Inside: Lamont on theoretical growth (p. 1) - Naples on foregrounding feminisms (p. 1) - Ray on feminist theory today (p. 2) - Armstrong locates feminist scholarship (p. 3) - da Silva asks, "Whither theory?" (p.4) - Glassman weighs in on grand theory (p. 5)
Newsletter of the ASA Theory Section Volume 27, number 3, July 2004 Section Officers
Chair Theoretical Growth and Conceptual Foreplay1 Michèle Lamont (Harvard University) Michèle Lamont, Harvard University Chair-Elect Murray Webster As we head toward celebrating the ASA Centennial in (University of North Carolina-Charlotte) Philadelphia in August 2005, we will be taking stock, once
Past Chair more, of the fate and “progress” of our discipline. As a Linda Molm (University of Arizona) section, we will have spent time reflecting collectively on our discipline’s various theoretical cultures, on what Secretary-Treasurer Patricia Lengermann research they facilitate and deflect, at the 2004 meetings in (George Washington University) San Francisco. Against this background, it may be appropriate to return to the question of what constitutes Council Kevin Anderson (Purdue University) theoretical growth and vitality in our field. Mathieu Deflem (University of South Carolina) In his reply to my fall 2003 “Message from the Chair: The Uta Gerhardt (University of Heidelberg) J. David Knottnerus Theory Section and Theory Satellites,” Jonathan Turner (Oklahoma State University) reads my conclusion as celebrating the theoretical Edward Lawler (Cornell University) balkanization of our discipline.2 Robin Stryker (University of Minnesota) Continued on page 6 Sociological Theory Editor Jonathan Turner (University of California-Riverside) Foregrounding Feminisms Incoming Editors Nancy A. Naples, University of Connecticut Julia Adams (Yale University) Jeffrey Alexander (Yale University) [Note: For this edition of Perspectives I solicited essays on Ron Eyerman (Yale University) Philip Gorski (Yale University) what is happening at the forefront of feminist theory, how this work intersects with the intellectual activities of the Website Editor - www.asatheory.org ASA Theory Section, or the role that theory has played in Mathieu Deflem (University of South Carolina) the work of scholars substantively concerned with gender. – Ed.] Perspectives Editor Neil Gross (Harvard University) The short answer to the question “what is happening at the forefront of feminist theory today?” is that it depends on Please submit materials for future editions your angle of vision and on the disciplinary site you of Perspectives to: Neil Gross inhabit. I have taught feminist theory since the early 1980s Department of Sociology in four different academic settings and in two different Harvard University disciplinary/interdisciplinary locations (sociology and William James Hall 33 Kirkland Street women’s studies). Cambridge, MA 02138 Email: [email protected] Continued on page 9 Page 1 Perspectives
Feminist Theory: Two Decades after the Missing Revolution Raka Ray, University of California-Berkeley I write this from the vantage point Indeed, I remember being part of Patricia Hill Collins. In terms of of being in a department with a group of advanced students who discipline, anthropologists, Barrie Thorne, who co-authored taught ourselves feminist theory sociologists, and legal scholars with Judith Stacey the “Missing and who helped craft questions seemed to be disproportionately Feminist Revolution in for the first qualifying exams in represented here, along with Sociology” in 1985 and ten years the new field of Sociology of writers of fiction and poetry. If a later the less optimistic “Is Gender. While we were interested feminist theory syllabus could not Sociology Still Missing its in various elements of gender, it do without the above theorists in Feminist Revolution” in the pages was feminist theory that 1993, today we increasingly see of this very newsletter motivated us and feminist theory syllabi with Judith Butler, Nancy (Perspectives, Summer 1996), that we wanted incorporated into Fraser, Joan Scott and often and Michael Burawoy who the corpus that was handed to us Gayatri Spivak (this is truer of the responded (Perspectives, Summer as sociological theory. We came younger generation of scholars). 1996) by celebrating feminism’s to realize that the problem did not This is, of course, in tune with the ability to retain its revolutionary lie in the institutionalization of larger turn toward the humanities edge (more so than Marxism) the field of gender in terms of the which troubles so many within sociology. Now, eight empirical study of men and sociologists. I will not dwell on years after that exchange, I find women in society as such, but this here except to say that this myself thinking about the rather in the inclusion of feminist interdisciplinarity has always profound epistemological and theory as valid sociological been the strength of feminist political ramifications of thirty theory. theory, and the best young years of feminist theory and its sociologists that I have had the relationship to the discipline of Between 1990 and today, privilege of teaching and learning sociology. however, there has come to be from deeply engage with these formed something that can be theorists, sociologizing them even Feminist theory had clearly been called a feminist canon within as they expand sociology. around for a while though missing sociology, if by canon is meant from sociology when Thorne and the presence of an agreed upon It has become customary to Stacey wrote their essay in 1985. body of work that a community of deplore the institutionalization It was still missing five years later scholars can study, share, learn (such as it is) of feminist theory when I was halfway through my from and critique. Perhaps and to mourn its depoliticization graduate school career at the because feminist theory came to with the Foucauldian turn. Unlike University of Wisconsin- sociology late, the field has many feminist scholars, I do not Madison. This was a time when shifted rapidly in past decade and see evidence of this feminist sociologists and theorists a half. The first theorists depoliticization. Indeed, I see were being taken seriously, yet represented in feminist theory feminist theory as a field in which the study of gender and feminist syllabi in sociology in the early clear theoretical advances have theory had not been nineties were actually theorists been made without sacrificing a institutionalized in sociology – at who wrote in the seventies and critical political agenda. least not at the University of eighties – Adrienne Rich, Gayle Wisconsin. Rubin, Nancy Chodorow, and Continued on page 13 Page 2 Perspectives
Thoughts about the State and Location of Feminist Scholarship in Sociology Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Indiana University
