women or Black women students" (1986,293). They suggest that only someone
who was substantially isolated from Black women and their life experiences
could have developed such a theory (and, presumably, only someone similarly
situated could have promoted its publication in an established mainstream
sociology journal).
Spelman's (1988) analysis highlights the following problem: if we conceive
of gender as coherently isolatable from race and class, then there is every reason
to assume that the effects of the three variables can be multiplied, with results
dependent on the valence (positive or negative) of those multiplied variables;
yet, if we grant that gender cannot be coherently isolated from race and class in
the way we conceptualize it, then multiplicative metaphors make little sense.
If the effects of "multiple oppression" are not merely additive nor simply
multiplicative, what are they? Some scholars have described them as the
products of "simultaneous and intersecting systems of relationship and meaning" (Andersen and Collins 1992, xiii; see also Almquist 1989; Collins 1990;
Glenn 1985). This description is useful insofar as it offers an accurate characterization of persons who are simultaneously oppressed on the basis of gender,
race, and class, in other words, those "at the intersection" of all three systems of
domination; however, if we conceive of the basis of oppression as more than
membership in a category, then the theoretical implications of this formulation
are troubling. For instance, what conclusions shall we draw from potential
comparisons between persons who experience oppression on the basis of their
race and class (e.g., working-class men of color) and those who are oppressed
on the basis of their gender and class (e.g., white working-class women)? WouldWest, FenstennakerI DOING DIFFERENCE 13
the "intersection of two systems of meaning in each case be sufficient to predict
common bonds among them?'Clearly not, says June Jordan: "When these
factors of race, class and gender absolutely collapse is whenever you try to use
them as automatic concepts of connection." She goes on to say that, while these
concepts may work very well as indexes of "commonly felt conflict," their
predictive value when they are used as "elements of connection" is "about as
reliable as precipitation probability for the day after the night before the day"
(1985,46).
What conclusions shall we draw from comparisons between persons who are
said to suffer oppression "at the intersection" of all three systems and those who
suffer in the nexus of only two? Presumably, we will conclude that the latter are
"less oppressed" than the former (assuming that each categorical identity set
amasses a specific quantity of oppression). Moraga warns, however, that "the
danger lies in ranking the oppressions. The danger lies infailing to acknowledge
the specificity of the oppression" (1981,29).
Spelman (1988, 123-25) attempts to resolve this difficulty by characterizing
sexism, racism, and classism as "interlocking" with one another. Along similar
lines, Margaret Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins (1992, xii) describe gender,
race, and class as "interlocking categories of experience." The image of interlocking rings comes to mind, linked in such a way that the motion of any one of
them is constrained by the others. Certainly, this image is more dynamic than
those conveyed by additive, multiplicative, or geometric models: we can see
where the rings are joined (and where they are not), as well as how themovement
of any one of them would be restricted by the others, but note that this image
still depicts the rings as separate parts.
If we try to situate particular persons within this array, the problem with it
becomes clear. We can, of course, conceive of the whole as "oppressed people"
and of the rings as "those oppressed by gender," "those oppressed by race," and
"those oppressed by class" (see Figure 1). This allows us to situate women and
men of all races and classes within the areas covered by the circles, save for
white middle- and upper-class men, who fall outside them. However, what if we
conceive of the whole as "experiencew3and of the rings as gender, race, and class
(see Figure 2)?
Here, we face an illuminating possibility and leave arithmetic behind: no
person can experience gender without simultaneously experiencing race and
class. As Andersen and Collins put it, "While race, class and gender can be seen
as different axes of social structure, individual persons experience them simultaneously" (1992, X X ~ ) . ~It is this simultaneity that has eluded our theoretical
treatments and is so difficult to build into our empirical descriptions (for an
admirable effort, see Segura 1992).Capturing it compels us to focus on the actual
mechanisms that produce social inequality. How do forms of inequality, which
we now see are more than the periodic collision of categories, operate together?
How do we see that all social exchanges, regardless of the participants or the
outcome, are simultaneously "gendered," "raced," and "classed"?
Figure 1:Oppressed People
NOTE: 1 = White upper- and middle-classwomen; 2 = Upper- and middle-class women of
color; 3 = Upper- and middle-classmen of color; 4 =Working-class women of color; 5 =
White working-class women; 6 =Working-classmen of color; 7 =White working-class men;
8 = White upper- and middle-class men. This figure is necessarily oversimplified. For
example, upper- and middle-class people are lumped together, neglecting the possibility
of significant differences between them.
To address these questions, we first present some earlier attempts to conceptualize gender. Appreciation for the limitations of these efforts, we believe, affords us a
way to the second task: reconceptualizing the dynamics of gender, race, and class
as they figure simultaneously in human institutions and interaction.
TRADITIONAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER
To begin, we turn to Arlie Russell Hochschild's "A Review of Sex Roles
Research," published in 1973. At that time, there were at least four distinct ways
of conceptualizing gender within the burgeoning literature on the topic: (1) as
sex differences, (2) as sex roles, (3) in relation to the minority status of women,
and (4) in relation to the caste/class status of women. Hochschild observes that
each of these conceptualizationsled to a different perspective on the behaviors
of women and men:West, Fenstemaker/ DOING DIFFERENCE 15
Figure 2: Experience
NOTE: 1 = White upper- and middle-class women; 2 = Upper- and middle-class women of
color; 3 = Upper- and middle-class men of color; 4 = Working-class women of color; 5 =
White working-classwomen; 6 =Working-classmen of color; 7 =Whiteworking-class men;
8 = White upper- and middle-class men. This figure is necessarily oversimplified. For
example, upper- and middle-class people are lumped together, neglecting the possibility
of significant differences between them.
What is to type 1 a feminine trait such as passivity is to type 2 a role element, to
type 3 is a minority characteristic, and to type 4 is a response to powerlessness.
Social change might also look somewhat different to each perspective; differences
disappear, deviance becomes normal, the minority group assimilates, or power is
equalized. (1973,1013)
Nona Glazer observes a further important difference between the types
Hochschild identified, namely, where they located the primary source of inequality between women and men:
The sex dlgerence and [sex]roles approaches share an emphasis on understanding
factors that characterize individuals. These factors may be inherent to each sex or
acquired by individuals in the course of socialization. The minority group and
caste/class approaches share an emphasis on factors that are external to individuals, a concern with the structure of social institutions, and with the impact of
historical events. (1977,103)
In retrospect, it is profoundly disturbing to contemplate what the minority
group approach and the classlcaste approach implied about feminist thinking at16 GENDER & SOCIETY I February 1995
the time. For example, Juliet Mitchell launched 'Women: The Longest Revolution" with the claim that "[tlhe situation of women is different from that of any
other social group . . .within the world of men, their position is comparable to
that of an oppressed minority" (1966, 11). Obviously, if "women" could be
compared to "an oppressed minority," they had to consist of someone other than
"oppressed minorities" themselves (cf. Hacker 1951).
Perhaps because of such theoretical problems, feminist scholars have largely
abandoned the effort to describe women as a caste, as a class, or as a minority
group as a project in its own right (see, for example, Aptheker 1989;Hull, Scott,
and Smith 1982). What we have been left with, however, are two prevailing
conceptualizations: (1) the sex differences approach and (2) the sex roles approach. And note, while the minority group and castdclass approaches were
concerned with factors external to the individual (e.g., the structure of social
institutions and the impact of historical events), the approaches that remain
emphasize factors that characterize the individual (Glazer 1977).
Arguably, some might call this picture oversimplified. Given the exciting
new scholarship that focuses on gender as something that is socially constructed,
and something that converges with other inequalities to produce difference
among women, have we not moved well beyond "sex differences" and "sex
roles"? A close examination of this literature suggests that we have not. For
example, Collins contends that
[wlhile race and gender are both socially constructed categories, constmctions of
gender rest on clearer biological criteria than do constructionsof race. Classifying
African-Americans into specious racial categories is considerably more difficult
than noting the clear biological differences distinguishing females from
males . . . Women do share common experiences, but the experiences are not
generally the same type as those affecting racial and ethnic groups. (1990, 27,
emphasis added)
Of course, Collins is correct in her claim that women differ considerably from
one another with respect to the distinctive histories, geographic origins, and
cultures they share with men of their same race and class. The problem, however,
is that what unites them as women are the "clear biological criteriadistinguishing
females from males." Here, Collins reverts to treating gender as a matter of sex
differences (i.e., as ultimately traceable to factors inherent to each sex), in spite
of her contention that it is socially constructed. Gender becomes conflated with sex,
as race might speciously be made equivalent to color.
