Women and Stratification: A Review of Recent Literature Author(s): Joan R. Acker Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan.

, 1980), pp. 25-35 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2065556 . Accessed: 10/01/2014 11:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS
Contemporary Sociology 1980, Vol. 9 (January): 25-39

A Review of Recent Women and Stratification: Literature

of Oregon,Eugene University Until six or seven yearsago, womenwere those theories;and (3) that reconceptualiinvisiblein work on social stratification,zation is necessaryifwe are to understand hidden in a conceptualizationof female sex inequality. Thatsex and class stratification are sepaclass or status derivedfromthe class or in muchworkon status of men (Acker,1973; Haug, 1973). rate processes is implicit Sex inequality was not partof the subject class. For example, a numberof writers matter either of stratification studies clearly think that an integration of the focusingon individuals is not and theirdistribu- analysisof sex and class inequalities tion in hierarchiesof rewardor of class needed because women are still substanstudies focusing on aggregates similarly tiallyoutside the class system (Giddens, located in relationship havetheclass to the system of 1973) or because housewifes production and the structure 1978); of economic positionsof theirhusbands (Wright, and social power. In the ensuing years, the situationof women working forpay is there has been an avalanche of publica- no different thanthatof menand therefore, tions on sex inequality, much of it within can be accounted for with a presumably thearea ofstratification and mostinjournal sex-neutralclass analysis. These authors articlesrather thanbooks. In selectively re- do not discard the old assumptionsthat viewing this literature, I have been particu- femaleclass is determined by the class of larly interestedin two questions funda- male relationsand do not deal withsexmental to an assessment of progress based inequality;by implication that subtoward stratification theoryand research ject mustbe discussed outsidethe boundthat illuminates the structural positionsof aries of class analysis. women. First,can the disadvantagedand A similar implicitseparation of class subordinatepositionof women be under- stratification and sex stratification appears stood or explained within of books and articles the confinesof in the proliferation the available theories? Second, is our dealing withsex inequality as a separate knowledge of class and stratification phenomenonand geared toward the sex deepened, extended,or alteredbythe new roles-women's studies market (e.g., attention to women? Chafetz,1974; Stoll, 1974; Deckard,1979; The answerto the first question mustbe Duberman, 1975; Walum, 1977; Nielsen, "no," unless we discard the assumptionof 1978). Class differences in the situations of derivedstatus or class forwomen and in- women and men are described in some vestigatethe possibilitiesof conceptualiz- books (e.g., Deckard,1979; Hacker,1975), ing womenas social beings withidentities and the question of the relationship beand existenceoftheir own. Itmight and class stratificathenbe tweensex stratification possible to account for sex inequalities tion is given brief treatmentin others withinstratification or class frameworks. (Chafetz, 1974; Walum, the 1977). However, Threedifferent approaches to this problem analyses do not proceed much past the are implicit, and sometimesexplicit, in the declaration thatwomenconstitute a caste; literature: (1) thatsex and class stratifica- the existenceof these books as a separate tion are different phenomenaand thatsex body of literature attests to the implicit inequality should not be examinedat all or separationin the conceptual frameworks. should be analyzed separately; (2) that Recentstratification textbooks illustrate a women can be integrated into existing variety of approaches to bringing sex intheories without substantial change in equality into a stratification perspective, 25
JOANR. ACKER