In 1995, Joan Alway published a of the engagement of feminist human life chances (Bourdieu piece documenting the less than theory with the classical canon. 1984; Lamont 1992; Lamont positive reception of feminist Most interestingly, though, Alway 2000), structures and structural theory within the theory section argues that “feminist theory change (Sewell 1992), and in the and theory journals. In 2000 the displaces sociology’s central fate of our natural and built theory section was the most problematic” (p. 129). She argues environments (Gieryn 2000)? In disproportionately male of all that there is a basic conflict what ways do meanings guide and large sections of the ASA (72% between the fundamental shape human practical activity male), with few student members problematic of sociological theory (Swidler 1986; Swidler 2001)? compared to other large sections. – understanding modernity – and While not all theoretically- that of feminist theory – The problematic of gender can be oriented women sociologists are understanding gender. seen as an important case of the feminist theorists and not all more general problematic feminist theorists are women, it is In contrast, work focused on outlined above. Examining the not a stretch to suggest a processes of gender inequality variety and complexity of ways connection between the reception and classification from a feminist we attribute gendered meanings to of feminist theory and the political perspective has been our world – not only our bodies, composition of the section. The more warmly received in cultural but the rest of our social and lack of appeal of the theory sociology. In addition, highly natural worlds – is of deep section to women – particularly visible women have been interest to both feminist and women entering the profession – involved in the culture section cultural sociologists. The has implications for the health of since its inception (e.g., Lamont, apparently universal existence of the section. In this essay I suggest Swidler, and Griswold). some system of gender meanings that theoretically-oriented work References to the classical canon – although highly varied among about processes of gender are not mandatory. And, mostly societies/groups – raises puzzling inequality and classification has importantly, the central questions about the extent to been more warmly received in the problematics of feminist and which the materiality of our culture section, leading some cultural sociology are compatible. bodies constrains gender/sexual likely recruits to the theory The fundamental problematic of meanings. Thus, cultural section to find their homes in the the sociology of culture is the sociology offers tools for the culture section. problem of how meaning matters analysis of the construction and in social life – what culture is and reproduction of gender categories Alway (1995) identified several what it does. Key sub-problems and gender inequality. Similarly, related reasons for the less than include the relationship between when feminists develop better positive reception of feminist meaning systems and social understandings of gender they theory within the theory section: inequality, and between meaning frequently advance the theoretical genres and styles of writing systems and materiality development of the sociology of deemed less than academic, (including human physical culture. contamination due to political embodiment). Sociologists of commitment, the low status of culture ask questions like: How is women in the field, and the lack meaning-making implicated in Continued on page 15 Page 3 Perspectives
Whither Theory? Denise Ferreira da Silva, University of California, San Diego When I was invited to write this What “I do” thus reflects the following religious prescriptions piece, which I understood to be desire to displace Berger’s child, and codes of conduct. Having a about why “I do” sociological the model of the social subject. father who worked at a theory, I embraced the challenge Why? Because I am convinced synagogue, whose German-Jew to sign off on an answer to the that the (classical and members allowed him to borrow question and stick to it, for the contemporary) sociological books from the library for his time being. After a dozen “good theorizing that institutes it does bookworm daughter, the first to go” versions, I finally came up not provide adequate tools to bible I ever read had only the with one I can sign off as an delineate the subaltern First Testament. Throughout the autobiographical statement. place—how race, class, and year, I waited anxiously for the gender/sexuality together Jewish holidays to enjoy all the Anyone who has read anything I institutes in modern social sweets and food I could bear to have written will wonder why I configurations. For this reason, I eat. My early ease transiting claim what “I do” is sociological find it comfortable naming myself between symbolic spaces that theory. Without qualifying my a theorist because in my rarely meet continued even when, disciplinary positioning to the engagement with the discipline’s as a teen-ager, I became active in point of defensiveness, I will just project I seek to displace its the progressive neighborhood’s say blame it on Peter Berger. At investment in the project of Catholic church. At church, I was 15, I accepted his “invitation to European modernity. trained to become a soldier of a sociology.” That example of a Christ who was a champion of the child who tries to locate his house My critical engagement with the people. From sermons that turned on the map caught my discipline has also been informed biblical passages into guides for imagination. There is a seemingly by other biographical details overcoming social injustice, and simple, properly “sociological,” which, when I consider them from readings of liberation and typically biographical now, are surprisingly theology documents and books, I explanation for this. I grew up in sociological. My simultaneous acquired an activist sensitivity, a housing-project in the outskirts exposure to three religions – which prepared me to join the of Rio de Janeiro. Before I was Afro-Brazilian, Catholicism, and secular neighborhood association, one year old, my parents and their Judaism – produced a symbolic progressive political parties, and neighbors were relocated from a landscape not explicable and the black movement. favela (slum), situated on a hill in containable by the concept of a traditional neighborhood, in one culture guiding the sociological Early in my academic training, I of the many attempts by the state theoretical apparatus, the one became interested in concepts of officials to “clean-up” the noble informing notions such as power and culture. At the Federal areas of the city from the community, identity, and so on. University of Rio de Janeiro, my economically subjugated black Having an Afro-Brazilian trajectory as an undergraduate population. Therein, however, priestess as a grandmother, I grew student in the department of hides a more complicated answer up knowing that Yoruba gods social sciences already reflected to Berger’s invitation: the place I played a crucial role in the daily this interest. sought to locate is not to be found things of life, attending and on Berger’s sociological map. participating in rituals, and Continued on page 16 Page 4 Perspectives
On the Grand Theory Debate Ronald Glassman, William Patterson University In a recent issue of Perspectives, American functionalism. Merton knows that a student who a debate between Michele Lamont understood this, but did not want suggested a dissertation which and Jonathan Turner focusing on to insult his old Harvard mentor proposed to compare Calvinism, “grand theory” was featured. It and colleague. So, he simply told Lutheranism, and Catholicism on caught my attention, because this a whole generation of students to their ethic of work, money- debate goes back almost fifty abandon all grand theorizing making, and asceticism, and then years! entirely. proposed to compare these to the religious ethics of China, India, I was young – just beginning Merton’s second hidden agenda and Ancient Israel, would have graduate school – but I can was not so hidden back them. It been laughed out of the room. remember Merton and Mills was the late fifties, and the “red The humbled student would have vitriolically disagreeing: the scare” was overwhelming been told to focus on a small former asserting that sociologists American politics. The micro-study; to gather data using should give up grand theorizing universities watched anxiously as the questionnaire technique; to and concentrate on empirical hundreds of intellectuals were analyze the data gathered with studies and “theories of the accused of having Marxist statistical formulas to see if there middle range”; the latter warning sympathies. In this atmosphere, were any “statistically that this would lead to “abstract Merton certainly did not want his significant” findings. empiricism” with no theoretical students theorizing grandly in a grounding at all. Marxist manner. He said little For, not only had Merton taught about Marx or his theory. And, his students to avoid “grand Is this not what Lamont and when questioned, he would say theory,” but