Consider a further example. Spelman launches her analysis with a discussion
of the theoretical necessity of distinguishing sex from gender. She praises de
Beauvoir (1953) for her early recognition of the difference between the two and
goes on to argue,
It is one thing to be biologically female, and quite another to be shaped by one's
culture into a "woman"-a female with feminine qualities, someone who does the
kinds of things "women" not "men" do, someone who has the kinds of thoughts
and feelings that make doing these things seem an easy expression of one's
feminine nature. (1988, 124)
How, then, does Spelman conceive of the social construction of woman? She
not only invokes "sexual roles" to explain this process (1988, 121-23) but also
speaks of "racial roles" (1988, 106) that affect the course that the process will
take. Despite Spelman's elegant demonstration of how "woman" constitutes a
false generic in feminist thought, her analysis takes us back to "sex roles" once
again.
Our point here is not to take issue with Collins (1990) or Spelman (1988) in
particular; it would be a misreading of our purpose to do so. We cite these works
to highlight a more fundamental difficulty facing feminist theory in general: new
conceptualizations of the bases of gender inequality still rest on old conceptualizations of gender (West and Fenstermaker 1993, 151). For example, those
who rely on a sex differences approach conceive of gender as inhering in the
individual, in other words, as the masculinity or femininity of a person. Elsewhere (Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman, 1991; West and Fenstermaker
1993; West and Zimmerman 1987), we note that this conceptualization obscures
our understanding of how gender can structure distinctive domains of social
experience (see also Stacey and Thorne 1985). "Sex differences" are treated as
the explanation instead of the analytic point of departure.
Although many scholars who take this approach draw on socialization to
account for the internalization of femininity and masculinity, they imply that by
about five years of age these differences have become stable characteristics of
individuals-much like sex (West and Zimmerman 1987, 126). The careful
distinction between sex and gender, therefore, is obliterated, as gender is reduced
effectively to sex (Gerson 1985).5When the social meanings of sex are rerooted
in biology, it becomes virtually impossible to explain variation in gender
relations in the context of race and class. We must assume, for example, that the
effects of inherent sex differences are either added to or subtracted from those
of race and class. We are led to assume, moreover, that sex differences are more
fundamental than any other differences that might interest us (see Spelman 1988,
116-19, for a critical examination of this assumption)-unless we also assume
that race differences and class differences are biologically based (for refutations
of this assumption, see Gossett 1965; Montagu 1975; Omi and Winant 1986;
and Stephans 1982).
Those who take a sex roles approach are confounded by similar difficulties,
although these may be less apparent at the outset. What is deceptive is role
theory's emphasis on the specific social locations that result in particular
expectations and actions (Komarovsky 1946, 1992; Linton 1936; Parsons 1951;
Parsons and Bales 1955). In this view, the actual enactment of an individual's
"sex role" (or, more recently, "gender role") is contingent on the individual's
social structural position and the expectations associated with that position. The
focus is on gender as a role or status, as it is learned and enacted. In earlier work
(Fenstermaker, West, and Zirnmerman 1991;West andFenstermaker 1993;West
and Zimmerman 1987), we have noted several problems with this approach,
including its inability to specify actions appropriate to particular "sex roles" in
advance of their occurrence, and the fact that sex roles are not situated in any
particular setting or organizational context (Lopata and Thorne 1978; Thorne
1980). The fact that "sex roles" often serve as "master statuses" (Hughes 1945)
makes it hard to account for how variations in situations produce variations in
their enactment. Given that gender is potentially omnirelevant to how we
organize social life, almost any action could count as an instance of sex role
enactment.
The most serious problem with this approach, however, is its inability to
address issues of power and inequality (Connell1985; Lopata and Thorne 1987;
Thorne 1980). Conceiving of gender as composed of the "male role" and the
"female role" implies a separate-but-equal relationship between the two, one
characterized by complementary relations rather than conflict. Elsewhere (Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman 1991;West and Fenstermaker 1993; West and
Zirnmerman 1987), we illustrate this problem with Barrie Thorne and her
colleagues' observation that social scientists have not made much use of role
theory in their analyses of race and class relations. Concepts such as "race roles"
and "class roles" have seemed patently inadequate to account for the dynamics
of power and inequality operating in those contexts.
As many scholars have observed, empirical studies of the "female role" and
"male role" have generally treated the experiencesof white middle-classpersons
as prototypes, dismissing departures from the prototypical as instances of
deviance. This is in large part what has contributed to the charges of white
middle-class bias we discussed earlier. It is also what has rendered the sex role
approach nearly useless in accounting for the diversity of gender relations across
different groups.
Seeking a solution to these difficulties, Joan Acker has advanced the view
that gender consists of something else altogether, namely, "patterned, socially
produced distinctions between female and male, feminine and masculine . . . [that occur] in the course of participation in work organizations as well
as in many other locations and relations" (1992b, 250). The object here is to
document the "gendered processes" that sustain "the pervasive ordering of
human activities, practices and social structures in terms of differentiations
between women and men" (1992a, 567).
We agree fully with the object of this view and note its usefulness in capturing
the persistence and ubiquity of gender inequality. Its emphasis on organizational
practices restores the concern with "the structure of social institutions and with
the impact of historical events" that characterized earlier class/caste approaches,
and facilitatesthe simultaneous documentation of gender, race, and class as basic
principles of social organization.We suggest, however, that the popular distinction between "macro" and "micro" levels of analysis reflected in this view makesWest, Fenstermaker I DOING DIFFERENCE 19
it possible to empirically describe and explain inequality without fully apprehending the common elements of its daily unfolding. For example, "processes
of interaction" are conceptualized apart from the "production of gender divisions," that is, "the overt decisions and procedures that control, segregate,
exclude, and construct hierarchies based on gender, and often race" (Acker
1992a, 568). The production of "images, symbols and ideologies that justify,
explain, and give legitimacy to institutions" constitutes yet another "process,"
as do "the [mental] internal processes in which individuals engage as they
construct personas that are appropriately gendered for the institutional setting"
(Acker 1992a, 568). The analytic "missing link," as we see it, is the mechanism
that ties these seemingly diverse processes together, one that could "take into
account the constraining impact of entrenched ideas and practices on human
agency, but [could] also acknowledge that the system is continually construed
in everyday life and that, under certain conditions, individuals resist pressures
to conform to the needs of the system" (Essed 1991,38).
In sum, if we conceive of gender as a matter of biological differences or
differential roles, we are forced to think of it as standing apart from and outside
other socially relevant, organizing experiences. This prevents us from understanding how gender, race, and class operate simultaneously with one another.
It prevents us from seeing how the particular salience of these experiences might
vary across interactions. Most important, it gives us virtually no way of adequately addressing the mechanisms that produce power and inequality in social
life. Instead, we propose a conceptual mechanism for perceiving the relations
between individual and institutional practice, and among forms of domination.
AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICALPERSPECTIVE
Don Zimmerman concisely describes ethnomethodological inquiry as proposing "that the properties of social life which seem objective, factual, and
transsituational, are actually managed accomplishments or achievements of
local processes" (1978, 11). In brief, the "objective" and "factual" properties of
social life attain such status through the situated conduct of societal members.
The aim of ethnomethodology is to analyze situated conduct to understand how
"objective" properties of social life achieve their status as such.
