CH 1 Opening Conversations DRAFT VERSION
Sara N. Davis & Mary Gergen
"Language inevitably structures one's own experience of reality as
well as the experience of those to whom one communicates." Rachel
Hare-Mustin & Jeanne Marecek
These are exciting times for those who study gender relations.
Feminist scholars, including many psychologists, now question what has
heretofore been accepted as scientific truth about women and men. They
have examined claims to knowledge with new questions and new philosophies
about what it means to gain knowledge (Butler, 1990; Harding, 1986; Oliver,
1991). They are investigating issues of self-interest and power. They
ask how established views have justified or made invisible the power of
some and the oppression of many and how knowledge has benefitted some
people and harmed others (Flax, 1990; Grosz, 1994; Hare-Mustin & Marecek,
1990; Hekman,1990 ). Central to the concerns of these gender scholars has
been a focus on language. How have the terms used to describe differences
between women and men been influenced by sexist biases? (Gergen, 1994)
Their work has provoked strong reactions, both within and beyond the
academic community, as it has opened the way for new understandings of the
world, and of ourselves as gendered beings.
Within this book, we have gathered together a collection of work
that lies at the cutting edge of feminist scholarship, work that challenges
psychological traditions, but at the same time attempts to generate
alternatives. Yet even as we commend this collection, we recognize that
its meanings are not sealed within the borders of these pages. What these
words mean - what importance they have - depends upon the reader, as their
co-construer. As such, the book is both an invitation and a challenge to
the reader. It is an invitation to enter into this exciting world, and to
enjoy the prospects that these authors bring to gender studies. It is also
a challenge to join in this endeavor yourself, and with the support of
these chapters, generate new perspectives on gendered relations and new
practices within science and society. As Brenda Marshall has said, "What
is at stake in our readings, our interpretations? It's not just a game.
Every interpretation is a political move." So too are your responses to
these pages.
Feminist Psychology: A Glance Backward
The basic commitment of feminist psychologists from many
backgrounds has been to overcome the commonplace stereotypes of gender
differences, and to eradicate the biases that serve to suppress women in
society. They have taken several different scientific paths to achieve
this goal. Following the work of philosopher Sandra Harding (1986), we can
describe three such paths in the field of gender studies in psychology
today, and gain a better appreciation of the particular character of this
book.
The traditional path, still predominant in much of psychology, is
the empiricist one. Here the scientist sets out to study events in the
world, to collect data in a reliable and valid manner, and to report
these findings objectively. The empirical study of sex differences dates
to the early part of the century, and already the feminist voice could be
heard, often in objection to the practices of other researchers.
Two early feminist psychologists, who attacked the traditional
wisdoms of the field, were Helen Thompson Woolley and Leta Hollingworth.
Woolley criticized the sex difference research then practiced for being the
codification of male biases against women. For example, psychologists, as
well as other scholars, believed that too much intense brain activity, as
required by higher education, would enfeeble the reproductive capacities of
a women, and thus women were unsuitable candidates for professional
degrees. Leta Hollingworth also challenged the prevailing wisdom; she
argued that sex difference research was founded on very few significant
results, despite efforts by psychologists to emphasize differences, and
this research tended to segregate the sexes into the categories of
"well-adjusted males" and "maladjusted females" (Morawski, 1994).
Despite these critiques of early research efforts to define sex
differences, the effort to find scientific evidence that differentiated
the sexe continued unabated over the century. The earliest major summary
of this work covering the first sixty years of the century in the U.S. was
The Psychology of Sex Differences (Maccoby and Jacklin,1974). In their
conclusions, these editors, in agreement with Woolley and Hollingworth,
found very few well-documented differences between the sexes. Thereafter,
more sophisticated quantitative methods, such as meta-analysis, were
developed; yet, despite the capacity to increase the scope and precision
of the measurements, researchers discovered very few significant
differences in psychological variables between the sexes (Eagly, 1987; Hyde
& Linn, 1986)..
Although empirical studies are still the most prevalent form of
inquiry within gender studies in psychology, limitations to this way of
doing research have been noted. Most importantly, some have argued that
empirical research disrupts the contextualized nature of subjects' lives.
Ideally, from the empirical point of view, subjects are taken out of their
normal environments and placed in a situation designed by the researcher.