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26

SURVEY ESSAYS

approaches which are vaguely specified societies, she does not do so well with society.Consequently, she leaves and insufficiently elaborated.Sex inequality industrial is variously such as why describedas "a critical form of manyquestions unanswered, differentiation" economic positionis not (Rothman, 1978),a "dimen- women's relative sion of stratification" today,even thoughwomen pro(Krauss, 1976), a improving to modern "stratification-linked aspect of ascription" ducersseem to be indispensable (Abrahamson, Mizruchi, and Hornung, economies.I have otherdifficulties with the 1976), and a "basis for stratification" book. Although Blumberg sets out to inte(McCordand McCord,1977). A fewauthors grate sex and class, the theoryof sexual remains separatefrom thetheory are more specific conceptualizing sex inequality stratification and social stratification as two of socioeconomic inequality.In addition, distinct of inequality systems and (Matras, 1975; although she discusses functionalist Rossides, 1976; Westergaardand Resler, conflicttheories, she does not examine 1975) withunspecified linkages.No textde- how these theorieshave dealt or failedto votes more than a few pages to a discus- deal withwomen.This analyticseparation sion of women; theoretical and social stratification issues are ad- of sex stratification dressed briefly unintended and atteststo the (Rossides, 1976; Abraham- is certainly son, Mizruchi, and Hornung, 1976) or difficulty of the projectof bringing women thinking. scarcelyat all. The textsdo notsuccessfully intostratification integrate womenintothe analysisand genWhyreject the idea that sex and class erallyevade the problemby including brief stratification should be analyzed sepaof sex-based inequality descriptions gener- rately?Because thereare conceptual amally ungroundedin a conceptualization of biguities and confusions in taking this societal-wide stratification. Here,too, is an route. First, each version of such an example of the implicit analysisof sex and analysis hides certain complexities. For class as two different typesof phenomena. example,to call womena separatestratum, Rae Lesser Blumberg's Stratification: caste, or class is to obscure the class difSocioeconomicand Sexual Inequality is the ferencesamong themas well as theirlocaonlyserious effort to date in the stratifica- tion at the lowerlevels of all such grouptiontextbookliterature to integrate sex stratification and ecowomen ings. Moreover, into a larger theoreticalframework. In a nomicstratification are not distinct, separtightly argued 127 pages, Blumberggives able categories. Sex stratification always an historical-evolutionary account of the involveseconomic and power inequalities; of socioeconomic and sexual these inequalitiesare produced and maindevelopment inequalities, deals withmajortheoriesand tained withinthe systemof relationships theoretical controversies, and develops her that also constitutesthe class structure. own theory ofsexual inequality and itsvari- The situationof women withinthe class ation underdifferent is precisely theirsituationwithin modes of production. structure She arguesthatwomen'srelative I would argue that the economic the sex structure. poweris the mostimportant are identical forwomen.The determinant of twostructures other inequalitiesincludingthose of mar- second problem with the "two system" riage,parenthood, and sexuality. between Participa- analysis is that if we distinguish tion in productionis a preconditionfor women'ssituations as womenand their fate economic power. Such participation we are makingan is af- in the class structure, fectedbythe compatibility of economicac- underlying thatclass or stratifiassumption withchildcare and theavailability tivities of cation is sex neutral.We do not routinely a suitable male labor supply. Whether or make the distinctionbetween the socionot productive work is translated into economic situationof men as men and power depends on "the strategicimpor- theirposition in the class structure. This tance and indispensability of the female suggeststo me thatclass, whichwe taketo producers and/or their products"(p. 27), on be sex neutral, is actuallya concept built the kinship and on the relations system, of the socioeconomic of on understandings production. This is an intelligent and in- worldas livedby men. It maybe thatbasic book and a promising teresting starton a concepts, certainly those of a Marxist theoryof sex-based inequality.But, the analysis such as exploitation and surplus book is short,and while Blumberginte- value, inherently to cannot make reference grates women and sex inequality This does not mean that into her sex differences. historyof stratification in hunting and the conceptsare sex neutral, onlythatthey gathering, horticultural, and agrarian do not account for the fullcomplexity of