The goal of this article is not to analyze situated conduct per se but to
understand the workings of inequality. We should note that our interest here is
not to separate gender, race, and class as social categories but to build a coherent
argument for understanding how they work simultaneously. How might an
ethnomethodologicalperspective help with this task? As Marilyn Frye observes,
For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that the structure not appear to be a
cultural artifact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear
natural-that it appear to be quite a direct consequence of facts about the beast
which are beyond the scope of human manipulation. (1983, 34)
Gender
Within Western societies, we take for granted in everyday life that there are
two and only two sexes (Garfinkel 1967, 122). We see this state of affairs as
"only natural" insofar as we see persons as "essentially, originally and in the
final analysis either 'male' or 'female' " (Garfinkel 1967, 122). When we
interact with others, we take for granted that each of us has an "essential" manly
or womanly nature-ne that derives from our sex and one that can be detected
from the "natural signs" we give off (Goffman 1976,75).
These beliefs constitute the normative conceptions of our culture regarding
the properties of normally sexed persons. Such beliefs support the seemingly
"objective," "factual," and "transsituational" character of gender in social affairs, and in this sense, we experience them as exogenous (i.e., as outside of us
and the particular situation we find ourselves in). Simultaneously, however, the
meaning of these beliefs is dependent on the context in which they are invokedrather than transsituational, as implied by the popular concept of "cognitive
consensus" (Zimmerman 1978, 8-9). What is more, because these properties of
normally sexed persons are regarded as "only natural," questioning them is
tantamount to calling ourselves into question as competent members of society.
Consider how these beliefs operate in the process of sex assignment-the
initial classification of persons as either females or males (West and Zimmerman 1987, 131-32).We generally regard this process as a biological determination requiring only a straightforward examination of the "facts of the matter"
(cf. the description of sex as an "ascribed status" in many introductory sociology
texts). The criteria for sex assignment, however, can vary across cases (e.g.,
chromosome type before birth or genitalia after birth). They sometimes do and
sometimes do not agree with one another (e.g., hermaphrodites), and they show
considerable variation across cultures (Kessler and McKenna 1978). Our moral
conviction that there are two and only two sexes (Garfinkel 1967, 116-18) is
what explains the comparative ease of achieving initial sex assignment. This
conviction accords females and males the status of unequivocal and "natural"
entities, whose social and psychological tendencies can be predicted from their
reproductive functions (West and Zimmerman 1987, 127-28). From an ethnomethodological viewpoint, sex is socially and culturally constructed rather
than a straightforward statement of the biological "facts."
Now, consider the process of sex categorization-the ongoing identification
of persons as girls or boys and women or men in everyday life (West and
Zimmerman 1987, 132-34). Sex categorization involves no well-defined set of
criteria that must be satisfied to identify someone; rather, it involves treating
appearances (e.g., deportment, dress, and bearing) as if they were indicative of
underlying states of affairs (e.g., anatomical, hormonal, and chromosomal
arrangements). The point worth stressing here is that, while sex category serves
as an "indicator" of sex, it does not depend on it. Societal members will "see" s
world populated by two and only two sexes, even in public situations that
preclude inspection of the physiological "facts." From this perspective, it is
important to distinguish sex category from sex assignment and to distinguish
both from the "doing" of gender.
Gender, we argue, is a situated accomplishment of societal members, the local
management of conduct in relation to normative conceptions of appropriate
attitudes and activities for particular sex categories (West and Zimmerman 1987,
134-35). From this perspective, gender is not merely an individual attribute but
something that is accomplished in interaction with others. Here, as in our earlier
work, we rely on John Heritage's (1984, 136-37) formulation of accountability:
the possibility of describing actions, circumstances, and even descriptions of
themselves in both serious and consequential ways (e.g., as "unwomanly" or
"unmanly"). Heritage points out that members of society routinely characterize
activities in ways that take notice of those activities (e.g., naming, describing,
blaming, excusing, or merely acknowledging them) and place them in a social
framework (i.e., situating them in the context of other activities that are similar
or different).
The fact that activities can be described in such ways is what leads to the
possibility of conducting them with an eye to how they might be assessed (e.g.,
as "womanly" or "manly" behaviors). Three important but subtle points are
worth emphasizing here. One is that the notion of accountability is relevant not
only to activities that conform to prevailing normative conceptions (i.e., activities that are conducted "unremarkably," and, thus, do not warrant more than a
passing glance) but also to those activities that deviate. The issue is not deviance
or conformity; rather, it is the possible evaluation of action in relation to
normative conceptions and the likely consequence of that evaluation for subsequent interaction. The second point worth emphasizing is that the process of
rendering some action accountable is an interactional accomplishment. As
Heritage explains, accountability permits persons to conduct their activities in
relation to their circumstances-in ways that permit others to take those circumstances into account and see those activities for what they are. "[Tlhe intersubjectivity of actions," therefore, "ultimately rests on a symmetry between the
production of those actions on the one hand and their recognition on the other*'
(1984,179)--both in the context of their circumstance^.^ And the third point we
must stress is that, while individuals are the ones who do gender, the process of
rendering something accountable is both interactional and institutional in character: it is a feature of social relationships, and its idiom derives from the
institutional arena in which those relationshipscome to life. In the United States,
for example, when the behaviors of children or teenagers have become the focus
of public concern, the Family and Motherhood (as well as individual mothers)
have been held accountable to normative conceptions of "essential" femininity
(including qualities like nurturance and caring). Gender is obviously much more
than a role or an individual characteristic: it is a mechanism whereby situated
social action contributes to the reproduction of social structure (West and
Fenstermaker 1993, 158).
Womanly and manly natures thusly achieve the status of objective properties
of social life (West and Zirnmerman 1987). They are rendered natural, normal
characteristics of individuals and, at the same time, furnish the tacit legitimation
of the distinctive and unequal fates of women and men within the social order.
If sex categories are potentially omnirelevant to social life, then persons engaged
in virtually any activity may be held accountable for their performance of that
activity as women or as men, and their category membership can be used to
validate or discredit their other activities. This arrangement provides for countless situations in which persons in a particular sex category can "see" that they
are out of place, and if they were not there, their current problems would not
exist. It also allows for seeing various features of the existing social order-for
example, the division of labor (Berk 1985),the development of gender identities
(Cahill 1986), and the subordination of women by men (Fenstermaker, West,
and Zirnmerman 1991)--as "natural" responses. These things "are the way they
are" by virtue of the fact that men are men and women are women-a distinction
seen as "natural," as rooted in biology, and as producing fundamental psychological, behavioral, and social consequences.
Through this formulation, we resituate gender, an attribute without clear
social origin or referent, in social interaction. This makes it possible to study
how gender takes on social import, how it varies in its salience and consequence,
and how it operates to produce and maintain power and inequality in social life.
Below, we extend this reformulation to race, and then, to class. Through this
extension, we are not proposing an equivalence of oppressions. Race is not class,
and neither is gender; nevertheless, while race, class, and gender will likely take
on different import and will often carry vastly different social consequences in
any given social situation, we suggest that how they operate may be productively
compared. Here, our focus is on the social mechanics of gender, race, and class,
for that is the way we may perceive their simultaneous workings in human
affairs.
Race
Within the United States, virtually any social activity presents the possibility
of categorizing the participants on the basis of race. Attempts to establish race
as a scientific concept have met with little success (Gosset 1965;Montagu 1975;
Omi and Winant 1986; Stephans 1982). There are, for example, no biological
criteria (e.g., hormonal, chromosomal, or anatomical) that allow physicians to
pronounce race assignment at birth, thereby sorting human beings into distinctive races.7 Since racial categories and their meanings change over time and
place, they are, moreover, arbitrary.' In everyday life, nevertheless, people can
and do sort out themselves and others on the basis of membership in racial
categories.
Michael Omi and Howard Winant argue that the "seemingly obvious, 'natural' and 'common sense' qualities" of the existing racial order "themselvesWest, Fenstermaker 1 DOING DIFFERENCE 23
testify to the effectiveness of the racial formation process in constructing racial
meanings and identities" (1986, 62). Take, for instance, the relatively recent
emergence of the category "Asian American." Any scientific theory of race
would be hard pressed to explain this in the absence of a well-defined set of
criteria for assigning individuals to the category. In relation to ethnicity, furthermore, it makes no sense to aggregate in a single category the distinctive histories,
geographic origins, and cultures of Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,
Korean, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese Americans. Despite important distinctions among these groups, Omi and Winant contend, "the majority of Americans
cannot tell the difference" between their members (1986, 24). "Asian American," therefore, affords a means of achieving racial categorization in everyday
life.