he also taught them Turner were arguing? But there that he really didn’t know Marx’s to emulate the “scientific method” was more: Merton had a hidden work very well.... But the – as he understood it at that time. agenda, or rather, two hidden message was clear: do not use To Merton, science was purely an agendas. Marxian theory as your grand empirical enterprise: scientists theory; do not expand upon observed the world, gathered data First, he wanted sociologists to Marxian theory; do not link your systematically, and then wrote-up abandon Parsons’s grand theory. empirical analysis to a Marxian their findings in scientific For, Parsons’s theory, though framework. journals, using a specific format purporting to be the basis for for their presentation of the data. American “structural- Confronted by C. Wright Mills on If the sociologists imitated the functionalism,” had in fact turned the “grand theory” derived from natural scientist, they too could out to be far too abstract, and too Weber, Merton won debater’s produce momentous results. distant from institutional and points when he offered that cultural realities. Parsons’s grand Weber’s theory of the “the And further, by following this theory was actually a variation on protestant ethic and the spirit of purely empirical process, the “systems theory,” which he had capitalism” was a perfect example sociologist could avoid the learned while studying in of a “middle range theory.” But politically dangerous, value- Germany, and it never did anyone who knew Merton’s become the theoretical basis for graduate students at the time Continued on page 18 Page 5 Perspectives
Theoretical Growth from page 1 1
I had concluded this piece by (expectation state theory, Should the latter be conceived as opening a Pandora’s box, that is, exchange network analysis, an additive process, or are other by stating rather flatly (and resource mobilization theory, metaphors more apt? How about telegraphically) that grand theory etc.). He regards contributions zigzagging? Hopping? Skipping? is best conceived as a that do not aim to “explain as My recent work on definitions of complement to middle range much reality as is possible with as originality in the social sciences theory and empirical research. few concepts, models, and and the humanities suggests that This conclusion was principles as is possible” as moving research in new directions “inconclusive,” in the sense that I “conceptual foreplay around time- and making new connections is intentionally did not spell out the bound data” and “conceptually- the type of originality most salient theoretical position that led me to massaged empirical to panelists who serve on funding it, and this, with the hope that observations.” He calls for us to panels across a range of colleagues would take the bait, as move up the ladder of abstraction disciplines–more than advancing indeed Turner and others have and sees this as the key to the new theories or new findings done. Hence the need to production of lasting within already established elaborate, if only briefly, specific contributions from hot fields such research programs. Changing the aspects of my position by asking as cultural sociology. The terms of the debate, providing what constitutes theoretical alternative is disciplinary demise. new lenses, rec5onceptualizing progress or vitality in our field.3 ways of approaching a familiar It is difficult not to share Turner’s phenomenon: such contributions Walking in Homans’s footsteps, commitment to theoretical do not necessarily translate into Turner is still hoping for a unified cumulation. Most of us agree on linear disciplinary progress. Nor discipline of sociology that the need to build on the work of do they lead to the production of provides general propositions or others by positioning our research generalized propositions. Yet if laws that hold across all contexts. in relation to what has been we believe my panelists, our He equates theoretical cumulation established by the literature. One accounting of progress should and sociological explanation with of the points around which take such contributions into the production of such opinions diverge is the question consideration, and I agree. propositions. This is illustrated by of the linear or multidimensional the list of successful research character of progress.4 programs that he mentions, which include the usual suspects Continued on next page
1 I thank Neil Gross and Robin Stryker for reacting to this piece.
2 Jonathan Turner. 2004. “Is Grand Theory Dead and Should Sociology Care? A Reply to Lamont.” Perspectives 27 (2), pp. 3, 11, and 12.
3 This being an occasional piece, I do not have space to discuss the work of the many colleagues who have written wisely on the topic of theoretical growth. My heartfelt apologies. I hope to have the occasion to do so in a paper to be delivered at the ASA in 2005.
Page 6 Perspectives
Theoretical Growth from previous page
Adopting a multifarious This is not to deny the many which alternative epistemological conception of growth allows for a contributions of our colleagues positions (constructivist, considerable broadening of the who share Jon Turner’s stance on positivist, utilitarian) are based in list of theoretical nobles beyond how knowledge grows, nor of order to steer clear of decisional that offered by Turner. Indeed, if Jon’s own. But again, we have to dead-ends and collective failure. the criteria of significance go keep in mind that his stance The same needs to happen in our beyond “generalizability” and describes only one of the ways by community of theorists, and “predictability” to include which knowledge grows. This acknowledging the various paths “providing new lenses,” the tent is perspective is not widely shared to knowledge building is an wide enough to include Erving in sociology and in the social essential step to achieving this Goffman, Harold Garfinkel, Arlie sciences at large, if we believe the goal. The alternative may be Hochschild, Emmanuel panelists I have interviewed. The disciplinary demise7. Fortunately, Wallerstein, Michel Foucault, anti-reductionist comprehensive many colleagues share this Jurgen Habermas, and William standpoint that Weber developed pluralistic perspective. Julius Wilson, along with Joseph in the context of the Berger and many others who do Methodenstreit, in which theory is Because of my recent work on more than conceptual foreplay. used to illuminate empirical cases peer review, I have been asked to This broadening is essential if in their complexity and serve on a committee of the theory is to continue to thrive and singularity rather than for the sake National Academy of Sciences to play a central role in our field. I of constructing general laws, is by that is charged with evaluating suggest that it is precisely the far the epistemological position which areas of the research on excessive narrowing of theory to most popular among these aging show the most vitality. the production of general panelists. It is used in more than Much is at stake, since our report parsimonious propositions that is three quarters of the 66 interviews will influence funding decisions. leading to the balkanization of with panel members and chairs At the center of our mandate is 6 theory within sociology, to the that I conducted. Also, these defining what vitality means and section’s weakened influence, and panelists learn to translate their how to capture it. This is the to theorists becoming more active positions into the logic most substantive drive that has led me in sections that I have described valued by their peers and to avoid to agree to join the team despite as theory satellites. attacking the very principles on my obvious ignorance about the Continued on next page
4 I leave the question of reductivism and the relation place of grand theory in sociology for my ASA 2005 paper.
5Joshua Guetzkow, Michèle Lamont, and Grégoire Mallard. 2004. “What is Originality in the Social Sciences and the Humanities?” American Sociological Review 69: 190-212.