In order to maintain scientific rigor, the scientist controls as many
aspects of the research situation as possible, and then manipulates
significant variables in order to discover the causal relations among
variables. Studying "real" people in their ordinary settings is not ideal
for developing scientifically sophisticated results, from the empiricist
viewpoint. Critics argue that this method of doing research interferes
with the utility of the results (Curt, 1994; Fonow & Cook, 1991; Gergen,
1988) ; they are not about real people in their life circumstances, but are
artifacts of scientific manipulations. Empirical research practices also
discourage any relationship between the scientist and subject, thus
people are objectified (as "things") for research purposes. Empirical
researchers also believe that research methods should be value-neutral in
order to avoid the danger of any politicized interest influencing the
subjects within the experimental setting. Rather than trying to solve
immediate practical problems, empirical scientists argue that they are
testing scientific hypotheses drawn from theory, not exploring everyday
life (Gergen, 1988). While there are many advantages to the empirical
method, these limitations have encouraged some feminist psychologists to
attempt other approaches to increasing knowledge within the field.
An important alternative to the empirical approach is identified as
the Feminist Standpoint Position (Harding, 1986) . This position
emphasizes the importance of knowledge-gathering as a personal activity, in
which the researcher and the researched are recognized as in relation to
one another. Both must take into account their own experiences, gained
from their own perspectives, not from some universal standpoint, the
so-called "God's eye view", which the objectivity-seeking empirical
psychologists value (Haraway, 1988). Within the United States, the most
well-known exponents of the feminist standpoint position in psychology are
Harvard psychologist, Carol Gilligan, and her colleagues. Gilligan's
classic book, In a Different Voice, emphasized the capacity of women to
speak from their own experiences (1982). Many standpoint psychologists
have studied individual experiences as a way to enrich the psychology of
women, while also indirectly challenging the validity of traditional
scientific methods. In rejecting the negativity of the traditional
stereotypes of women, Feminist Standpoint researchers have often
celebrated women's special natures, and thus, have emphasized rather than
denied important differences between the sexes (Daly, 1978; Hartsock,
1983).
Empiricist psychologists have both benefitted from and complained
about the views of standpoint psychologists. Many scientific psychologists
have faulted the feminist standpoint researchers for the lack of scientific
rigor and objectivity in their work. The standpoint theoriests have also
been criticized for their essentialist views of women, that is views that
suggest that women are either born different from men, or inevitably must
become so. Others question the feminist standpoint notion that personal
narratives can serve as the final arbiter of "truth".
While many feminists have accepted women's differences from men,
especially as they are celebrated in many standpoint theories, there is
also a wariness of some feminist psychologists that widening the gaps
between men and women in terms of basic human qualities may instantiate
stereotyped thinking and the rigidifying of social segregation. If, for
example, women are found to be more nurturant than men, can they make
difficult and important decisions? Should they be allowed to become police
officers, attend military academies or run for President, who is Chief of
Staff for all the Armed Services, if they are so nurturant?
With numerous doubts about past practices, many feminists
have sought ways of working that would capitalize on the strengths of each
of these positions, but would at the same time, alter our understanding of
how they can contribute to the field. In adding richness and dimension to
feminist inquiry, this new position also links psychology to other
feminist studies, thus giving it a voice in broader fields of inquiry.
Compelled by the view of science and knowledge as human inventions, these
scholars join many others in the sciences and humanities in a social
constructionist orientation.
Social Construction in the Foreground
"The danger of thinking you know it all is at no time greater than
when it comes to grasping hold of definitions." Diane Elam
As Diane Elam has suggested in this quotation, it is always
dangerous to define something. And, although there are many differences
and disagreements among feminist scholars who call themselves social
constructionists, one theme provides a broad accord. This is the awareness
of science as a communal achievement. To help you evaluate the
contributions appearing in this volume, a description of the core features
of social constructionism are set forth.
1. Central to the social constructionist position is the view
that whatever we label as a " fact" is dependent upon the language
communities that have created and sustained it. Social constructionists
argue that all forms of naming are socially constructed, including
seemingly basic biological categories, such as the female - male sex
distinction (Butler, 1990; 1993). The social constructionist stance is at
odds with our everyday notions that sex is an essential biologically-based
distinction. Talking about "the sexes" is an important way of making sense
within our world, and that it is not easy to imagine that this distinction
is arbitrary or that we could eliminate it from our vocabularies (Fuss,
1989; Hekman, 1990). While, on the surface it may seem absurd to argue
against "the reality" of basic biological sex differences, recall that
"women" have been ejected from the Olympics in recent years for lacking the
proper chromosomal indicators that the athlete in question is a woman.
