Why Gender?

Why did historians turn to gender as an analytical tool?

Gender is a sociological concept divergent from biological descriptiveness hitherto, the contrivance used to separate man and woman. A study of 200 languages reveals that between 3-20 ‘genuses’ exist within societies[1], so its very conception is difficult to define. To what extent was it the emancipatory potential of gender, that first attracted the 2^nd wave Feminists, who were first to give credence to this analytical tool? It is argued Feminists turned to gender as “an evolutionary concept primarily to expel the spectre of biological determinism"[2]. Debatably gender as social construct has been a deliberate creation rather than an accident, which led to calls for the creation of a Gender History. There was a desire for an intellectual argument, which if proven could conceivably banish any purported biological legitimacy for denying women equality (emancipation). Historians have utilised gender in ‘remarkably different ways’[3]: some in the aforementioned repudiation of the ‘natural attitude’[4], but others in an ideologically driven manner have attempted to attribute an ontological dimension. The various explanans and their motives should receive attention including Ethno-methodologists, Marxist’s, Postmodernists and Phenomenological Historians. Not everyone has accepted gender as an analytical tool. The psychological complexities accompanying gender as a category of analysis dissuade many from grappling with the subject consequently the question needs to be explored as to why more historians haven’t embraced gender? Conventional historians have adopted tacit acceptance of gender as ‘another’ analytical tool in their armoury, although the seemingly inevitable subordination which followed, has given cause for Gender Historians to scorn this perceived hoodwinking. What is most discerning, perhaps for the original advocates of gender, is no doubt the extent to which Historians of Women’s history seem to disagree on the correct utilisation of Gender History. Charges of reductionism, elitism and ethno-centricity have often been muted certainly the transparent hostility with other minorities (class, religion and race) requires consideration. The persistence of the ‘compensatory’ approach to Women’s history and the diversity of women’s interest’s dissent have dispelled any myth of homogeneity amongst gender historians. Perhaps this was contributory in the reinvigoration of Gender History, which fashioned what has been described as “Sophisticated Gender" (A name whose origins will become self explanatory). Susan Bordo’s charge of ‘multiple jeopardy’[5] deserves contemplation in attempting to illuminate these tensions, as does the in increased sophistication of gender which has arisen from such criticisms. Principally, why have the constituents of gender history fragmented, and what impact has this had on the study of gender?

Attempts to provide with a progressive framework for gender history began in the USA in the 1970’s. There are five main explanations for this. Both Gerda Lerner and Linda K. Kerber (1975) have provided passionate accounts of the challenges they faced climbing up the academic ladder and gaining acceptance for their preferred field of study[6]. Primarily there was a sense that ‘college daughters’[7] understood that equality of opportunity within the profession was improving, thus allowing a shift in focus away from the purely radical feminist struggle. Furthermore historians of Women’s History in the US had made significant inroads since the days of Mary Beard in the 1940/50’s[8]. An extensive number of monographs on women’s history had already been written by 1970[9]. It was thought now possible to move beyond, what was termed as the ‘compensatory’ phase. In a series of ground-breaking essays dating from 1969 onwards by Gerda Lerner, urged women to look beyond filling in the gaps[10]. More importantly, there was a realisation that feminist polemics could only ever accomplish “ghetto significance", and a desire to gain recognition energised gender history[11]. Elizabeth Genovese echoed this notion urging women to, “enrich the mainstream tradition"[12]. The growth of oral, cultural, social and no doubt postmodernist arguments had brought the spotlight of objectivity into greater focus and it was considered important that women should “refute the charges of bias"[13]. There was no doubt awareness amongst Feminists they must become less esoteric and polemical in tone. Additionally, it was argued that the hierarchical framework adopted by male historians throughout the ages impinged, or outright ignored, the traditional field of women’s history, preferring to focus on “Great deeds by great men"[14]. It seemed logical that emphasis should switch to challenging the very barometers of what was regarded as ‘worthwhile’ history, essentially advocating an attack on the functionalist structure imposed by epistemologies of the 19^th century. It was an assault on the base superstructure that would later be embraced most fervently by various emancipatory prophets. Moreover, attention was directed at disproving the biological determinism that deemed women inferior. An attack on the ‘separate spheres’[15] and discrimination based on genetalia. Women realised an intellectual argument needed to be made to emancipate them from their own sexuality and destroy the ‘natural attitude’, and if possible a shift in focus away from procreation. Olwen Hufton implored women to shake of the doctrine of original sin and, “Ideological heritage of a Judaic philosophy"[16] that sited women in the home as the nucleus of the family. Much of these arguments were to form the basis of dialogue between Gender historians for the next quarter of a century, and while this arguably began a fragmentation of the Feminist movement there is no doubt that most strands of thought “owe a continuing debt to the feminist movement"[17]. The rejection of complacency of hitherto advancements, and desire for sustainability in women’s history would be, if used correctly, the greatest weapon in defence of the impending elitist allegations