6 Grégoire Mallard, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2004. “Do Epistemological Differences Affect Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities? Evidence from Peer Review Panels.” Unpublished paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University. Of course, more work is needed before we can draw conclusions about specific trends within disciplines, and before we can extrapolate from trends in funding panels to disciplinary trends. Page 7 Perspectives
Theoretical Growth from previous. page
field of aging – the diverse group 6) Diffusion: the extent to which of its various strands, with only a includes colleagues such as knowledge from a field diffuses few of us doing “the real thing” – Stephen Cole and Rob Kohler. In outside of it mostly well-established senior discussions with colleagues here 7) Applicability: the extent to (and by the way, male) in Cambridge,8 I have begun which knowledge generated by a researchers such as our very compiling a list of all the field has practical applications in esteemed colleagues Charles Tilly dimensions through which we can policy, business, law, education, and Robert Wuthnow (singled out capture the vitality of a field. and elsewhere. by Turner as going beyond Among the criteria we have “conceptual foreplay”). It also identified, I will mention only a These criteria point toward a would place our discipline very few, in no particular order: multiplicity of types of low on the totem pole of fields, 1) Generativity: the extent to excellence. Similarly, if we are to which to my view would grossly which specific contributions lead capture what defines the vitality misrepresent the many to new theories and “discoveries” or strength of sociology, more contributions of our multi- 2) Growth (intellectual and than one criterion should be taken paradigmatic discipline. Just as institutional): the extent to which into consideration. Our discipline sociologists of science have long a field attracts energy and produces different types of abandoned a naïve representation produces activity, via the creation knowledge(e.g., generalizable of the natural sciences as of researchers, publication outlets, propositions, but also theories that disciplines moved by linear sources of funding, and other stress temporal heterogeneity for cumulation, we should move resources instance),9 and this diversity away from a view of sociology as 3) Diversity: the range of should be acknowledged in our having to fall in line with a problems being tackled by those definition of theoretical growth or unitary scientific order that has active in a field vitality. To order sociological never been. Along with Karin 4) Interdisciplinarity: the extent contributions within a single Knorr Cetina, it is high time that to which a field engages questions hierarchy or paradigm, as we acknowledge the disunity of 10 raised by other fields economists do, and as Turner science, and within sociology, the 5) Attraction: the extent to which seems to be advocating for our fact that we do many things. And researchers outside a field follow field, would be to weaken it by from where I stand, this is as it it and engage it underestimating the contributions should be.
7 For instance, this argument is very much in line with that of Donald Levine, Charles Camic, and Hans Joas. See in particular Charles Camic and Hans Joas. 2004. “The Dialogical Turn.” Pp. 1-19 in The Dialogical Turn, New Roles for Sociology in the Post-Disciplinary Age. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, p. 5.
8Thanks in particular to Susan Silbey, Ilana Lowy, and Peter Galison.
9 William Sewell, Jr. Forthcoming. Logics of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10Karin Knorr Cetina. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Page 8 Perspectives
Feminisms from page 1
As a result, I am acutely aware of psychological feminist theory, these debates has waned over the the diverse investments that shape especially the ground breaking past few years (see, e.g., Harding what counts as theory in different work of Nancy Chodorow (1978, 2003). Postmodern and academic sites. From the 1989). Other influential poststructuralist feminisms have perspective of the sociology of approaches include feminist been shaped by engagement with knowledge, this observation is not symbolic interactionism (see Foucault’s theories of surprising. What is surprising, Fenstermaker and West 2002); the power/knowledge and discourse, however, is the extent to which gender and power approach among other European theorists scholars in one disciplinary developed by R. W. Connell (see, e.g., Ramazanoglu 1993). location are unaware of the (1987, 1995); and feminist social Feminists have appropriated theoretical perspectives that are constructionism (see, e.g., Lorber Foucault’s theory of discourse but viewed as most significant by 1995). If we shift our lens to caution that Foucault’s turn from academic practitioners in another interdisciplinary work that does the subject undermines the discipline. not have as much influence in our political agency of women and discipline but remains in the others who are interested in Because many interdisciplinary forefront of feminist theory in contesting dominant power faculty members are trained other academic sites, we would relations. Foucault’s approach within a particular discipline, our need to include feminist also masks the important feminist disciplinary lenses continue to psychoanalytic theory that has insight that discursive regimes shape our evaluation of which been informed by Lacan’s work construct as well as target theoretical frameworks we and poststructural linguistic gendered and racialized subjects. consider to be the most important. approaches that draw on Feminist theories of discourse are Differences among feminist Saussure’s theory of language able to bring the dynamics of scholars in the social sciences and (see, e.g., Clough 2000; Fraser gender, race, and class into the in the humanities are especially and Bartkey 1992). theoretical frame more effectively pronounced in some academic than is possible with a non- settings and feminist literature. While disciplines remain a feminist Foucauldian approach. That said, from my angle of foundational structure of vision I briefly highlight some of power/knowledge that infuses The tension between so-called the theoretical perspectives that I different feminist projects and modernist and postmodernist see “at the forefront of feminist influences who are considered the approaches is most evident in theory” in the discipline of most important producers of critiques of feminist standpoint sociology and offer an overview feminist theory, there are a theory. This important strand of of theoretical frameworks and number of theoretical theorizing can be traced to the themes that transcend perspectives and debates that do earlier theoretical frameworks of disciplinary borders. transcend disciplinary boundaries. Marxist feminism and socialist For example, debates over feminism and developed in the From the point of view of modernism and postmodernism context of challenges to the so- feminist sociological theory, it is continue to provoke heated called dual systems of patriarchy important to foreground the on- discussion among feminist going significance of social theorists, although the intensity of Continued on next page Page 9 Perspectives Feminisms from previous page and capitalism approach that was (3) “a methodological strategy, culture in different geographic associated with socialist feminist namely, a site through which to and historical contexts” (Naples theory. While most feminist begin inquiry” as in Dorothy 2003, 7). Perhaps even more scholars no longer use the terms Smith’s approach (Naples 2003, significant than the Marxist and socialist feminisms to 8). Some feminist theoretical modernism/postmodernism describe their feminist approaches like standpoint theory debate are the challenges posed to perspectives, the tradition of are defined as “modernist,”others feminist theorizing by critical historical materialism remains like feminist discourse theory are race, third world and postcolonial highly influential in contemporary categorized as “postmodernist.” theories. Although feminist feminist scholarship as evident by However, many scholars, myself scholars did engage with the popularity of the edited included, resist the dichotomous questions of race and class collection by Rosemary Hennessy distinction between modernist and throughout the 1970s and early and Chris Ingraham (1997) postmodernist theories that has 1980s, the publication of among other materialist feminist fueled much recent feminist Borderlands/La Frontera: The writing. Broadly defined, debate (see, e.g., Ferguson 1991; New Mestiza by Gloria Anzaldúa feminist standpoint theory Naples 2003; Weeks 1998). As I in 1987 and Black Feminist includes Nancy Hartsock's (1983) have argued elsewhere, “by Thought by Patricia Hill Collins “feminist historical materialist” defining Foucault’s genealogical in 1990, along