Sex RaIes and Poli tics: a case study by Susan E. Robertson A Thesis subrnitted ta the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillrnent of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Department of Anthropology McGill University Montreal __ _ Mar.ch, 1973. ® Susan E. Robertson 1973 ABSTRACT The thesis examines sorne general issues about the relationship between sex roles and politics. Lionel Tiger's book MEN IN GROUPS (1970) offers an explanation of male dominance in politics based on the supposedly universal biological differences between the sexes. On the basis of my study of a trade union where the sexes are equally represented l have ~hown firstly how one political situation must be seen in its own cultural and historical context before roles within it can be understood. Secondly, l have argued that sex roles in our own society are rnanipulable and changing. The ways in which political relations are related to sex roles have been examined and the explanatory power of cultural factors reaffirmed. La thèse discute de certains problèmes généraux con- cernant la relation entre l'action politique et les rôles sexuels. Lionel Tiger, dans MEN IN GROUPS (1970), explique la domination male du domaine politique par les différences biologiques, et supposément universelles, existant entre les sexes. Sur la base de mon étude d'une union ouvrière, je démontre, tout d'abord, qu'une situation politique doit être vue dans son propre contexte culturel et historique afin de comprendre l'importance qu'y jouent les rôles. Deuxièmement, je suggère que les rôles sexuels dans notre société sont manéables et changeants. La thèse examine les liens entre rôles sexuels et relations politiques ,et réaffirme le pouvoir explicatif des facteurs culturels. Contents Preface i Chapter 1. INTRODUcrION 1 Chapter 2. A HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT 16 1. Establishment of the Union 16 2. Initial Conflicts 20 3. The Development of Issues 24 4. Contract Negot~ations Begin 26 5. Developments within the Union 30 6. Management Tactics 34 7. Strik Action Begins 36 8. Full Strike 39 9. Settlement 47 Chapter 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNION: SOCIAL STRUcrURE OF THE LIBRARY 55 1. Background 55 2. Non-management Professional Librarians 59 3. Workers 61 3.a. The Union: Ideology 64 b. The Union: Leadership 68 c. Organization of the Library 73 d. Union Supporters 85 e. Scabs 89 f. Summary 99 4. Conclusion 103 Chapter 4. CONCLUSIONS 112 References 127 Figures, Charts, Appendices Figure 1. AlI employees: Education, Family composition, Birthplaces 62 2. Supporters and Scabs by Department 76 3. Supporters; Average Age 90 4. Supporters; Education 90 5. Supporters; Family Composition 90 6. Supporters and Scabs;oComparison of Age 92 \.... 7. Supporters and Scabs; Education 94 8. Supporters and Scabs; Birthplace; 95 9. Supporters and Scabs; Family Composition 97 Chart 1. Organization 75 Appendix A 123 Abbreviations CNTU Confederation of National Trade Unions/Con­ fédération des Syndicats Nationaux. NUSGWUE (CNTU) National Union of Sir George Williams University Employees (Confederation of National Trade Unions). SGWAUT Sir George Williams Association of University Teachers . ..... -... i PREFACE One of the major problems that was faced in developing this study was one of methodology. The constraints of the Master's programme meant there were only three months available for full time field research. In addition there was a conflict in professional opinions on the nature of the Master's thesis. It was expected by sorne that one would undertake research which is theoretically significant within the discipline of anthropology as a whole; research for the degree is regarded by others, largely as a learning process in which a clearly defined, straightforward problcm, or aspect of a problem, which can be tested with a methodology which is already established and accepted, is selected. Concern that l was about to undertake a general ethnography rather than a situational analysis of sex roles, was expressed. However, the main strength of anthropology is the recognition of the complexity of interaction between the factors which influence human behaviour and which we label cultural, sociological, psychological, cognitive or ecological, depending on our individual biases. To me, awareness of this cornplexity cornpensates for the lack in anthropology of experimental ii or statistical "proofs", at least when the participant observation method is employed. I found myself continuously incapable of ignoring this complexity and the weaknesses of the study are in large part due to the difficulty of classifying the morrass of information which floods in through the participant observation method. On the other hand any value it may have is a validation of the enthnographic approach, and the way in which it forces one to face the