There is no qualm that Lerner amongst others adopted an ambitious stance on homogeneity. It was believed that the intellectual arguments presented by this innovative gender history offered a potential for a common approach to history by women. Support was not universal though, and the ‘Gender Scepticism’[18] backlash which resulted from the theorization of the feminist movement came from the most unlikely of sources. Minority histories the stratus of class, religion and race regarded gender history as potentially divisive to their interests. The articulation of criticism from these quarters revolved around three central issues. Historically feminist movements (almost exclusively led by the middle classes) have been denounced by the labouring classes. It is the subordination of other tools of analysis, the exclusivity and the primacy accorded to gender that has led to charges of elitism. Perhaps Gender “Serves only to mask the numerous privileges of white heterosexual middle class feminists who have the luxury of experiencing only one mode of oppression"[19]. It didn’t help that impetus for gender history appeared to have derived from ‘cocktail clubs in the ivy league’[20] rather than grass roots. In the context of the “history from below" movements emerging from the 1960’s, Gender history had yet to justify its universal appeal. Gisela Bock provides the example of poor law in 1630’s Italy to demonstrate that women were disproportionately affected by the class system, concluding that utilisation of this analytical tool need not be subordinated. The charges of euro-centrism from Black historians and African and Latin historians have led Susan Bordo to charge Gender history with “Multiple jeopardy". In 1975, Women’s Year held in Mexico City, 3^rd world countries condemned Feminists as elitists[21]. It was suspected that gender history was just an attempt to consolidate the gains made during the, “New Victorianism" of the 1960’s[22] (Andrew Sinclair). The idea that Martha Washington’s ‘cultural genetalia’ and experience with a male dominated system could be accorded parity with the history of the 287 slaves she owned was an oxymoron[23]. As early as 1969 Lerner foresaw the problem of “failing to attract black women"[24] These criticisms were not tantamount to outright rejection but historians, such as Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, advised “bringing black woman into foreground of gender history". It was the opening of dialogue between minority histories that was most encouraging. Arguably this criticism, though well founded, enhanced the sophistication of gender history. It was no accident that ‘Gender and History’ in 1989 placed Sojourner Truth on the cover of the journal, and included an account of her in their editorial. It had been accepted that charges of ethno/ euro-centrism[25] needed to be addressed before Gender history could acquire universal appeal. Sandra Harding met these charges in 1987 and claimed, “Gender difference is a pivotal way humans Identify themselves"[26] arguing that other tools shouldn’t inhibit a gendered approach and solidarity with other minorities is still possible.