Of course, competent members of U.S. society share preconceived ideas of
what members of particular categories "look like" (Omi and Winant 1986, 62).
Remarks such as "Odd, you don't look Asian" testify to underlying notions of
what "Asians" ought to look like. The point we wish to stress, however, is that
these notions are not supported by any scientific criteria for reliably distinguishing members of different "racial" groups. What is more, even state-mandated
criteria (e.g., the proportion of "mixed blood" necessary to legally classify
someone as B l a ~ k ) ~are distinctly different in other Western cultures and have
little relevance to the way racial categorization occurs in everyday life. As in the
case of sex categorization, appearances are treated as if they were indicative of
some underlying state.
Beyond preconceived notions of what members of particular groups look
like, Omi and Winant suggest that Americans share preconceived notions of
what members of these groups are like. They note, for example, that we are likely
to become disoriented "when people do not act 'Black,' 'Latino,' or indeed
'white' "(1986.62). From our ethnomethodologicalperspective, what Omi and
Winant are describing is the accountability of persons to race category. If we
accept their contention that there are prevailing normative conceptions of
appropriate attitudes and activities for particular race categories and if we grant
Heritage's (1984, 179) claim that accountability allows persons to conduct their
activities in relation to their circumstances (in ways that allow others to take
those circumstances into account and see those activities for what they are), we
can also see race as a situated accomplishment of societal members. From this
perspective, race is not simply an individual characteristic or trait but something
that is accomplished in interaction with others.
To the extent that race category is omnirelevant (or even verges on this), it
follows that persons involved in virtually any action may be held accountable
for their performance of that action as members of their race category. As in the
case of sex category, race category can be used to justify or discredit other
actions; accordingly, virtually any action can be assessed in relation to its race
categorical nature. The accomplishment of race (like gender) does not necessarily mean "living up" to normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appro-
priate to a particular race category; rather, it means engaging in action at the risk
of race assessment. Thus, even though individuals are the ones who accomplish
race, "the enterprise is fundamentally interactional and institutional in character,
for accountability is a feature of social relationships and its idiom is drawn from
the institutional arena in which those relationships are enacted" (West and
Zirnmerman 1987, 137).
The accomplishment of race renders the social arrangements based on race
as normal and natural, that is, legitimate ways of organizing social life. In the
United States, it can seem "only natural" for counselors charged with guiding
high school students in their preparation for college admission to advise Black
students against advanced courses in math, chemistry, or physics "because
Blacks do not do well" in those areas (Essed 1991,242). The students may well
forgo such courses, given that they "do not need them" and "can get into college
without them." However Philomena Essed observes, this ensures that students
so advised will enter college at a disadvantage in comparison to classmates and
creates the very situation that is believed to exist, namely, that Blacks do not do
well in those areas. Small wonder, then, that the proportion of U.S. Black
students receiving college degrees remains stuck at 13 percent, despite two
decades of affirmative action programs (Essed 1991,26). Those Black students
who are (for whatever reason) adequately prepared for college are held to
account for themselves as "deviant" representatives of their race category and,
typically, exceptionalized (Essed 1991, 232). With that accomplishment, institutional practice and social order are reaffirmed.
Although the distinction between "macro" and "micro" levels of analysis is
popular in the race relations literature too (e.g., in distinguishing "institutional"
from "individual" racism or "macro-level" analyses of racialized social structures from "micro-level" analyses of identity formation), we contend that it is
ultimately a false distinction. Not only do these "levels" operate continually and
reciprocally in "our lived experience, in politics, in culture [and] in economic
life" (Omi and Winant 1986, 67), but distinguishing between them "places the
individual outside the institutional, thereby severing rules, regulations and
procedures from the people who make and enact them" (Essed 1991, 36). We
contend that the accountability of persons to race categories is the key to
understanding the maintenance of the existing racial order.
Note that there is nothing in this formulation to suggest that race is necessarily
accomplished in isolation from gender. To the contrary, if we conceive of both
race and gender as situated accomplishments, we can see how individual persons
may experience them simultaneously. For instance, Spelman observes that,
[ilnsofar as she is oppressed by racism in a sexist context and sexism in a racist
context, the Black woman's struggle cannot be compartmentalized into two
struggles-ne as a Black and one as a woman. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine
why a Black woman would think of her struggles this way except in the face ol'
demands by white women or by Black men that she do so. (1988, 124)
To the extent that an individual Black woman is held accountable in one situation
to her race category, and in another, to her sex category, we can see these as
"oppositional" demands for accountability. But note, it is a Black woman who
is held accountable in both situations.
Contrary to Omi and Winant's (1986,62) use of hypothetical cases, on any
particular occasion of interaction, we are unlikely to become uncomfortable
when "people" do not act "Black," "people" do not act "Latino," or when
"people" do not act "white." Rather, we are likely to become disconcerted when
particular Black women do not act like Black women, particular Latino men do
not act like Latino men, or particular white women do not act like white
women-in the context that we observe them. Conceiving of race and gender as
ongoing accomplishments means we must locate their emergence in social
situations, rather than within the individual or some vaguely defined set of role
expectations.1°
Despite many important differences in the histories, traditions, and varying
impacts of racial and sexual oppression across particular situations, the mechanism underlying them is the same. To the extent that members of society know
their actions are accountable, they will design their actions in relation to how
they might be seen and described by others. And to the extent that race category
(like sex category) is omnirelevant to social life, it provides others with an
ever-available resource for interpreting those actions. In short, inasmuch as our
society is divided by "essential" differences between members of different race
categories and categorization by race is both relevant and mandated, the accomplishment of race is unavoidable (cf. West and Zimmerman 1987, 137).
For example, many (if not most) Black men in the United States have, at some
point in their lives, been stopped on the street or pulled over by police for no
apparent reason. Many (if not most) know very well that the ultimate grounds
for their being detained is their race and sex category membership. Extreme
deference may yield a release with the command to "move on," but at the same
time, it legitimates the categorical grounds on which the police (be they Black
or white) detained them in the first place. Indignation or outrage (as might befit
a white man in similar circumstances) is likely to generate hostility, if not
brutality, from the officers on the scene (who may share sharply honed normative
conceptions regarding "inherent" violent tendencies among Black men). Their
very survival may be contingent on how they conduct themselves in relation to
normative conceptions of appropriate attitudes and activities for Black men in
these circumstances. Here, we see both the limited rights of citizenship accorded
to Black men in U.S. society and the institutional context (in this case, the
criminal justice system) in which accountability is called into play.
In sum, the accomplishment of race consists of creating differences among
members of different race categories-differences that are neither natural nor
biological (cf. West and Zimmerman 1987,137). Once created, these differences
are used to maintain the "essential" distinctiveness of "racial identities" and the26 GENDER & SOCIETY/ February 1995
institutional arrangements that they support. From this perspective, racial identities are not invariant idealizations of our human natures that are uniformly
distributed in society. Nor are normative conceptions of attitudes and activities
for one's race category templates for "racial" behaviors. Rather, what is invariant
is the notion that members of different "races" have essentially different natures,
which explain their very unequal positions in our society."
Class
This, too, we propose, is the case with class. Here, we know that even
sympathetic readers are apt to balk: gender, yes, is "done," and race, too, is
"accomplished," but class? How can we reduce a system that "differentially
structures group access to material resources, including economic, political and
social resources" (Andersen and Collins 1992, 50) to "a situated accomplishment"? Do we mean to deny the material realities of poverty and privilege? We
do not. There is no denying the very different material realities imposed by
differing relations under capital; however, we suggest that these realities have
little to do with class categorization-and ultimately, with the accountability of
persons to class categories-in everyday life.