This determination of sex, as provided by chromosome measurements, can
result in a person being declared "male", despite all other indicators that
the person "is" a woman. In terms of a psychology of gender, the findings
concerning gender differences and the nature of women and men are
intimately connected to the scientific communities that advance them. The
social constructionist position does not imply that such facts are,
therefore, useless or invalid; on the contrary they are used by people to
make sense of their lives (Kitzinger, 1987; Marecek, 1995).
2. People generate their truth from the languages available to
them. Thus, any "fact" about the world depends upon the language within
which it is expressed. Things are known through their names. Words do not
simply "map" or "copy" the world; they create what we take the world to be.
The impact of this view on a psychology of gender is that terms of
understanding within the field are open to question and reconstruction.
Some feminist social constructionists, for example, have challenged the
ways in which the sexes have often been described as "opposites" (Butler,
1990; Hekman, 1990). Constructionists ask whether psychologists, for
example, should accept the notion that the basic polarities of the
discipline - man vs. woman; male vs. female; and masculine vs. feminine -
are the most important distinctions to study? They ask: do we always,
everywhere, or anywhere, want to accept these dichotomies? What are the
social costs in doing so? At the same time as questions such as these
should be asked, the social constructionist does not require questioning
every choice in every situation. Sometimes one may emphasize sex
differences, and sometimes one may minimize them (Gergen, 1993). For
example, in cases of job equity, arguing gender differences may (or may
not) be essential to the effort of ensuring the rights of women
(Farganis, 1994).
Within the psychology of gender, and in other disciplines, women
of color have objected to the manner in which non-colored women have
claimed to speak for all women, without taking the differences among women
into account. Social constructionist ideas have been liberating to those
who struggle with the difficulties of being defined by others, without
suggesting that there is only one proper way to be defined. As bell hooks
has said, social constructionist "thought is useful for African-Americans
concerned with reformulating outmoded notions of identity. We have too long
had imposed upon us from both the outside and the inside a narrow,
constricting notion of blackness". We are reminded that there are
multiple ways of giving words to create worlds, and no one way is the only
way.
3. The social constructionist position implies that any type of
description of the nature of reality is dependent upon the historical and
cultural location of that description. Every culture has its own notions
of the "real". How ancient Greek or Roman philosophers described the
members of a household was influenced by whether or not they had the status
of free men or women and slaves, for example; their written passages are
filled with distinctions between free men and women and slaves that do not
"make sense" to us. In addition, within any subculture, even within the
same historical and general cultural period, groups of people have
different distinctions that are useful for them, but might not be sensible
to outsiders. People who are heavily involved in body piercing and
tattooing, for example, adhere to standards of fashion, physical beauty and
body boundaries that differ from people who are not involved in these
practices. Because there are many such linguistic groups, even within one
locale, the opportunities for different images of the good, the true, and
the beautiful are great. The social constructionist position helps to
overcome the conflicts that may occur when different versions of reality
come into contention. From this position, it is possible to acknowledge
the multiplicity of worldviews, and to work toward creating conditions
wherein the separate parties can find opportunities for mutuality,
tolerance and compromise.
4. Social constructionists generally hold that there are no
universal ethical principles, but that they are also constituted within
so-called "language games" and sustained by discrete social communities
(Elam, . Thus there is no single way to set ethical standards, but there
may be many. In this sense, a social constructionist position is congenial
with the standpoint position represented by Gilligan, in that there is no
hierarchy of universal moral principles that gives preference to justice
considerations over caring. From the social constructionist approach,
there are no answers to moral dilemmas that are independent of
communities. Despite the inadmissibility of foundational principles, the
social constructionist position has strong implications for moral inquiry
and action (Gergen, 1994). A concern with the nature of values is
intrinsic to a feminist social constructionist position, and when one
evaluates a scientific explanation one can ask what are the ethical
considerations that are embedded in the framing of the explanation, its
origins, its classification system, and its consequences. One cannot
ignore value considerations and to claim that one is "merely reporting the
facts." Because facts are socially constructed, they are always subject
to questioning for their ethical implications. This is consistent with the
political goals of feminism.
5. Social constructionists emphasize that any claims to reality
can be viewed with skepticism. Unlike some scientific viewpoints that
claim that we can know the facts about the world by merely looking at (or
smelling, tasting, touching, or listening to) it, the social
constructionist position emphasizes that our sensory experiences are
mediated by our linguistic descriptions of our experiences (Burr, 1995).