The temptation to develop an ideological explanan for gender history has been seized by various schools of historical opinion. Wendy McKenna’s, “Gender: an Ethno methodological approach" (1978) was the first of several, which included R.W. Connell’s Marxist interpretation (1987), Judith Butler’s postmodernist account (1990) and Steven Smith’s phenomenological approach (1992). Such ontological locales have provoked repudiation from the original theoreticians, the chief accusation being intransigence and potential divisiveness. Advocates of the explanatory approach herald the potential disproving of the “natural attitude" as their chief motive. Though many arguably achieve this, often it’s replaced with equally troublesome assertions. Firstly, Mc Kenna’s account provides a useful narrative of how ‘cultural genetalia’ such as dress, posture etc. provides “Incessant replenishing of the natural attitude" and helps illuminate the extent to which social construction plays such a key role. McKenna’s faith in empirically derived evidence as the basis for disproving the ‘natural attitude’ constitutes an impressive attack on biological determinism. Also R.W. Connell’s account is considerably different in emphasis (the timing of his article worth noting). His critique of the institution of family is brutal terming reproduction as “cognitive purification"[27], and concluding that the nurturing process is generally designed to limit potential of women. Whilst as a rejection of the natural attitude it’s welcomed by gender historians, his over concerning with the partition of labour has led to charges of covert functionalism. Connell’s implication that there is greater enjoyment in a heterosexual relationship than a homosexual one received a specific rebuttal from Hawkesworth[28]. The dialectical nature of Connell’s explanan seems to present more difficulties than it solves, and consequently has been largely ignored by historians. Additionally, Judith Butler’s postmodernist interpretation has proved contentious for gender historians. Essentially, it’s the static concept of the ‘replication of sexuality’[29], that has perpetuated women’s difficulties, and cemented the ‘Natural Attitude’. The incest taboo[30] is cited as an example of how whiggish epistemologies defined the parameters of sexuality. Butler is not justifying incest, but rather highlighting the process that condemns incest as the same process which champions the family. Butler argues that continual indoctrination through social construction results in inevitable discrimination of child bearers and nurturers, who are expected to devote a considerable period of their lives to both practices. Whilst this account conclusively escapes biological determinism, it pessimistically replaces it with the powerful and seemingly unassailable force of cultural replication. It is this lack of constructivism which caused it to fizzle out. Investment in post cultural gender history has arguably backfired on historians. Predictions by poststructuralists in 1990 that Women’s History was about to ‘dissolve’[31], reveal much about the true intentions of explanans, which have been ‘quick’ to offer women’s history an ontological status. There is a pattern of bartering whereby the natural attitude is refuted, but simultaneously transplanted with a straitjacket of a different kind: in the case of Marxists, incorporation into the class struggle or in post modernists an abandoning of history in its entirety before women’s history has even been told. Steve Smith’s phenomenological interpretation is the most, dangerous of all explanans. It’s his “reciprocal dependency" argument that entraps women within the confines of procreation. His utter faith in capitalism and the importance he places on familial heterosexuality, albeit on an equality basis, offers no emancipatory potential and has been rejected.[32] Actually, no functionalist narrative claiming universal validity has yet to be proven. M. O’Dowd and M. Mc Curtain offer respite from gender history “It may not be necessarily helpful in other countries, where much basic research still needs to be done."[33] Though this does not rule out future confrontation with this dilemma, it is potent as it comes from within the supposed euro-centric clique that received charges of elitism. The poststructuralist outrage which followed serves to highlight the decreasing homogeneity within Historians of Women’s History. The hastiness of Lerner’s original rallying call is evident in that the topic has been mostly ignored by her European counterparts.

Joan Scott is the most renowned of gender historians to retaliate against the growing preponderance to attribute an explanatory dimension to gender history. Though careful not to criticise the emancipatory ambition vision of such philosophers, she essentially cautioned that such reductionism accords an ‘intransigence that limits the desired effect’.[34] Instead Scott urges historians to shift the focus back to the “how and not the why"[35], Scott’s theory, which Joan Hoff sarcastically describes as “Linguistic gymnastics"[36], is ambitiously positioned between the main strands of gender theory and can be rightly termed a poststructuralist. Her quasi–Freudian pronouncements are at times unashamedly repulsive and Hoff is unambiguous in her condemning regarding poststructuralist treatment of issues such as violent pornography. Susan Kingsley Kent attacks Hoff’s criticisms of the increased sophistication of gender history as, “Anti intellectualism"[37]. There is no doubt her comments provoked outrage amongst poststructuralists, but for all Kent’s indignation she never refers to ‘real history’ to substantiate her comments, which make disproving them frustratingly elusive. It’s an apparent distrust for the “what" rather than a championing of the “how over the why" that leaves Scot, Kent and Hawkesworth’s positions dubious. The chief tenets of Scots argument are a sophisticated rejection of the “separate spheres", and the acknowledgement of the inextricable nature of men and women’s gender history (“Two sides of the same coin"[38]). In transforming this “gender neutrality to a truly all encompassing gender history"[39], gender as an analytical tool becomes much more workable, quantifiable and greater aids integration with empirical methodologies. Scott advocates analysing the perceived differences between the sexes to help illuminate relationships of power[40], which arguably “Provides a way to decode meaning and to understand the complex connections among various forms of human interaction". [41] This offers tremendous opportunity for social and cultural historians to open up the private domain and greater expand the source base. Hoff professes a fear that this multiplicity and diversity advocated by Scott tries to present an equality of the sexes and will lead to a diminishing of women’s history. Firstly Hoff’s comments are neither “disingenuous",[42] nor are they impossible to conceive. Diminishment is not inevitable and credence in its potential, somewhat overstates the strength of the poststructuralist impact. Sophisticated gender undoubtedly has its uses, if only more humble historians where in a position to decode exactly what they were. The charges of utopian notion of the potential of diversity are perhaps justifiable, since there is no empirically derived evidence (though this in itself an oxymoron) substantiating this claim. Admittedly this is inherent in the historiographical stance of post structuralism nevertheless the convenience of this fact is inherently beneficial to its supporters.