with other perspective, Donna Haraway's approach as postmodern and theoretical work by Black (1988) analysis of “situated placing it in opposition to feminist and Chicana feminist knowledges,” Patricia Hill Marxism and other frameworks scholars, led many feminist Collins's (1990) “black feminist said to be modernist, parties to the theorists across the disciplines to thought,” and Dorothy Smith's debate reduce the complexity of grapple with questions of power, (1987, 1990) “everyday world” both Foucault’s thought and racialization, and difference to a epistemology. Feminist Marxist theories” (p. 6). Cultural much greater extent than in earlier standpoint theorists Sandra studies scholar Wendy Hesford theoretical work (also see, e.g., Harding, Dorothy Smith, Patricia (1999) also challenges the divide Spellman 1988). Analytic work Hill Collins, Nancy Hartsock, and between modernism and that explicitly attempts to theorize Donna Haraway, in particular, postmodernism that conflates “the the relationship between gender, have had tremendous influence in deconstruction of the subject with race, class, and other structures of sociology and beyond. While the erasure of human agency” (p. difference and inequality is often some critics of feminist 26). The blurring between defined as “intersectional standpoint theory fail to see the modernist and postmodernist theory.” However, I find Dorothy significant differences between perspectives has contributed to Smith’s analysis of “relations of these scholars, I have found that the development of a new form of ruling” and her theoretically each theorist offers a different materialist feminism, one “that driven approach, “institutional understanding of “standpoint” as: incorporates important insights of ethnography,” to be the most (1) “embodied in experiences of postmodern analyses of power, powerful theoretical framework both the researcher and the subjectivity, and language as a for analyzing the intersection of researched”; (2) “located and powerful framework for exploring multiple systems of power as they constructed in ongoing the intersection of race, class, relationships in communities” or gender, sexuality, region, and Continued on next page Page 10 Perspectives
Feminisms from previous page are expressed in everyday life theoretical analyses; and insisting Questions regarding gender and (see, e.g., Smith 1990, 1999). on the complexity of gender, violence have also been of great Most recently, theoretical sexuality, ethnicity, race, concern to feminist theorists since frameworks that center on nationalism, class, and other the early 1970s. The most recent postcolonial analyses or gendered processes through which subjects work in this area explores processes of global capitalism are constituted. questions of gendered violence in such as third world feminism, war, terrorism, religious postcolonial and global feminisms Feminist cultural theory and fundamentalism, and have taken center stage in feminist queer theory are two imprisonment. Another theme that feminist scholarship (see, e.g., other aspects of feminist continues to garner a great deal of Basu 1995; Mohanty, 2003; theoretical work that is in the attention in feminist theoretical Naples and Desai 2003; Narayan forefront of feminist scholarship work across the disciplines is the 1997). Not surprisingly, the across the disciplines (see, e.g., relationship between gender, race, overlapping themes of Hennessy 2000; Esptein 2002; class and the state. For example, globalization, development, Walters 1995; Weed and Schor feminist political sociologists immigration, nationalism, 1997). Theoretical analysis of continue to examine the gendered terrorism, and human rights have sexuality has a long history in contradictions of social policy become some of the most salient feminist thought. Recent work in cross-nationally and in the context foci for feminist theoretical work this area focuses on decoupling of contemporary globalization in the new millennium (see, e.g., gender and sexuality, theorizing (see, e.g., Mazur 2002: O’Connor, Barker and Feiner 2004; genders and sexualities, and Orloff, Shafer 1999). A final area Bhavnani, Foran and Kurian, exploring the gendered of theoretical work that deserves 2003; Molyneux and Razavi production of sexual desire (see, more than this brief mention is the 2003; Momsen and Kinnaird e.g. Williams and Stein 2002). diverse theoretical perspectives 1993; and Saunders 2002). The While analyses of gender, produced by feminist scholars in strength of feminist interventions sexuality, and the body have other social locations such as into these areas of investigation formed a core theme in feminist African feminism or Latin include, but are not limited to, theorizing since the early 1970s, American feminism (see, e.g., theorizing the relationship in its most recent permutation, Nnaemeka 1998). Although some between local and global feminist scholars across the feminist scholars would argue that processes with attention to the disciplines are now widening their each of these framework could be construction of gender, inequality, lenses and exploring the themes understand as a form of and resistance; demonstrating the of gender and embodiment, and “standpoint epistemology,” this importance of place and locale for gender and disability (see, e.g., definitional move would not do understanding difference, agency, Fausto-Sterling 2000, Martin justice to the rich analyses that are and power; destabilizing notions 2001, Wendell 1996). One of the found in this scholarship (see, of the “state,” among other best collections of work in this e.g., Momsen and Kinnaird 1993). constructs, by examining the area that I have come across is gendered processes and gendered Feminist Theory and the Body, The vibrancy of feminist effects of governmentality; edited by Janet Price and Margrit theoretical work is a consequence challenging the separation of Shildrick (1999). culture and political economy in Continued on next page Page 11 Perspectives
Feminisms from previous page of a core commitment to scholars. While I acknowledge Feminist theoretical perspectives reflective praxis as well as the that not all gender scholars are were developed in the context of diversity of voices and theoretical feminist scholars, this finding diverse struggles against work that is considered part of the comes as no surprise to me since hegemonic modes of knowledge broader knowledge production feminist scholarship requires a production that render women’s enterprise. Preparing to teach a broad theoretical training, one lives, and those of other marginal course in feminist theory involves which mandates familiarity with groups, invisible or dispensable. considering what angle of vision theoretical debates in a number of Institutionalized and elaborated to take and which of the many disciplines as well as in the within the academy, feminist feminist perspectives will offer growing number of theories simultaneously reflect students the most broad-based interdisciplinary arenas. and challenge certain intellectual entry into the field without and material investments held to marginalizing approaches that do Sociological theory is enriched by be sacred by many academic not neatly fit into sociological engagements with feminist practitioners. Within the social theoretical traditions. In addition theoretical work inside and sciences, feminist theorists have to addressing “what is happening outside its borders. Feminist raised questions about the at the forefront of feminist theory theorists have a great deal to offer separation of theory and method, today” I have also been asked to the Theory Section: (1) as the gendered biases inherent in respond to a second question, i.e., translators who are conversant positivism, and the hierarchies “is the theory section a hospitable across theoretical perspectives as that limit who can be considered place for such work?” I do not well as across disciplines; (2) as the most appropriate producers of have a long angle of vision to critical analysts who have theoretical knowledge. As a bring to this answer. Although I demonstrated the limits of major consequence, feminist theorists have been teaching feminist conventional sociological theories have been unwelcome, dismissed theory courses for many years, I by critiquing these frameworks or ignored in some sociological did not see the Theory Section as for their inability to adequately circles. The fact that the Theory a logical section to join. I first analyze and explain the dynamics Section is, once again, grappling attended a session sponsored by of gender, sexuality, and power; with the “missing feminist the section when Dorothy Smith (3) as intersectional theorists who, revolution” (Stacey and Thorne was a featured speaker. I recall together with critical race scholars 1995) within its sacred circle and many senior feminist scholars in and queer theorists, have is willing to invite comment about the audience commenting on how generated rich theoretical insights it is a consequence of the remarkable this was given that about knowledge, power, section’s interest in revitalizing few, if any, feminist scholars had subjectivity, and resistance that the field of “sociological theory” been featured by the section over go far beyond the “add and stir” more generally. I believe that its long history. I was also struck approach that is often found in feminist theoretical work can help by the recent debate over the so- other sociological approaches; the section achieve this goal. I called decline of “theory” and (4) as innovators who adopt welcome the opportunity for positions and the finding that a reflective theoretical strategies further discussion and debate. large number of graduate theory and are therefore quick to develop courses in the “top” sociology new theoretical questions and departments are taught by gender frameworks. For references, see page 19 Page 12 Perspectives