That is, we know our sensory worlds via language, just as we know the
abstract world. The social constructionist position does not allow
exceptions to this skeptical stance, even when one's private sensory
experiences are at stake. We cannot know ourselves, free of cultural
constraints, any more than we can know other parts of the world. We must
always recognize ourselves as embedded in cultural communities. ...One can
ask questions about the world, but cannot claim to have discovered the
truth. The best one can expect is that a new interpretation, a different
perspective, or an interesting slant can be created. In this sense social
constructionism invites creativity, new interpretations, and an openness to
other fields of knowledge. Whether a new interpretation becomes acceptable
depends importantly upon others in the linguistic community.
Contextualizing Social Constructionism: The Case of "Family Values"
Once words gain usage in the culture, it is often difficult to
imagine that they create rather than reflect a given reality in the world.
If we investigate the nature of a relatively new phrase, we can more easily
see the constructed nature of a reality. Let us consider the phrase,
"Family values", a widely used political slogan that in the 90's has become
a code word for a certain kind of family unit . By evaluating this phrase,
one can gain a sense of how language works to shape our notions of reality.
"Family Values" is most often used today to suggest a general
good. While once it may have been a phrase that would bring up a question
as to what kinds of values a family might have, or a question of how much
families were valued as a social unit, a shift has taken place such that
"family values" has become defined more narrowly. Although never
specifically defined, this slogan functions to suggest that good family
values are found in a single kind of family: middle-class, with few
children, a mother at home, engaged in childrearing and other "non-work"
activity, and a strong father, who is the major wage-earner. The family is
invested with Northern European cultural, social and religious values. The
use of this term in a persistent and strategic manner by conservative
politicians, especially, has had the effect of denigrating any one who does
not fit this mold. Note that while apparently saying something good, which
is designed to encompass all people, the phrase has evolved so as to
belittle and exclude those who do not fit the mold.
The deployment of this concept within our culture raises some
serious concerns from a social constructionist position . If our
description above is an adequate framing of the phrase, (and some of those
who use this term might argue about that), many important questions may be
asked. How can a single model of family adequately serve a diverse,
heterogeneous society? Who gains power by supporting this model for family
life? Will those who do not fit this definition be considered sufficiently
unworthy that valuable resources will be withheld from them? What
opportunities does adherence to this model open or deny to women? What
other ways of viewing the world become invisible?
Some answers are immediately apparent. Adherence to a single
model denies the richness and diversity of the culture. If people have
only one version of family life to follow, they become limited in the
vision of their lives. Women's ambitions to careers and men's desires to
be primarily family-oriented are thwarted. One's failure to meet the
standards of the correct family values may result in punishment, as for
example, being eliminated from welfare rolls, losing medical care benefits,
and so forth. Politicians who favor this rhetoric can appear to be
supporting positive social values and decrying the impact of "bad families"
on society. The result of insinuating the universality of family values
into the society produces a narrow and rigid version of families, in which
diversity cannot be accommodated. The concept of family values functions
in a way that attempts to unite people behind a single shared vision, in
which traditional sex roles are legitimated and extended, at the cost of
alternatives. For many people, both those squeezed within this one form of
life, and those squeezed out of it, the results are negative. Yet, because
of the repetitious rehearsal of this phrase within the public arena, this
restricted notion of what is the good life slips into the vocabulary and
becomes a part of our social reality.
In the arena of gender studies, terms such as "family values"
become insinuated into forms of speech, and shape how men and women live
together. Several chapters in the book illustrate how various forms of
language have restricted people's lives.
Constructionist Emphases in the Present Volume
As editors of this book, our intentions are to bring to diverse
audiences readings in which the authors have expanded the boundaries and
potentials of psychology. We invite our readers to come together in this
circles where different intellectual trends converge. Scholars from
sociology, philosophy, education, anthropology, sexology, family therapy,
and elsewhere have added a voice in this colloquy on gender issues. While
they have come from many backgrounds, and many theoretical and feminist
positions, they all have enriched a social constructionist form of work.
While each of the chapters, to be briefly described below, is unique, the
authors have related to their materials in ways that unite them. We think
five qualities in particular give them a coherence with one another.