For example, consider Shellee Colen's description of the significance of
maids' uniforms to white middle-class women who employ West Indian immigrant women as child care workers and domestics in New York City. In the words
of Judith Thomas, one of the West Indian women Colen interviewed,
She [the employer] wanted me to wear the uniform. She was really prejudiced.
She just wanted that the maid must be identified . . . She used to go to the beach
every day with the children. So going to the beach in the sand and the sun and she
would have the kids eat ice cream and all that sort of thing. . .I tell you one day
when I look at myself, I was so dirty . . .just like I came out from a garbage can.
(1986,57).
At the end of that day, says Colen, Thomas asked her employer's permission to
wear jeans to the beach the next time they went, and the employer gave her
permission to do so. When she did wear jeans, and the employer's brother came
to the beach for a visit, Thomas noted,
I really believe they had a talk about it, because in the evening, driving back from
the beach, she said "Well, Judith, I said you could wear something else to thebeach
other than the uniform [but] I think you will have to wear the uniform because
they're very informal on this beach and they don't know who is guests from who
isn't guests." (1986,57).
Of the women Colen interviewed (in 1985), not one was making more than
$225 a week, and Thomas was the only one whose employer was paying for
medical insurance. All (including Thomas) were supporting at least two households: their own in New York, and that of their kin back in the West Indies. By
any objective social scientific criteria, then, all would be regarded as members
of the working-class poor; yet, in the eyes of Thomas's employer (and, apparently, the eyes of others at the beach), Thomas's low wages, long hours, and
miserable conditions of employment were insufficient to establish her class
category. Without a uniform, she could be mistaken for one of the guests and,
hence, not be held accountable as a maid.
There is more to this example, of course, than meets the eye. The employer's
claim notwithstanding, it is unlikely that Thomas, tending to white middle-class
children who were clearly not her own, would be mistaken for one of the guests
at the beach. The blue jeans, however, might be seen as indicating her failure to
comply with normative expectations of attitudes and behaviors appropriate to a
maid and, worse yet, as belying the competence of her employer (whose
authority is confirmed by Thomas displaying herself as a maid). As Evelyn
Nakano Glenn notes in another context, "the higher standard of living of one
woman is made possible by, and also helps to perpetuate, the other's lower
standard of living" (1992,34).
Admittedly, the normative conceptions that sustain the accountability of
persons to class category are somewhat different from those that sustain accountability to sex category and race category. For example, despite earlier attempts
to link pauperism with heredity and thereby justify the forced sterilization of
poor women in the United States (Rafter 1992), scientists today do not conceive
of class in relation to the biological characteristics of a person. There is,
moreover, no scientific basis for popular notions of what persons in particular
class categories "look like" or "act like." But although the dominant ideology
within the United States is no longer based explicitly on Social Darwinism (see,
for example, Gossett 1965, 144-75) and although we believe, in theory, that
anyone can make it, we as a society still hold certain truths to be self-evident.
As Donna Langston observes:
If hard work were the sole determinantof your ability to support yourself and your
family, surely we'd have a different outcome for many in our society. We also,
however, believe in luck and on closer examination, it certainly is quite a
coincidence that the "unlucky" come from certain race, gender and class backgrounds. In order to perpetuate racist, sexist and classist outcomes, we also have
to believe that the current economic distribution is unchangeable, has always
existed, and probably exists in this form throughout the known universe, i.e., it's
"natural." (1991, 146)
Langston pinpoints the underlying assumptions that sustain our notions about
persons in relation to poverty and privilege-assumptions that compete with our
contradictory declarations of a meritocratic society, with its readily invoked
exemplar, Horatio Alger. For example, if someone is poor, we assume it is
because of something they did or did not do: they lacked initiative, they were
not industrious, they had no ambition, and so forth. If someone is rich, or merely
well-off, it must be by virtue of their own efforts, talents, and initiative. While
these beliefs certainly look more mutable than our views of women's and men's
"essential" natures or our deep-seated convictions regarding the characteristics
of persons in particular race categories, they still rest on the assumption that a
person's economic fortunes derive from qualities of the person. Initiative is thus
treated as inherent among the haves, and laziness is seen as inherent among the
have-nots.I2Given that initiative is a prerequisite for employment in jobs leading
to upward mobility in this society, it is hardly surprising that "the rich get richer
and the poor get poorer." As in the case of gender and race, profound historical
effects of entrenched institutional practice result, but they unfold one accomplishment at a time.
To be sure, there are "objective" indicators of one's position within the
system of distribution that differentially structure our access to resources. It is
possible to sort members of society in relation to these indicators, and it is the
job of many public agencies (e.g., those administering aid to families with
dependent children, health benefits, food stamps, legal aid, and disability
benefits) to do such sorting. In the process, public agencies allocate further
unequal opportunities with respect to health, welfare, and life chances; however,
whatever the criteria employed by these agencies (and these clearly change over
time and place), they can be clearly distinguished from the accountability of
persons to class categories in everyday life.
As Benjamin DeMott (1990) observes, Americans operate on the basis of a
most unusual assumption, namely, that we live in a classless society. On the one
hand, our everyday discourse is replete with categorizationsof persons by class.
DeMott (1990, 1-27) offers numerous examples of television shows, newspaper
articles, cartoons, and movies that illustrate how class "will tell" in the most
mundane of social doings. On the other hand, we believe that we in the United
States are truly unique "in escaping the hierarchies that burden the rest of the
developed world" (DeMott 1990,29). We cannot see the system of distribution
that structures our unequal access to resources. Because we cannot see this, the
accomplishment of class in everyday life rests on the presumption that everyone
is endowed with equal opportunity and, therefore, that real differences in the
outcomes we observe must result from individual differences in attributes like
intelligence and character.
For example, consider the media's coverage of the trial of Mary Beth
Whitehead, the wife of a sanitation worker and surrogate mother of Baby M, As
DeMott (1990, 96-101) points out, much of this trial revolved around the
question of the kind of woman who would agree to bear and sell her child to
someone else. One answer to this question might be "the kind of woman" who
learned early in life that poverty engenders obligations of reciprocal sacrifice
among people--even sacrifice for those who are not their kin (cf. Stack 1974).
Whitehead was one of eight children, raised by a single mother who worked on
and off as a beautician. Living in poverty, members of her family had often relied
on "poor but generous neighbors" for help and had provided reciprocal assistance when they could. When William and Betsy Stern (a biochemist and a
pediatrician) came to her for help, therefore, Whitehead saw them as "seemingly
desperate in their childlessness, threatened by a ruinous disease (Mrs. Stem's
self-diagnosed multiple sclerosis), [and] as people in trouble, unable to cope
without her" (DeMott 1990, 99). Although she would be paid for carrying the
pregnancy and although she knew that they were better off financially than she
was, Whitehead saw the Stems as "in need of help" and, hence, could not do
otherwise than to provide it. DeMott explains:
She had seen people turn to others helplessly in distress, had herself been turned
to previously; in her world failure to respond was unnatural. Her class experience,
together with her own individual nature, made it natural to perceive the helping
side of surrogacy as primary and the commercial side as important yet secondary.
(1990,98)
Another answer to the "what kind of woman" question might be Whitehead's lack of education about the technical aspects of artificial insemination
(DeMott 1990, 100). A high school dropout, she thought that this procedure
allowed clinicians to implant both a man's sperm and a woman's egg in another
woman's uterus, thereby making it possible for infertile couples to have their
own genetic children. It was not until just before the birth that Whitehead learned
she would be the one contributing the egg and, subsequently, would not be
bearing their child but her own. Under these circumstances, it would certainly
seem "natural" for her to break her contract with the Sterns at the point of
learning that it required her to give them her baby.
The media coverage of Whitehead's trial focused neither on class-based
understandings of altruism nor on class-associated knowledge of sexual
reproduction; rather, it focused on the question of Whitehead's character:
The answers from a team of expert psychologists were reported in detail. Mrs.