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS

27

the class positionof women.The positing and Knoke, 1974; Mahoney and Richof twoseparatesystemsis a moresophisti- ardson,1979) suggest thatthatconclusion Otherresearch(Rossi et sexism than the mustbe tentative. cated formof intellectual of women.The male al., 1974; Sampson and Rossi, 1975; Nock conceptual invisibility is still taken to be the general human and Rossi, 1978) demonstrates thatwives' systemof occupational status contributes to the being-the generalsocietal-wide a system assessment of the positionof the family is viewedas essentially inequality as the special positionof a whole. This providesfurther of male inequality; supportfor thatevaluationsof the social moreinclu- the argument thisseemingly womenvis-A-vis is then analyzed separately. positionof womencannot be equated with sive structure Women remainstandingon the margins, evaluationsof thesocial positionof mento is some- whomtheyare related.In otherwords,we and the subject of sex inequality that thing we deal with in a paragraph, or have some empirical confirmation women should be taken into account as perhaps even a chapter. actors in efforts to understand A different strategyhas been used by independent researchers stratification. do nottell status attainment and mobility But,these findings about the nature of sex into cope with issues of sex inequality; us anything women and sex as a variable have been equalityor how it is to be explained. Comparisonsof social mobility ratesand absorbed into the ongoing research enof women deavor and its unaltered conceptual processes of status attainment about the naof measurement and men do say something schemes. The availability as well as somethan ture of sex stratification, tools may have been more important about the measuresand modelsused. in- thing in the direction the availability of theory in mobility has taken.As Tyreeand Hodge In spite of some differences vestigation to an patterns between the sexes (Tyree and (1978) pointout in theirintroduction issue ofSocial Forces devotedto papers on Treas, 1974; Chase, 1975; Hauser and 1977),the mostconsistent and "The historyof recent re- Featherman, stratification, search in social stratification suggests that surprisingfindingsare that the occupathe field has been driven forwardmore tional and marital mobilitypatterns of fromthose thanby women are not much different of measurement nearly byinvention inventions of theoretical conception." of men, that women's mean occupational equal to that of devel- status is approximately Methods and measures previously oped to studymen were applied to women men,and thattheirprocesses of socioecoas nomic achievement-thatis, the effectof as soon as femalescame to be perceived backgroundon SEI interesting and legitimate objects for education and family sociological study. Publication of these achievement measures-are much the and Terrell, studies began in the early '70s; sufficient same as those of men(Treiman time has passed to begin to assess how 1975a; Featherman and Hauser, 1976; well women's disadvantagedstatus can be McClendon,1976). These conclusions should not be taken this theoretical and reunderstoodwithin as evidence of sex equality,however.For search tradition. The questions asked about women were example,Hauserand Featherman (1977), in analysis the ones asked about men. Stratificationthe most recentand sophisticated arriveat the conmobility, researchers explored the relative social of comparative in mobility after restanding or occupational prestige of clusion of similarity in the achieved movingthe effectsof sex differences womenand men,investigated of labor forceparticipation and and derivedsources of femalestatus,and probability in occupationaldistribution ratesand processes sex differences comparedthe mobility of women, of males and females. In regardto status (p. 208). Thus, the destinations or other where they end up in the systemof resources, when womenthemselves fromthat of men evaluators assess their class or social wards, is verydifferent standing,the women's own occupational even though the distances fromfather's status is taken into account (Ritterand occupation do not differ radically for that 1978; women and men. It is not surprising Hargens,1975; Hillerand Philliber, remainwhen most of the Philliberand Hiller,1978; Nilson, 1976). few differences have been removed Thus, we can conclude that the social sources of difference the analysis.The finding of equal avstanding of married women is partly from achieved and partly derived,even though erage occupational status is also misleadof twostudies(Felson ing, for while mean status equality may the contrary findings

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28

SURVEY ESSAYS

exist at any one time,this is an artifact of Duncan SEI scores (Duncan, 1961) are ulthe distribution of persons in jobs (Bose, timately based on a studyof occupational 1973). In addition, the distribution of status prestige fromwhich female occupations among male and femalejobs is different, werelargely excludedand theequationsfor with the highest statuslevelsoccupied only the SEI scores were derived from male by jobs dominatedby men (Bose, 1973). earningsand educationforeach of the ocThereis also evidencethatmenexperience cupations(Bose, 1973; Haug, 1977). When a rise in status over the life cycle, while females are assigned occupational status women stay at about the same occupa- scores constructed in thatway,the scores tionallevelsfrom the beginning to the end willnot be congruent with the incomes,deof their working lives (Wolfand Rosenfeld, grees ofauthority, or actual responsibilities of female occupations or of femalework1978). Further,whatever status equality may ers. Perhaps prestige scores measure things for women and men in exist at any one time,the income disad- different vantagessuffered bywomenare severeand otherways.The desirability of women'socpersistent, and womenare notrewarded for cupations might be judged on different status increases with higher incomes as criteriathan men's occupations. Bose's men are (Feathermanand Hauser, 1976: (1973) careful and detailed study of sex 478; Suter and Miller,1973; Treimanand differences in occupational prestige Terrell,1975). Status attainment research providessome evidence on this question. showingat any one timebothprestigepar- She findsthatpercentfemalein a job and ity and income inequality between the the factthatthe job incumbent is a woman sexes leads to two questions about the raises thesocial standing of some jobs (pp. adequacy of thisstratification approach for 68-72), but the effect is small and itvaries understanding sex inequality. First, what is with her two samples, a college and a the meaning of the concept of status or community population. This could be interprestige, giventhese contrasting findings in pretedto mean that,on the whole, people regardto sex stratification? Second, how assess women workers and femaleadequate is thisstratification modelforex- dominated jobs on the same implicit plainingsex inequality? grounds that they use to assess men and male-dominated jobs (Wolf and "Whatdo prestige scales scale?" (Hauser workers 1979), thatsex does not make a and Featherman, 1977:5). This is nota new Fligstein, in the social standingof question. Hauser and Featherman(1977) great difference and occupations. were willing to concede to Goldthorpe Hope (1972) that prestigescales represent Before coming to that conclusion, we of desirability "a hierarchy rather than of mustdeal withthe anomalyof the houseprestige"(Hauserand Featherman, 1977:5), wife. Bose (1973) and Nilson (1978) have to but theyargue thatunderlying thatdesira- gathereddata on the prestigeattributed to the bility is a hierarchical socioeconomic the housewife.Both find,contrary accepted viewand thefindings of structure. Prestigescores stand forrelative generally study(Oakley, 1974), desirability which, in turn, represents at least one qualitative socioeconomic differences,presumably that housewives are accorded a surprissuch thingsas income,authority, and ex- inglyhigh prestigescore. Bose foundthat pertise.The problem is that women and the status of the housewifeis higherthan men with similar occupational prestige thatof 70% of otherfemaleoccupations.In scores do not have similar incomes Nilson's study, respondents rated the (Treiman and Terrell, and housewifeas comparable in prestigeto a 1975a; Featherman a bookkeeper,and an insurance in the reporter, Hauser, 1976) or similarauthority workplace(Wolfand Fligstein, 1979). They agent,placing her in the middleranges of may also be in occupations withsubstan- the femaleoccupations.Yet,this is an octially different task requirements cupationwithno income and withincum(McLaughlin, 1978). Ifthereis a difference bents whose education spans the whole betweenwomenand menon theunderlying range of possible levels. How can it be of desocioeconomic dimensions while their ratedat all? There must be criteria otherthan socioeconomic standwhat are we sirability prestigescores do not differ, to conclude about prestigescores? One ing in the minds of those who rate the Rosenfeld(1978a) answer is that prestigescores, and socio- status of the housewife. economic indices,represent a hierarchical suggests that this is so and that such a is notusefulbecause it socioeconomic ordering of males; e.g., score forhousewife