Gender is as complex now as it was in its embryonic stages. It would be unjust though to ignore the gains. The ‘natural attitude’, though not disproved (it is doubtful if this at all possible) has been dealt a suitable intellectual death knell. Historians must do away with ’biology’ and all notions attached to it (e.g. German National Socialism[43]). The scrutiny by which traditionalist historians are subjected to with regard to their adherence to Von Ranke’s principles, could justifiably lead some to claim that it has crept onto the empirical checklist (though how Leopold Von Ranke would have viewed such is dubious). The language construct used by gender historians will forever be subject to interpretation and no doubt valid criticisms and evolutionary recommendations should continue to be made. In truth the very term “Women’s History" is a ‘misnomer’[44]. The reality that gender history exudes bewildering sophistication should not deter historians from approaching the subject, nor should its ‘trendy’[45] apparatus detract from its ability to challenge andocentric assumptions. A dialogue with women of the past should be levied on the basis of the language skills we currently possess. Homogeneity shouldn’t be an aspiration for gender oriented history, for it too would be reductionist though postmodernism seems especially ‘dangerous’[46] to the very survival of gender history. Ellen Rooney’s observation that, “Heterogeneity is not a reason for dismay"[47] seems wholly appropriate. Too great a preponderance to lament this fact would ignore the potential for commonality with other minority histories. Gender History has demonstrated courage in refusing to gloss over inevitable local quarrels[48]. A growth in social and cultural history has brought immeasurable diversity, and exploitative opportunity to Gender history (e.g. a history of the US Armed Forces could potentially bring minority orientations together along the stratus of colour, class and gender). Harold Garfinkel assessment that gender “Enhances our understanding of the various modes of oppression"[49] is entirely appropriate. The escalation of theoretical, methodological and sophistication in women’s history are such that “radical denunciations of women’s suppression that appeared 35 years ago"[50] are now superfluous, and perhaps advancements are such that the umbilical cord with feminism can now be severed.

Bibliographic Citation

1. S.J. Smith, ‘The phenomenology of educating physically’, In D. Vandenberg (Ed.), Phenomenology and educational discourse (Durban 1997) pp. 119-143.

2. Mary Hawkesworth, Confounding Gender in “Signs"(Spring 1997), 3:2, pp. 649-685Susan Bordo, Feminism, Postmodernism, and Gender-Scepticism. In: “Feminism/Postmodernism" (New York 1988)

3. Gerda Lerner, The majority finds its past: Placing women in history, (New York 1979)

4. Mary R. Beard, Women as a force in history (New York, 1946)

5. Olwen Hufton, What is Women’s history?

6. Gender & History (1989) 1:1

7. Charles D. Tarlton The Deeds of Great Men: Thoughts on the Literary Motives and Imaginary Actions of Machiavelli's New Prince in “CLIO, 2000" 29:4. p.417

8. http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_033100_separatesphe.htm (accessed January 2006)

9. <http://www2.aya.yale.edu/clubs/> (Accessed January 2006)

10. Bernice A. Carroll, International politics Comparative politics and feminist radicals

11. The papers of George Washington, The University of Virginia.

12. Gisela Bock, Women’s history and gender and history: aspects of an international debate in ‘Gender and History’

13.  Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism. (New York, 1986), pp. 136-62. 

14. Joan Hoff, Gender: A postmodern category of paralysis, in ‘Women’s History Review’, 3:1 1993

15. Joan Scott, Gender as a Useful Category of Historical Analysis (Minneapolis 1988)

16. S. K. Kent, Mistrials and Diatribulations: a reply to Joan Hoff in, ‘Women’s History review’ 5:1 1995

17. Elizabeth Fox Genovese, Placing women in history, in ‘New Left Review’(1982) 133:1,

18. Ellen Rooney, What Can the Matter Be? in ‘American Literary History’, 8:4, (Winter, 1996), pp. 745-758.

[26] Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism. (New York, 1986), pp. 136-62. 

» left by Anonymous 5 years 148 days ago.

interesting article.

Respond to this comment