Whitehead was described as "impulsive, egocentric, self-dramatic, manipulative
and exploitative." One member of the team averred that she suffered from a
"schizotypal personality disorder." [Another] gave it as his opinion that the
defendant's ailment was a "mixed personality disorder," and that she was "immature, exhibitionistic, and histrionic." . . . [Ulnder the circumstances,he did not see
that "there were any 'parental rights' "; Mrs. Whitehead was "a surrogate
uterus" . . ."and not a surrogate mother." (DeMott 1990.96)
Through these means, "the experts" reduced Whitehead from a woman to a
womb, and, therefore, someone with no legitimate claim to the child she had
helped to conceive. Simultaneously, they affirmed the right of Betsy Stem to be
the mother-even of a child she did not bear. As Whitehead's attorney put it in
his summation, "What we are witnessing, and what we can predict will happen,
is that one class of Americans will exploit another class. And it will always be
the wife of the sanitation worker who must bear the children for the pediatrician"
(Whitehead and Schwartz-Nobel 1989, 160, cited in DeMott 1990, 97). The
punch line, of course, is that our very practices of invoking "essential differences" between classes support the rigid system of social relations that disparately distributes opportunities and life chances. Without these practices, the
"natural" relations under capital might well seem far more malleable.30
The accomplishment of class renders the unequal institutional arrangements
based on class category accountable as normal and natural, that is, as legitimate
ways of organizing social life (cf. West and Zimmerman 1987). Differences
between members of particular class categories that are created by this process
can then be depicted as fundamental and enduring dispo~itions.'~In this light,
the institutional arrangements of our society can be seen as responsive to the
differences-the social order being merely an accommodation to the natural
order.
In any given situation (whether or not that situation can be characterized as
face-to-face interaction or as the more "macro" workings of institutions), the
simultaneous accomplishments of class, gender, and race will differ in content
and outcome. From situation to situation, the salience of the observables relevant
to categorization (e.g., dress, interpersonal style, skin color) may seem to eclipse
the interactional impact of the simultaneous accomplishment of all three. We
maintain, nevertheless, that, just as the mechanism for accomplishment is
shared, so, too, is their simultaneous accomplishment ensured.
CONCLUSION: THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENCE
As we have indicated, mathematical metaphors describing the relations
among gender, race, and class have led to considerable confusion in feminist
scholarship. As we have also indicated, the conceptualizations of gender that
support mathematical metaphors (e.g., "sex differences" and "sex roles") have
forced scholars to think of gender as something that stands apart from and
outside of race and class in people's lives.
In putting forth this perspective, we hope to advance a new way of thinking
about gender, race, and class, namely, as ongoing, methodical, and situated
accomplishments. We have tried to demonstrate the usefulness of this perspective for understanding how people experience gender, race, and class simultaneously. We have also tried to illustrate the implications of this perspective for
reconceptualizing "the problem of difference" in feminist theory.
What are the implications of our ethnomethodological perspective for an
understanding of relations among gender, race, and class? First, and perhaps
most important, conceiving of these as ongoing accomplishmentsmeans that we
cannot determine their relevance to social action apart from the context in which
they are accomplished (Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman 1991; West and
Fenstermaker 1993). While sex category, race category and class category are
potentially omnirelevant to social life, individuals inhabit many different identities, and these may be stressed or muted, depending on the situation. For
example, consider the following incident described in detail by Patricia Williams, a law professor who, by her own admission, "loves to shop" and is known
among her students for her "neat clothe^":'
Buzzers are big in New York City. Favored particularly by smaller stores and
boutiques, merchants throughout the city have installed them as screening devices
to reduce the incidence of robbery: if the face at the door looks desirable, the
buzzer is pressed and the door is unlocked. If the face is that of an undesirable,
the door stays pressed and the door is locked. I discovered [these buzzers] and
their meaning one Saturday in 1986. I was shopping in Soho and saw in a store
window a sweater that I wanted to buy for my mother. I pressed my round brown
face to the window and my finger to the buzzer, seeking admittance.Anarrow-eyed
white teenager, wearing running shoes and feasting on bubble gum glared out,
evaluating me for signs that would pit me against the limits of his social understanding. After about five minutes, he mouthed "we're closed," and blew pink
rubber at me. It was two Saturdays before Christmas, at one o'clock in the
afternoon; there were several white people in the store who appeared to be
shopping for things for their mothers. (1991,44)
In this incident, says Williams, the issue of undesirability revealed itself as a
racial determination. This is true in a comparative sense; for example, it is
unlikely that a white woman law professor would have been treated this way by
this salesperson and likely that a Latino gang member would have. This is also
true in a legal sense; for example, in cases involving discrimination, the law
requires potential plaintiffs to specify whether or not they were discriminated
against on the basis of sex or race or some other criterion. We suggest, however,
that sex category and class category, although muted, are hardly irrelevant to
Williams's story. Indeed, we contend that one reason readers are apt to find this
incident so disturbing is that it did not happen to a Latino gang member but to
a Black woman law professor. Our point is not to imply that anyone should be
treated this way but to show that one cannot isolate Williams's race category
from her sex category or class category and fully understand this situation. We
would argue, furthermore, that how class and gender are accomplished in concert
with race must be understood through that specific interaction.
A second implication of our perspective is that the accomplishment of race,
class, and gender does not require categorical diversity among the participants.
To paraphrase Erving Goffman, social situations "do not so much allow for the
expression of natural differences as for the production of [those] difference[s
themselves]" (1977, 72). Some of the most extreme displays of "essential"
womanly and manly natures may occur in settings that are usually reserved for
members of a single sex category, such as locker rooms or beauty salons (Gerson
1985). Some of the most dramatic expressions of "definitive" class characteristics may emerge in class-specific contexts (e.g., debutante balls). Situations
that involve more than one sex category, race category, and class category may
highlight categorical membership and make the accomplishment of gender, race,
and class more salient, but they are not necessary to produce these accomplishments in the first place. This point is worth stressing, since existing formulations
of relations among gender, race, and class might lead one to conclude that
"difference" must be present for categorical membership and, thus, dominance
to matter.
of relations among gender, race, and class might lead one to conclude that
"difference" must be present for categorical membership and, thus, dominance
to matter.
A third implication is that, depending on how race, gender, and class are
accomplished, what looks to be the same activity may have different meanings
for those engaged in it. Consider the long-standing debates among feminists
(e.g., Collins 1990; Davis 197 1; Dill 1988; Firestone 1970; Friedan 1963; hooks
1984; Hurtado 1989; Zavella 1987) over the significance of mothering and child
care in women's lives. For white middle-class women, these activities have often
been seen as constitutive of oppression in that they are taken as expressions of
their "essential" womanly natures and used to discredit their participation in
other activities (e.g., Friedan 1963). For many women of color (and white
working-class women), mothering and child care have had (and continue to have)
very different meanings. Angela Davis (1971,7) points out that, in the context of
slavery, AfricanAmerican women's efforts to tend to the needs of African American
children (not necessarily their own) represented the only labor they performed that
could not be directly appropriated by white slave owners. Throughout U.S. history,
bell hooks observes,
Black women have identified work in the context of the family as humanizing
labor, work that affirms their identity as women, as human beings showing love
and care, the very gestures of humanity white supremacist ideology claimed black
people were incapable of expressing. (1984, 133-34)
Looking specifically at American family life in the nineteenth century, Bonnie
Thornton Dill (1988) suggests that being a poor or working-class African
American woman, a Chinese American woman, or a Mexican American woman
meant something very different from being a Euro-American woman. Normative, class-bound conceptions of "woman's nature" at that time included tenderness, piety, and nurturancequalities that legitimated the confinement of middle-class Euro-American women to the domestic sphere and that promoted such
confinement as the goal of working-class and poor immigrant Euro-American
families' efforts.
For racial-ethnic women, however, the notion of separate spheres served to
reinforce their subordinate status and became, in effect, another assault. As they
increased their work outside the home, they were forced into a productive sphere
that was organized for men and "desperate" women who were so unfortunate or
immoral that they could not confine their work to the domestic sphere. In the
productive sphere, however, they were denied the opportunity to embrace the
dominant ideological definition of "good wife and mother. (Dill 1988,429)
Fourth and finally, our perspective affords an understanding of the accomplishment of race, gender, or class as constituted in the context of the differential
"doings" of the others. Consider, for example, the very dramatic case of the U.S.