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS
"confusesprestige rewards obtainedwithin the occupational structurewith prestige obtainedotherwise" (Rosenfeld, 1978a:40). Ifthe prestige accorded to the housewife is it does not represent obtained otherwise, What hertruesocioeconomicposition. does score reflect? the housewife's the Probably generalized perception that the role of one for women.It housewife is an honorable mayalso indicatethatwomen,as women, are givena middling sort of respectin our

29

The assumptions of a unidimensional hierarchy and an open competitive process are not tenable in the case of womenand men. The fact thatstatus is not relatedto income or authority in the same way for womenand formen,as notedabove, indicates thatunidimensionality is suspect.The data showinga sex segregatedlabor force society. Could it be that one of the sources of and wage discrimination is not consistent prestigeattributed to otherpredominantlywithan assumption of an open competitive female occupations is in the generalized process betweenthe sexes. The problemis respect that women earn as mothersand notresolvedbyaddingfamily variablesand wives? This would help to explainwhyit is measures of lengthand continuity of labor thatequal occupationalstatusdoes not re- force participationto status attainment sult in equal incomes or authority. The models (Ayellaand Williamson, 1976; Falk usual explanation,articulatedby McClen- and Cosby, 1975; Hudis, 1976; Rosenfeld, don (1976) among others, is that female 1978b). Even though the unpaid work of concentration in white-collar jobs accounts women is integralto the problemof sex fortheirstatus parity adding iton inthiswaydoes not withmen; the nature inequality, of the white-collar job confers prestige alter the implicitassumptions about the even in the absence of wages as high as occupational-economic system.All of this those in otherjobs of equal standing.An suggeststhattheinteresting and potentially additional explanation might be thatfemale useful questions are not how individuals dominatedwhite-collar jobs have inflated get intocertainslots,but howthestructure prestigescores because they are female itself is formed and whatits changingcondominated,and that this underlying basis toursare. for evaluationwas not tapped-by the exIn search of a more structural analysis, perimental and statistical techniques used some investigatorsare turningto dual by Bose. economy and labor marketsegmentation Whateverthe underlying dimensionsof theory (Bibb and Form,1977; Beck, Horan, prestigescores may be, theirmeaningis and Tolbert, model 1978). Usinga structural ambiguous. It is clear, however, that they that differentiates between core and pedo not reflect sex inequality sectors of the economyand comaccuratelyin riphery the domain of paid workand thattheyare paringitwitha humancapital model,Bibb even more inadequate as a tool forunder- and Form (1977) find that the structural standing thesystem-wide ofsex modelexplainsalmostthreetimesas much structuring stratification, because the socioeconomic variancein blue-collar earningsas a human disadvantagesof the housewife rolecannot capital model. Beck, Horan, and Tolbert be measured withindices of social stand- (1978) investigate the hypothesis that low ing.Inspiteofall thecritiques, a number of wages in the periphery are due to the lack researchers continue to use these mea- of human capital of workersfoundthere. sures and to argue their suitabilityin Theyconcludethat"thereis a considerable studies of women(e.g., Wolfand Fligstein, cost borne by periphery over and workers 1979; Rosenfeld, 1978b). above thatwhichwe can accountforbythe It is not onlythe measures,but also the qualityof that labor. Likewise,there is a model of social stratification underlying in substantialgain for workersin the core the status attainmentperspective, that which cannot be explained by theirlabor obscures the natureof sex inequality. As force characteristics" (p. 174). It is not so Horan (1978) points out, occupational much the characteristics of the workers status scores assumc a unidimensional (althoughtheyplay a part) as where they of positionsand the conceptuali- are working hierarchy that accounts forincome difzation of the status attainment process is ferences.Since women are disproportionrootedin the functionalist thislocastratification tra- atelyin the peripheral industries, ditionas wellas in humancapitaltheory of tion explains some of the earnings disneo-classical economics. These theories crepancies betweenthe sexes.