1. Reflexivity in their approach to their subject matters
Far from attempting to hide their own involvement in their projects,
these authors frequently reflect on their own position with respect to the
context of their work. They ask themselves: Who am I with respect to the
respondents, how do I understand the social customs described here? What
are the consequences to others if I present information in a particular
fashion? This reflexivity enables them to participate with subjects in
relationships with a high degree of openness, and to use these experiences
to help organize their understandings, with a sense of commitment to their
values about gender relations. The authors'
reflexive forms of writing also provide an entry into the text for the
reader, allowing them to develop a questioning attitude toward the
contents and conclusions the authors are advancing. Usually authors try to
seal their texts against this type of intrusion. In this sense readers are
encouraged to raise questions about the author's views, to develop their
own syntheses of the materials, as well as to develop greater reflexivity
about their own positions.
2. Knowledge claims are seen as continually developing, never
reaching a permanent endstate or conclusion. As evidence of this stance,
several of our authors rethink the assumptions that guided earlier work and
about how they would now structure the text differently. They understand
that a particular piece of research or theory grows out of a common
intellectual understanding in a particular historical period. When a
particular ethos changes, new ways of constructing materials develop,
which may surpass the old in some fashion. In general, mainstream
psychologists do not expect to scrutinize the linguistic conventions that
govern their research and writing, the historical period in which they
have collected data, nor the political implications of their work. This
type of reflection, if it happens at all, occurs outside of the research
arena and separated from the research itself (Eagly, 1995). The emerging
view, in contrast, is that work should be constantly under review, from
diverse political and social positions. One recognizes that every choice
within the development of a research condition or form of reporting is open
to critical evaluation and possible alteration.
3. The authors continually affirm that they and all with whom they
are working are identified with particular groups that influence their own
formations. Most particularly, the authors attend to the ways in which
gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientations, ableness, and other personal
qualities combine to influence their own discourses. In many instances, an
author claims a personal vantage point, and then grapples with its utility
and its limitations for understanding others. At times authors may want to
transcend their vantage points, but be unable to do so. Locating one's own
social class boundaries, for example, may help to explain one's
understanding of a particular issue and one's ways of relating to others.
4. The search for new forms of cultural life is a central focus.
In everyday life we seldom question common sense language and its many
uses. Each morning when the alarm clock goes off, we cannot spend several
minutes considering Einstein's theory of relativity as it relates to time.
Because the notion of clock- time is so deeply embedded in our daily life,
it is difficult to recognize its constructed nature. It has been the role
of feminists to heighten our awareness of many of these common sense ideas,
and especially to show the ways in which they can function in a subtle
manner to oppress women, as well as men. In this vein, many common words
and expressions, - the term mankind, for example - are unpacked to
expose them for the multiple agendas they carry and the ways that they
benefit some people over others. Equally important is the opportunity ...to
create new linguistic forms that can reorganize, refresh and alter existing
ways of living (Lather, 1995). Within these readings illustrations of
these efforts to create new ways of talking abound.
5. Research endeavors should be contextualized so as to enhance
their usefulness to people . Feminist psychologists often find potential
value in diverse scholarly pursuits. Encouraging multiple methods, these
psychologists are free to combine various formats in order to best serve
the interests of those with whom they work. Often practical social aims --
family therapy, educational policy, and community service -- are combined
with scientific questions, and these goals encourage the use of various
methods of inquiry. Besides experimental formats, they work with case
studies, participant observation studies, archival studies, discourse
analysis, and the study of narrative and other literary devices. Many
chapters in the book illustrate how one can study such diverse activities
and artifacts as textbooks, forms of dress, museums, playgrounds, therapy
sessions, parenting, athletics, and ordinary conversations with various
methods of research.
Organization of the book:
The book is divided into ten sections, which are developed to
stress topics that are of special interest to contemporary gender scholars.
However, most readings integrate diverse topics; in particular, they
address themes related to equity, power, oppression, and identity, so
they can be related to readings from other sections as well as those within
their own section. The social constructionist metatheoretical umbrella also
unifies the diversity of readings, and facilitates a growing familiarity
with this approach to psychology among readers .
References:
Belenky, Mary, et al. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Burr, Vivian (1995). An introduction to social constructionism.
London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion
of identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (l993). Bodies that matter. London: Routledge.
Curt, Beryl C. (1994). Textuality and tectonics; troubling social
and psychological science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Daly, Mary (1978). Gyn/ecology; The metaethics of radical
feminism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Eagly, Alice (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A
social-role interpretation. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, Alice (1995). The science and politics of comparing women
and men, American Psychologist, 50, 145-158.
Elam, Diane (1994). Feminism and deconstruction; Ms. en abyme
London, New York: Routledge.
Farga