Senate hearings on Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Wherever we turned, whether to visual images on a television screen or to the
was a Black man and that he was a Black man. It also made a difference,
particularly to the African American community, that he was a Black man who
had been raised in poverty. Each categorical dimension played off the others and
off the comparable but quite different categorizations of Anita Hill (a "selfmade" Black woman law professor, who had grown up as one of 13 children).
Most white women who watched the hearings identified gender and men's
dominance as the most salient aspects of them, whether in making sense of the
Judiciary Committee's handling of witnesses or understanding the relationship
between Hill and Thomas. By contrast, most African American viewers saw
racism as the most salient aspect of the hearings, including white men's prurient
interest in Black sexuality and the exposure of troubling divisions between Black
women and men (Morrison 1992). The point is that how we label such dynamics
does not necessarily capture their complex quality. Foreground and background,
context, salience, and center shift from interaction to interaction, but all operate
interdependently.
Of course, this is only the beginning. Gender, race, and class are only three
means (although certainly very powerful ones) of generating difference and
dominance in social life." Much more must be done to distinguish other forms
of inequality and their workings. Empirical evidence must be brought to bear
on the question of variation in the salience of categorical memberships, while
still allowing for the simultaneous influence of these memberships on interaction. We suggest that the analysis of situated conduct affords the best prospect
for understanding how these "objective" properties of social life achieve their
ongoing status as such and, hence, how the most fundamental divisions of our
society are legitimated and maintained.
NOTES
I. In this article, we use "race" rather than "ethnicity" to capture the commonsensical beliefs
of members of our society. As we will show, these beliefs are predicated on the assumption that
different "races" can be reliably distinguished from one another.
2. Compare, for example, the very different implications of "Double Jeopardy: To Be Black
and Female" (Beale 1970) and "Positive Effects of the Multiple Negative: Explaining the Success
of Black Professional Women" (Epstein 1973).
3. In this context, we define "experience" as participation in social systems in which gender.
race, and class affect, determine, or otherwise influence behavior.
4. Here, it is important to distinguish an individual's experience of the dynamics of gender.
race, and class as they order the daily course of social interaction from that individual's sense of
identity as a member of gendered, raced, and classed categories. For example, in any given
interaction, a woman who is Latina and a shopkeeper may experience the simultaneous effects of
gender, race, and class, yet identify her experience as only "about" race, only "about" gender, or
only "about" class.
5. The ambivalence that dogs the logic of social constructionist positions should now be all
too familiar to feminist sociologists. If we are true to our pronouncements that social inequalities
and the categories they reference (e.g.. gender, race, and class) are not rooted in biology, then we
may at some point seem to flirt with the notion that they are, therefore, rooted in nothing. For us,34 GENDER & SOCIETYI February 1995
biology is not only not destiny but also not the only reality. Gender, race, and class inequalities are
fumly rooted in the ever-present realities of individual practice, cultural conventions, and social
institutions.That's reality enough, when we ponder the pernicious and pervasive character of racism,
sexism, and economic oppression.
6. That persons may be held accountable does not mean that they necessarily will be held
accountable in every interaction. Particular interactional outcomes are not the point here; rather, it
is the possibility of accountability in any interaction.
7. To maintain vital statistics on race, California, for instance, relies on mothers' and fathers'
self-identifications on birth certificates.
8. Omi and Winant (1986.64-75) provide numerous empirical illustrations, including the first
appearance of "white" as a term of self-identification (circa 1680). California's decision to
categorize Chinese people as "Indian" (in 1854), and the U.S.Census's creation of the category
"Hispanic" (in 1980).
9. Consider Susie Guillory Phipps's unsuccessful suit against the Louisiana Bureau of Vital
Records (Omi and W~nant1986,57). Phipps was classified as "Black" on her birth certificate, in
accord with a 1970 Louisiana law stipulating that anyone with at least one-thirty-second " N e p
blood was "Black." Her attorney contended that designating a race category on a person's birth
certificatewas unconstitutional and that, in any case, the one-thirty-second criterion was inaccurate.
Ultimately, the court upheld Louisiana's state law quantifying "racial identity" and thereby affirmed
the legal principle of assigning persons to specific "racial" groups.
10. This would be true if only because outcomes bearing on power and inequality are so different
in different situations. Ours is a formulation that is sensitive to variability, that can accommodate,
for example, interactions where class privilege and racism seem equally salient, as well as those in
which racism interactionally "eclipses" accountability to sex category.
11. As Spelman observes, 'The existence of racism does not require that there are races; it
requires the belief that there are races" (1988,208, n. 24).
12. A devil's advocate might argue that gender, race, and class are fundamentally different
because they show different degrees of "mutability" or latitude in the violation of expectations in
interaction. Although class mobility is possible, one might argue, race mobility is not; or, while sex
change operations can be performed, race change operations cannot. In response, we would point
out that the very notion that one cannot change one's race-but can change one's sex and manipulate
displays of one's class-only throws us back to biology and its reassuring, but only apparent,
immutability.
13. Although we as a society believe that some people may "pull themselves up by their
bootstraps" and others may "fall from grace," we still cherish the notion that class will reveal itself
in a person's fundamental social and psychological character. We commonly regard the self-made
man, the welfare mother, and the middle-class housewife as distinct categories of persons, whose
attitudes and activities can be predicted on categorical grounds.
14. We include these prefatory comments about shopping and clothes for those readers who, on
encountering this description, asked, "What does she look like?'and 'What was she wearing?"
Those who seek further information will find Williams featured in a recent fashion layout for
Mirabella magazine (As Smart as They Look 1993).
15. We cannot stress this strongly enough. Gender, race, and class are obviously very salient
social accomplishments in social life, because so many featuresof our cultural institutionsand daily
discourse are organized to perpetuate the categorical distinctions on which they are based. As
Spelman observes, "the more a society has invested in its members' getting the categories right, the
more occasions there will be for reinforcing them, and the fewer occasions there will be for
questioningthem" (1988,152). On any given occasion of interaction. however, we may also be held
accountable to other categorical memberships (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, place
of birth), and, thus, "difference" may then be differentially constituted.
REFERENCES
Acker, Joan. 1992a. Gendered institutions: From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary
Sociology 21565-69.
. 1992b. Gendering organizational theory. In Gendering Organiuzrioml Theory, edited by
Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred. London: Sage.
Almquist, Elizabeth. 1989. The experiences of minority women in the United States: Intersections
of race, gender, and class. In Women:A feminist perspective. edited by Jo Freeman. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield.
Andersen, Margaret L.. and Patricia Hill Collins. 1992. Preface to Race, class and gender, edited
by Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Aptheker, Bettina. 1989. Tapestries of life: Women's work women'sconsciousness,and the meaning
of daily experience. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
As smart as they look. Mirabella, June 1993, 100-111.
Beale, Frances. 1970. Doublejeopardy: To be Black and female. In The Black woman: An anthology,
edited by Toni Cade (Bambara). New York: Signet.
Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker. 1985. The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American
howeholds. New York: Plenum.
Bhavani, Kum-Kum. In press. Talking racism and the editing of women's studies. In Introducing
women's studies, edited by Diane Richardson and Vicki Robinson. New Yo&: Macmillan.
Cahill, Spencer E. 1986. Childhood socialization as recruitment process: Some. lessons from the
study of gender development. In Sociological studies of child development, edited by Patricia
Adler and Peter Adler. Greenwich, CT:JAI.
Colen, Shellee. 1986. "W~threspect and feelings": Voices of West Indian child care and domestic
workers in New York City. In All American women, edited by Johnetta B. Cole. New York: Free
Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.
C o ~ e l l ,R.W. 1985. Theorizing gender. Sociology 19:260-72.
Davis, Angela. 1971. The Black woman's role in the community of slaves. Black Scholar 3:3-15.
. 1981. Women, race and class. New York: Random House.
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The second sex. New York: Knopf.