their societal value . . ." (Horan, 1978:536).

"assume an open, fully competitive market process in whichindividual characteristics are identified and rewardedaccording to

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30

SURVEY ESSAYS

and the meaframework But the dual economynotionalone does lyingtheoretical analyses have not explain sex stratification satisfactorily.sures relatedto it.Structural sources of sex inequalSex strata have an effectindependentof begunto illuminate sectoral location. For example,sex of the ityotherthan those located in individuals. worker-which stands fora concept of sex Sex divisions in the productionsystem over characteristics as an estate-ratherthan otherstructural emerge as structural variable in time (Oppenheimer, 1970; Snyder and factors is the most important women Bibb and Form's structural model. When Hudis,1976) and presentindividual workrealities.It is theydisaggregatetheirdata by sex, they and men withdifferent a disadvanare able to explainonly18% oftheearnings notjust thatwomen constitute varianceformenand 24.4% of theearnings taged estate (Bibb and Form, 1977), but variance for women, as compared with that the structureitselfis constitutedin and this has 50.3% of the variance explained in the termsof sex differentiation, analysis with the sexes combined. Beck, consequences for men as well as for Horan,and Tolbertshow thatwomen (and women (Villemez,1977; Treimanand Terminorities) face a wage disadvantagevis- rell, 1975b; Wolf and Rosenfeld, 1978; a-vis white males in the core sector, but Feuerberg,1978). While these structuralmodels do not that theydo not suffer a disadvantage in theyare the periphery over and above the disad- come out of a Marxistparadigm, vantages of being in that sector, "which not inconsistent with certain Marxist of the ways that theyshare withwhitemales" (p. 716). analyses. An examination The earnings disadvantage sufferedby Marxistshave dealt withsex and class refemalesinthe core sectorsuggeststhatthe veals they,too, have had troublelocating and of inequality sex segregation of occupations may be women in the structures on this problem of sex segre- oppression.The literature greater there.The importance gationforthe positionof women has been is voluminous,more theoreticalthan emrecognized by numerous publications pirical, and producedmoreoftenby British The questionturns thanAmericans. (Signs, 1976; Lloyd,1975; Blau, 1978), and writers positionof women in the the processes internalto the workplace on the particular Given that class is deteritare beginning to class structure. whichhelpto perpetuate proof (commodity) be studied (Kanter, 1977; Cassell, Director, minedbythe relations and Doctors, 1975; Steinberg,1975), but duction,it is women's positionin thattype sex segregation has notmade muchimpact of productionwhich is most essential to and whichis basic to exploitaon mainstream conceptualizations of understand, stratification. Thereis some workunderway tion and inequality, according to the that may have such an impact.For exam- classical Marxistview. Thus, one strategy to explain has been to analyze women as paid workple, Snyderand Hudis (1976) try the low incomes of occupations withhigh ers, ignoringfor the most part the other 1978; of women and minority male half of women's lives (e.g., Wright, proportions workers using 20-year longitudinaldata. Braverman,1974; Giddens, 1973; Poulas nor antzas, 1978), and essentiallydefining Theyconclude thatneither competition those womenwho segregation processes are veryimportant outsidethe class system housewives. over such a shorttimeperiodand outline are full-time Marx's analysis of the reserve armyof the an ambitious project of investigating sources of sex segregationwithcompara- labor has providedone way of accounting tiveand historical data. Such studies,along for women's continuing subordination with more detailed investigations of the under capitalism.The capitalisteconomy of laborand in the characteristics of female continually generatesa reserve differences dominated and male dominated jobs as that reserveis made up disproportionately betweenthese sectors of women (see Beechey, 1978 forone apwell as the mobility (Wolf and Rosenfeld, 1978; also see plicationof this concept to women). Simthatwomen Treiman and Terell,1975b),should deepen eral (1978) argues persuasively botha secular and a cycliour knowledge of the paid occupational have constituted army, As a secular reserve cal reserve army. structu re. To sum up theargument to thispoint:the theywere the laborforceavailableforparto integrate women intostratifica- ticularprocesses of expansion in capitalist attempt This seems to be a reasonable tion theoryand research of the status at- production. of, for example, the rapid to the in- interpretation tainment has contributed variety creasingly frequent critiquesof the under- growth of the clerical labor force and