complexity of human affairs. The other major problem is related to the difficulty of deducing general statements from observations of behaviour, once we have decided which of these observations are relevant. We must ever be wary of those attractive theories which explain a part of behaviour in terms of one underlying cause. I became entranced with one such theory outlined in Lional Tiger's MEN IN GROUPS, which explains the postulated and supposedly unchangeable dominance of men in the political realm, in ethological terms. This study re-affirms the significance of culture in hurnan affairs and attempts to highlight the weaknesses of the kinds of ethological theories which have been offered as holistic explanations of human political relatIons. iii My methodological approach was delibe~ately left vague both in the development of my research proposaI and during fieldwork as l was still unsure of what l could say about Tiger's ideas, which apply to the whole of humankind, on the basis of a necessari~y limited piece of research. It seemed desirable to leave open the possibility of pursuing d::. ':ferent kinds of leads which rnig:ht open up during the course of fieldwork. In fact it was only during the course of organizing and analyzing the data, and of writing that the way in which l could do this become clear. The basic point of the study was to test Tiger's ideas on 'the basis of ernpirical findings. Much of the thesis will therefore appear irrelevant as it is concerned with information which is only indirectly or negatively correlated with sex roles. This is partly due to the fact that l was writing for the people who were the actors in the drama as weIl as for my own super­ visers. More importantly it was also necessary to provide considerable detail on the situation to bring the study alive, Ca worthwhile end in itself?) and to indicate just how small the influence of sex roles,was in this situation. Since the field situation was selected primarily because of the apparent iv eq~ality of men and women in it, this last po~nt will be the most significant of my conclusions. I would like to express my gratitude to the various people who helped me with this study. Firstly, .my thanks are due to those who made it possible, to aIl the people in the Library at Sir George. In the Union itself, the cooperation and assistance I received from many people, especially Si Dardick, Nancy Marrelli, Brenda Perry, Pat Heiter and Bob Allen, made the task in addition enjoyable and personally enriching. For many helpful discussions, guidance and her clear confidence in my conception of the study, I would like to thank my adviser, Joan Miller. Thanks are also due to Peter Gutkind and Richard Salisbury for their helpful comments. In addition, I am most grateful to Rochelle Kolodny, cam Perry, Iggy La Rusic and Enid Schildkrout for their support and interest in the study, and their invaluable insights which lead the way to the resolution of many problems. ( Chapter I. INTRODUCTIONI This study was inspired by the thesis presented in Lionel Tiger's book MEN IN GROUPS (1970). The book is not taken very seriously by social scientists - it is easy to criticize because of the selective use of evidence, the reliance on assertions where there is no evidence, and because of the amazingly simplistic ideas of what constitutes explanation • .' However it is an important book, if only because it raises questions that are important, and which because of their com- plexity, many social scientists shy away from or maintain to be unanswerable. The fundamental question of the book is: why have men dominated politics, or community decision-making in almost aIl known societies? Our first response to this is - do they? One of the arguments used both in the feminist movement and by anthropologi~ts who assert that they are capable of overcoming their ethnocentric bias, is that this is not the case. When the processes of group decision making in different kinds of societies are re-examined with this question in mind, the balance is redressed to a certain degree. We can see that women's interests can never be ( - 2 - completely ignored. However, it would be surprising to find many societies in which women not only influence decisions but are agreed to have equal or superior power and authority, or that sex is an irrelevant factor in this sphere. This is rare enough in the domestic sphere and may be confined to certain kinds of matrifocal families, although even here the data is unclear and there is room for controversy. The traditional analytical division between power and authority, in spite of the difficulties of making empirical distinctions, may have sorne usefulness in forming a general statement about the political position of women in societies known to date. For the purposes of this thesis, l define power as exercizing influence in group decision-making processes.