Feminist Theory from page 2
Perhaps because it is so linked made here, the first to be and emphasize not just the with the concept of political challenged was that that there was interactive effects of race, class change, feminist theory has something unique to women and and gender, but the discursive and remained vigilant, and has been shared by all women – the material co-constitution of willing to shift its lens and even assumption of universality. This gender/race/sexuality/class within its understanding of its own is, of course, a classically different contexts. foundational terms – women, sociological challenge that arose, gender, liberation – in order to at least in the US and Europe, out The second move, once the maintain a critical edge that of the recognition of working unified category has been continues to inspire both class women and women of color debunked, and gender scholarship and social movements that the assumptions made about contextualized, is a shift in the of all kinds. women’s shared experiences were object of study from women (a not in fact shared by all women. group or a category with shared Let me briefly sketch three That which was being considered traits) to the production and significant shifts that have taken universal to women was in fact a construction of gendered practices place over the past thirty years of US and England based white where masculinity (ies) and feminist theory. Some of these middle class specificity. Thus the femininity (ies) exist in relation to changes have been incorporated first theoretical move was the one another. Thus women and into sociology and others resisted. rejection of white womanhood as men are interesting in as much as These are not the only ones but the normatively universal they usually (but not always—the the ones that I find the most category and an acceptance that it slippages and alternative significant: 1) From was a particular category. Thus possibilities are important here) universalizing to particularizing gender came to be seen as embody different sets of gendered and contextualizing women’s something whose effects are best practices. These clusters of experiences; 2) From understood in intersection with practices, named masculinity and conceptualizing men and women other elements (race, sexuality femininity, get their power from as categories to exploring etc). Within sociology, Patricia being constructed in opposition to gendered practices; and 3) From a Hill Collins is perhaps best each other. The theoretical task focus on the particular and local known for her articulation of the here is to think through the ways to understanding transnational intersection of race and gender, gender difference is constructed connections. and outside of it, legal scholars through everyday practice. This is such as Kimberle Crenshaw and also the shift that legitimizes the Early feminists such as Gayle Bell Hooks. Gender, then, is not study of men through the study of Rubin and Catherine Mackinnon as an independent social relation practices of masculinity. While tried to isolate gender from other (no more than are class or race), sociologists such as R.W. Connell social forces, to analyze its but is embedded in a field of other and Barrie Thorne were at the specificity – as different from relations such as class, age, forefront of this attention to class and race – while marking sexuality, race and geo-politics. practice, the study of multiple gender as THE core contradiction Those inspired by constructions of masculinities and of society – indeed of all poststructuralists such as Joan societies. Of the assumptions Scott take this one step further Continued on next page Page 13 Perspectives
Feminist Theory from previous page femininities form a core element It is also different from when have been included as a major of both feminist theory and feminist scholars of development school of thought to be examined Cultural Studies today (see for paid attention to other parts of the and learned and critiqued along example Judith Gardiner’s edited world because women were with other theories about social volume Masculinity Studies and particularly poor or oppressed order and conflict and culture. Feminist Theory). The shift from there. Transnational feminist This has not happened, though studying categories of people to theory urges us to examine how many of the courses on practices also enabled studies of global capital and geopolitics both sociological theory do include the sexuality and queer theory to depend on and asymmetrically requisite one week on feminist flourish (see the work of Steven affect gendered ideas and theory. On the other hand, Seidman). practices in rich and poor feminist theories and countries. Women’s Studies epistemologies have slipped into Finally, the debunking of claims scholars such Chandra Mohanty, sociology in the way we now of universality meant that scholars Inderpal Grewal and Caren critique the blind spots of began to concentrate on women in Kaplan have been crucial here. particular theorists and in our particular countries (in the US, refusal to see them as abstract most feminist scholars think about The initial objective of feminist minds, through our understanding and work on the US), but the theory was to explain the of the multiple ways in which actual connections between seemingly universal asymmetries power operates, or through our womens’ lives in different between men and women in the skepticism of work that assumes countries were neither world. Thus feminist theory was the separation of the public and theoretically nor empirically not interested in explaining all the private. We have a situation explored, except by some Marxist social problems but rather the then where a vibrant body of feminists. Hidden until recently specific problematic of gender thought is either taught in a were the connections between inequality. However, feminist separate class or as one week gendered ideas and practices and theory has long evolved into a within a larger course on asymmetrical power relations in complex body of knowledge sociological theory when it the world. Today, transnational through which to comprehend openly calls itself feminist theory, feminist theory, influenced by many social facts about the world or is quietly absorbed into postcolonial theory, pays more – even those that appear on the sociological theory, without open attention to the flows of power, surface to be ungendered, such as use of the f-word. The revolution ideas and resources between rich war or famine. What then, of the may have been quiet and it has a and poor nations of the world. relationship of sociological theory long way to go, but I would not Transnational theorizing is to feminist theory? Is the theory hesitate to call it a revolution. fundamentally different from section of the ASA a hospitable earlier attention to women in the place for feminist theory? I third world, when radical believe it can be. There has been feminists declared foot binding in increased attention to feminist China, the Salem witch trials and theory and to queer theory in the wearing of high heels to be recent issues of Sociological manifestations of the same Theory, for example. Yet universal principle of patriarchy. feminist theory should by now Page 14 Perspectives
State and Location from page 3