DeMott, Benjamin. 1990. The imperial middle: Why Americans can't think straight about class.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dill, Bonnie Thomton. 1988. Our mothers' grief: Racial ethnic women and the maintenance of
families.Journal of Family History 13:415-31.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 1973. Positive effects of the double negative: Explaining the success of
Black professional women. In Changing women in a changing society, edited by Joan Huber.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Essed, Philomena. 1991. Understanding everyday racism: An intenlisciplimry theory. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Fenstermaker, Sarah, Candace West, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1991. Gender inequality: New
conceptual terrain. In Gender;family and economy: The triple overlap, edited by Rae Lesser
Blumberg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The dialectic of sex. New York: Morrow.
Friedan, Betty. 1963. Thefeminine mystique. New York: Dell.
Frye, Marilyn. 1983. The politics of reality: Essays infeminist theory. Trumansburg,NY:Crossing
Press.
Garfinkel. Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnamerhodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gerson, Judith. 1985. The variability and salience of gender: Issues of conceptualization and
measurement.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Washington, DC, August.36 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 1995
Glazer, Nona. 1977. A sociological perspective: Introduction. In Woman in a man-made world,
edited by Nona Glazer and Helen Youngelson Waehrer. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1985. Racial ethnic women's labor: The intersection of race, gender and
class oppression. Review of Radical Polirical Economics 17:86-108.
. 1992. From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid
reproductive labor. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18:l-43.
Goffman, Erving. 1976. Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Ksual Communication
3:69-77.
. 1977. The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society 4:301-31.
Gossett, Thomas. 1965. Race: The history of an idea in America. New York: Schocken Books.
Hacker, Helen Mayer. 1951. Women as a minority group. Social Forces 30:60-69.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology.Cambridge, England: Polity.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1973. A review of sex role research. American Journal of Sociology
78:lOll-29.
hooks, bell. 1981.Ain'f I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End.
. 1984. From margin to center. Boston: South End.
Hughes, Everett C. 1945. Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology
50:353-59.
Hull, Gloria T., Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith, eds. 1982. All the women are white, all the
B k k are men, but some of us are brave. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
Hurtado, Aida. 1989. Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white
women and women of color. Signs: Joumul of Women in Culture and Society 14:833-55.
Jordan, June. 1985. Report from the Bahamas. In On call: Political essays. Boston: South End.
Joseph, Gloria, and Jill Lewis, eds. 1981. Common dlTerences. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Kessler, Suzanne J., and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender An ethnomethodologicalapproach. New
York: Wiley.
Komarovsky, Mirra. 1946. Cultural contradictions and sex roles. American Journal of Sociology
52:184-89.
. 1992. The concept of social role revisited. Gender & Society 6:301-12.
Langston, Donna. 1991. Tired of playing monopoly? In Changing our powec An introduction to
women's studies, 2d ed., edited by Jo Whitehorse Cochran, Donna Langston, and Carolyn
Woodward. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Linton, Ralph. 1936. The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century.
Lopata, Helena Z., and Barrie Thorne. 1987. On the term "sex roles." Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 3:718-21.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister outsider. Trumansburg,N Y : Crossing.
Montagu, Ashley, ed. 1975. Race & IQ. London: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Juliet. 1966. Women: The longest revolution. New &$Review 40:ll-37.
Moraga, Chem'e. 1981. La giiera. In This bridge calledmy back: Radical writing by women of color,
edited by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzalduri. New York: Kitchen Table Press.
Moraga, Chem'e, and Gloria AnzaiduA, eds. 1981. This bridge called my back: Writingsby radical
women of color. Watertown, M A : Persephone.
Morrison, Toni, ed. 1992. Race-ing justice, engender-ing power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence
Thomas, and the construction of social reality. New York: Pantheon.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial formation in the United Statesfrom the 1960s to
the 1980s. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The social system. New York: Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott, and Robert F. Bales. 1955. Family, socialization and interaction process. New
York: Free Press.
Rafter, Nichole H. 1992. Claims-making and socio-cultural context in the first U.S. eugenics
campaign. Social Problems 39:17-34.West, Fenstermaker I DOING DIFFERENCE 37
Rich, Adrienne. 1979. Disloyal to civilization: Feminism, racism, gynephobia. In On lies, secrets,
andsilence. New York: Norton.
Segura, Denise A. 1992. Chicanas in white collar jobs: "You have to prove yourself more."
Sociological Perspectives 35:163-82.
Spelman, Elizabeth V. 1988.Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion infeminist thought. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thome. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social
Problems 32:301-16.
Stack, Carol B. 1974.All our kin: Strategiesfor survival in a Blnck community. New York: Harper
& Row.
Stephans, Nancy. 1982. The idea of race in science. Hamden, CT: Archon.
Thome, Barrie. 1980. Gender. . . How is it best conceptualized? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
West, Candace, and Sarah Fenstermaker. 1993.Power, inequality and the accomplishment of gender:
An ethnomethodological view. In Theory on gendergeminism on theory, edited by Paula
England. New York: Aldine.
Wesl Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society 1:125-51.
Williams, Patricia. 1991. The alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Young, Iris Mation. 1990. Impartiality and the civic public. In Throwing like a girl and other essays
in feminist philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Zavella, Patricia. 1987. Women's work and Chicanofamilies: Cannery workers of the Santa Clara
Valley.Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.
Zimmerman, Don H. 1978. Ethnomethodology.American Sociologist 13:6-15.
Zinn, Maxine Baca. 1990. Family, feminism and race in America. Gender & Society 4:68-82.
Zinn, Maxine Baca, Lynn Weber Cannon, Elizabeth Higginbotham,and Bonnie Thomton Dill. 1986.
The costs of exclusionarypractices in women's studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 11:290-303.
Candoce West is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa C r u ~Her
recent articles focus on different aspects of the problem addressed here: the interactional
scaffolding of social structure.
Sarah Fenstermaker is Professor of Sociology and Women'sStudies and Associate Dean of
the Graduate Division at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her works have
explored the accomplishments of race, class, and gendes and the gendered determinants of
the householddivisionof labor:Her current workfurtherarticulates the relationshipberween
work and inequality.You have printed the following article:
Doing Difference
Candace West; Sarah Fenstermaker
Gender and Society, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Feb., 1995), pp. 8-37.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0891-2432%28199502%299%3A1%3C8%3ADD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
References
From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions
Joan Acker
Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 21, No. 5. (Sep., 1992), pp. 565-569.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-3061%28199209%2921%3A5%3C565%3AFSRTGI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
The Arrangement between the Sexes
Erving Goffman
Theory and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 301-331.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0304-2421%28197723%294%3A3%3C301%3ATABTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
Women as a Minority Group
Helen Mayer Hacker
Social Forces, Vol. 30, No. 1. (Oct., 1951), pp. 60-69.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7732%28195110%2930%3A1%3C60%3AWAAMG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
A Review of Sex Role Research
Arlie Russell Hochschild
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 4, Changing Women in a Changing Society. (Jan.,
1973), pp. 1011-1029.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28197301%2978%3A4%3C1011%3AAROSRR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status
Everett Cherrington Hughes
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 5. (Mar., 1945), pp. 353-359.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28194503%2950%3A5%3C353%3ADACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles
Mirra Komarovsky
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Nov., 1946), pp. 184-189.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28194611%2952%3A3%3C184%3ACCASR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
Claims-Making and Socio-Cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics Campaign
Nicole H. Rafter
Social Problems, Vol. 39, No. 1. (Feb., 1992), pp. 17-34.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28199202%2939%3A1%3C17%3ACASCIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
Chicanas in White-Collar Jobs: "You Have to Prove Yourself More"
Denise A. Segura
Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 35, No. 1, Women in the Workplace: Toward True Integration.
(Spring, 1992), pp. 163-182.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0731-1214%28199221%2935%3A1%3C163%3ACIWJ%22H%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology
Judith Stacey; Barrie Thorne
Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 4. (Apr., 1985), pp. 301-316.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28198504%2932%3A4%3C301%3ATMFRIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -
Comments
Post a Comment