Thus, research motivated by the feminist theorist. While I continue recent web forum on the “The feminist goals of challenging to be deeply interested in theory – Role and Location of Theory in gender inequality and i.e., I am engaged in an attempt at Sociology” (2004, Theory section classification draws on and reconciling Sewell’s usage of the webpage www.asatheory.org), the contributes to core conceptual terms “structure” (Sewell 1992) culture section has become the frameworks in cultural sociology. and “culture” (Sewell 1999) – I home of theoretical scholarship For example, sociologists of am not currently involved with that in the past might have been gender and of culture have both the theory section. I adopted the located in the theory section. played crucial roles in the culture section as my primary development of social intellectual home after a culture constructionist theory. Cerulo’s section reception at the ASA (1997) review of the state of meetings in Los Angeles in 1994. work on identity construction in At this party, I was seduced by a sociology demonstrates how work powerful combination of on gender identity contributes to theoretical affinity and network the study of identity more ties. There were many women in generally. The integration of tools the room – both faculty and relevant to feminist agendas into graduate students – leading me to core conceptual frameworks believe that women were suggests progress in the feminist welcome in the section. I was in revolution in sociology. Stacey the midst of my dissertation at and Thorne defined a feminist that time, and thrilled to discover revolution in sociology as a national network of scholars involving the transformation of who “got” what I was up to and basic conceptual frameworks not seemed to think it was interesting just the adding of new topics and and relevant. Over the years I subfields. Since Stacey and have continued to find cultural Thorne initially described the sociology to offer exciting feminist revolution in sociology theoretical tools, and to be open as missing, scholars have to the contributions of scholarship periodically reassessed the motivated by feminist concerns. I situation, with varying degrees of experienced no parallel optimism recruitment into the theory section. I suspect my intellectual The general case I have been and professional biography is not developing for the relative appeal unique, and that these factors may of the culture section is also an partially explain why the culture explanation of my own personal section is more gender balanced location within sociology. I than the theory section, why it has entered graduate school in the late more student members, and, why, 1980s intending to become a as noted by Michele Lamont in a For references, see page 20 Page 15 Perspectives
Whither Theory from page 4
Because I took all available as in Weber’s typology of in the previous years – the so- classes on Marxism, political meanings and Parsons’s social called “cultural turn” – should science became my area of system model – which trouble its use as an explanatory concentration by default. In the presupposes and produces self- device. My conclusion was that required sociology courses, transparent (interior/temporal) the potential of the global as a however, Durkheim’s, not social subjects, provided a map of critical theoretical tool was Weber’s or Parsons’, version of the social in which those sharing undermined by theorists’ need to the sociological project interested my social (racial, class, gender) hold on to classical sociological me the most precisely because in place could not be located. Two theorizing. The only options his formulation of the social the interrelated poststructuralist bugs seemed to be to conceive of a individual does not constitute the have from then on global subject that was just a basic moral entity. Not until I “contaminated” my approach to planetarian version of the social began working on my M.A. the discipline’s project: the subject, the product of a thesis, “The Reverse of the critique of transparency and the homogeneous global culture; or to Mirror: Race and Symbolic centrality of the symbolic, of conceive of the latter as a Exclusion in Brazilian Soap processes of signification/ heterogeneous (fragmented or Operas,” did I realize why Marx subjectification. If I was to remain hybrid) moral whole, in which all and Durkheim seem to hold the on the path I had been for the different constitutive “local key for engaging in the mapping previous ten years, an cultures” seemingly occupy the of the place Peter Berger had engagement with social theory same position. Not much taught me could be outlined but seemed the obvious venue. sociological training is necessary, his humanist sociology could not I am convinced, for one to realize grasp. Because Marx and Already seriously infected by that the globe is an uneven Durkheim directly challenge the French poststructuralism, I took (economically and juridically) two theoretical formulations – one pivotal course during my first political configuration; and yet respectively Hegel’s and Kant’s – year at the sociology graduate historical-materialist accounts of that constitute modernity’s self- program at the University of globalization all too easily representation, as a rational Pittsburgh: a seminar on articulate, to dismiss, the juridical-moral order, they sociology of culture, in which I pervasiveness of culture as suggest that the discipline’s was first exposed to the theorizing another ideological strategy of the project does not need to rely upon on globalization, in particular big old capital. However, it. As I delved further into global culture. Two things ideology could not account for poststructuralist critiques of bothered me in the early 1990s how in the early 1990s, for better modern thought, I gathered theorizing of globalization: first, I or worse, appropriations of the formulations that indicated the could not understand why race (as postmodern critique of modern limits of the notion of culture a colonial and postcolonial thought were already making (morality) and ideology that political concept) was totally headlines in declarations of organize the social scientific absent from the theorizing of “cultural wars,” and defenses of theoretical arsenal. More global conditions; second, it multiculturalism and diversity as specifically, I learned that the seemed to me that the political sociological rendering of culture – significance culture had acquired Continued on next page Page 16 Perspectives
Whither Theory from previous page solutions to end these symbolic and the anthropological battles. What was inconceivable construction of its racial/cultural was that social theorists of all (moral) “others.” Though shades could ignore the fact that Berger’s invitation informs my race and culture supported claims teaching and writing, my project for “cultural difference,” the is to undo the humanistic map the demands for recognition of the sociological rendering of culture “locals,” which many said produces. My bio/graphical registered the emergence of threads animate a desire to global conditions. Because they comprehend how knowledge had become global “native” produces subaltern subjects categories, these traditional pieces proliferating in the contemporary of the sociological arsenal should global political configuration, not be ignored, be taken as mere how the very tools social “empirical” givens, be deployed scientific practitioners deploy to as theoretical tools in the same understand it configure this way they had been during the political space. More precisely, previous hundred years or so. my work addresses race and culture as political/symbolic My approach to social theory instruments that delimit the place reflects this impatience with certain individuals and global sociology’s investment in the regions occupy in contemporary project of European modernity, global configuration. Whether it expressed in this refusal to situate should be called sociological it and in its own inability to theory depends on whether acknowledge its own participation sociology can afford in the production of the social acknowledging its own conditions it investigates. Whither participation in the production of theory? Certainly, the social that which it seeks to explain, and theory “I do” is not sociological whether, when doing so, the theory as we know it. From the discipline will retain the desire to critical bugs I got from secure its own place as a social poststructuralism, I have devised scientific project. a critical analytical arsenal, organized by a conception of the political/symbolic to capture how knowledge constitutes a productive moment of modern social configurations that seeks to displace the Marxist account of subjection, the sociological version of the modern subject, Page 17 Perspectives
Grand Theory from page 5
-loaded, grand theory of Marx and Yet, at Columbia, when They are great in the same way his followers, and avoid the Durkheim was taught, the that Newton’s theories and overly abstract systems theory of emphasis was on his statistical Darwin’s theories are great. That Parsons. Merton joined forces prowess – his remarkable use of is, just as the universe and nature with the mathematician, census data – rather than on his have become better understood Lazersfeld, and set society on a grand, comparative, cultural and through the lenses of Newton’s theory-less course, hoping that structural theory. Would anyone and Darwin’s work, so too, social empiricism and statistical analysis at Columbia – or any of the life has become better understood – formatted in scientific-journal prestigious universities in through the lenses of Marx, style – would be enough. America – have been encouraged Weber, Durkheim, G. H. Mead, Generations of American to study “suicide” or “religion,” and other “classical” sociological sociologists have followed this as these phenomena appeared theorists. path. from France to Germany to the Amazon and to Australia? With Communism dead and But what of Merton himself? Parsons resurrected, it is time to What kind of sociology did he And so, the debate goes on. And, forget Merton’s hidden agendas do? Ironically, Merton grounded because Merton won the debate – and his overly simplistic view of his work firmly in grand theory – even though he became a great science. It is time to re-ground the grand theory, first and sociologist by not following the sociology on its grand theoretical foremost, of Emile Durkheim. In path he demanded his students base. For, this is a base we can be Merton’s paper, “Social Structure follow – sociology is still being proud of – a base Merton himself and Anomie,” he extends done in America disjointed from proved is fertile ground for new Durkheim’s theory of social the exceptionally insightful sociological insights to come. Let disorganization, producing a very “grand theory” base upon which us “stand on the shoulders of useable typology of deviance. our discipline could, and should, giants” once again, for we can see This extension of Durkheim’s rest. much more clearly from there. theory has become a classic in itself. No, we do not have a unified theoretical base. Yes, Marxian Merton went on to ground his and Weberian historical theory theory of the “self-fulfilling are epistemologically different prophecy” in the work of W. I. from Durkeimian and Symbolic Thomas – whose work was part of Interactionist ahistorical theory. another grand theory: Symbolic This is old news, and there are Interactionism. more complications and contradictions in our theoretical Most of Merton’s corpus of work underpinnings. But the “grand is very deeply grounded in theories” which undergird Durkheimian and Symbolic sociological analysis – and which Interactionist theory. are taught in every theory course in every university – are great. Page 18 Perspectives
Naples references Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute. Barker, Drucilla, and Susan F. Feiner. 2004. Liberating Economics : Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work, and Globalization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Basu, Amrita, ed. 1995. “Feminism Lives: Building a Multicultural Women's Movement in the United States.” Pp. 435-462 in The Challenge of Local Feminisms: Women's Movements in Global Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview. Bhavnani, Kum-Kum, John Foran and Priya Kurian. 2003. Feminist Futures; Re-imagining Women, Culture and Development. London: Zed Books. Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender Trouble (Tenth Anniversary Edition). New York,, NY Routledge Chodorow, Nancy. 1989. Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clough, Patricia Ticineto. 2000. Autoaffection: Unconscious Thought in the Age of Technology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender & Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Press. Epstein, Steven. 2002. “”A Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality.” Pp. 44-59 in Sexuality and Gender, eds. Christine L. Williams and Arlene Stein. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books Ferguson, Kathy E. 1991. “Interpretation and Genealogy in Feminism.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16(2):322-39. Fenstermaker, Sarah, and Candace West, eds. 2002. Doing Gender/Doing Difference. New York, NY: Routledge. Fraser, Nancy, and Sandra Lee Bartky, eds. 1992. Revaluing French Feminism: Critical Essays on Differeence, Agency, and Culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3):575-99. Harding, Sandra, ed. 2003. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York, NY: Routledge. Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York, NY: Longman. Hesford, Wendy S. 1999. Framing Identities: Autobiography and the Politics of Pedagogy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hennessy, Rosemary. 2000. Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge. Hennessy, Rosemary, and Chrys Ingraham. 1997. Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women’s Lives. New York, NY: Routledge. Lorber, Judith. 1995. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Martin, Emily. 2001. Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Mazur, Amy G. 2002. Theorizing Feminist Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mohanty, Chandra Talpede. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Molyneux, Maxine, and Shahra Razavi. 2003 Gender Justice, Development, and Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Momsen, Janet Henshall, and Vivian Kinnaird, eds. 1993 Different Places, Different Voices: Gender and Development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. New York, NY: Routledge. Naples, Nancy A. 2003. Feminism and Method: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis, and Activist Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Naples, Nancy A., and Manisha Desai. 2003. Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles with Transnational Politics. New York, NY: Routledge. Narayan, Uma. 1997. Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminism. New York, NY: Routledge. Nnaemeka, Obioma. 1998. Sisterhood, Feminisms and Power in Africa: From Africa to the Diaspora. Trenton, NJ:African World Press. O’Connor, Julia S., Ann Shola Orloff, and Sheila Shaver. 1999. States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Price, Janet, and Margrit Sihldrick, ed. 1999. Feminist Theory and the Body. New York, NY: Routledge. Ramazanoglu, Caroline, ed. 1993. Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions between Foucault and Feminism. New York, NY: Routledge. Saunders, Kriemild, ed. 2002. Feminist Post-Development Thought: Rethinking Modernity, Post-Colonialism and Representation. London: Zed Books. Smith, Dorothy E. 1990. Conceptual Practices of Power. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. . 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Spelman, Elizabeth V. 1988. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston, MA: Beacon. Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne. “Is Sociology Still Missing It’s Feminist Revolution?” Perspectives 18(3). Walters, Suzanna. 1995. Material Girls: Making Sense of Feminist Cultural Theory . Weed, Elizabeth, and Naomi Schor. 1997. Feminism Meets Queer Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Weeks, Kathi. 1998. Constituting Feminist Subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wendall, Susan. 1996. The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Williams, Christine L., and Arlene Stein. 2002. Sexuality and Gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Spelman, Elizabeth V. 1988. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston, MA: Beacon. Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne. “Is Sociology Still Missing It’s Feminist Revolution?” Perspectives 18(3). Walters, Suzanna. 1995. Material Girls: Making Sense of Feminist Cultural Theory . Weed, Elizabeth, and Naomi Schor. 1997. Feminism Meets Queer Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Weeks, Kathi. 1998. Constituting Feminist Subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wendall, Susan. 1996. The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Williams, Christine L., and Arlene Stein. 2002. Sexuality and Gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Page 19 Perspectives
Armstrong references
Alway, Joan. 1995. "The Trouble with Gender: Tales of the Still-Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociological Theory." Sociological Theory 13:209- 228. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cerulo, Karen. 1997. "Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions." Annual Review of Sociology 23:385-409. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Though: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2000. "A Space for Place in Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 26:463-496. Harding, Sandra. 1991. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lamont, Michele. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. New York and Cambridge: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press. Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992. "A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation." American Journal of Sociology 98:1-29. —. 1999. "The Concept(s) of Culture." Pp. 35-61 in Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, edited by Victoria E. Bonnell and Lynn Hunt. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Spalther-Roth, Roberta. 2001. "What is the Effect of Feminization on Disciplinary Subfields." Footnotes. Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne. 1985. "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology." Social Problems 32:301-316. Swidler, Ann. 1986. "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological Review 51:273-286. —. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Page 20