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS

31

therefore sheds some light of patriarchy as the on the historical The identification roots of sex segregation in that sector. structure of the domination of womenand Simeralalso argues thatwomen have con- the explorationof the relationshipsbestituteda cyclical reserve, enteringthe tween patriarchy and various modes of labor force when demand was high and productionhas been the analyticstrategy leaving when demand contracted. She of anothergroup working within a Marxist countersthe criticsof this position who perspective. Theyargue thatthereare two point out that women have never been a structures, capitalismand patriarchy, that labor reserve formen's jobs (e.g., Milkman, are interrelated in complex ways and that 1976) bysayingthatwomendo not have to must be analyzed together in order to substitute formen in orderto have understandthe position of women (Rowdirectly 1976; Eisenstein, an effect on the market and on the overall botham,1973; Hartmann, wage rate (p. 168). It also seems that 1979; McDonough and Harrison, 1978; women are increasingly foronlya reservefor Kuhn,1978). The capitalism-patriarchy female-dominated jobs and that in a sex mulationhas developed in two directions, segregatedlaborforcethere are maledomi- based on the answer to a criticalquesnatedjobs with wages unaffected byfemale tion-what are the materialbases of patworkers, who in no way are competing for riarchy?One direction is rooted in the those jobs. argument thatthe material bases of patriarThere are problemswiththe attempts to chy are in the systemof reproduction and explain femaledisadvantagesolely on the in human sexuality.Efforts to explain the of male controlin boththese basis of an analysis of the processes of perpetuation capital expansion and capital accumula- spheres lead to a fascinationwith Freud tion. For one thing, we cannot understand and the reproduction of the unconscious women's situationin the industrial The otherdirecreserve processes of domination. in the objectiveecoarmywithout takinginto account the un- tion roots patriarchy paid labor of women or theirrole in the nomic interests of men, which cut across reproduction of the labor force. The class interest. Hartmann's (1976) workis a housewifeintrudes in Marxist as in stratifi- good example of this approach. The argucation analyses and demands to be in- ment is that capitalismdevelops out of a cluded in the development patriarchal societyand preserves of an adequate previously class theory. What has become knownas patriarchy as partof the systemof control. "the politicaleconomyof domesticlabour In the process of development, male workdebate" has centered around arguments ers gain a privileged positionin the wagethatthe woman's unpaid labor reproduces based economyby denying womenaccess the labor force and therefore and jobs in male domicontributes to apprenticeships or indirectly directly to the productionof nated,unionizedfieldsand by pushingfor thatfurther legislation excludes surplusvalue and the accumulation of cap- protective ital (Coulson et al., 1975; Gardiner, 1975, women.Thus, as the economydevelops,it 1976; Seccombe, 1974; Smith,1978). This emerges with a sex segregated occupaformulation This historicalinterpretaplaces womanwithin the class tional structure. structure thatshe has a re- tionhelps to answersome of the questions by establishing to the means of production lationship even leftunansweredby reservearmyof labor ifshe is exclusively out of thewage system. theories-specifically, if women would But, this line of thinking ultimately pro- workforless than men,whydon't employthem? Eisenstein(1979) duces a curiously functional expla- ers always prefer is the politicalsysnation-women are relegated to unpaid argues that patriarchy whichservesthepurposesof labor because of the interests of capital. In temof control economicsystem, thelocus of my view, the analysis does not take us thecapitalist muchcloser to understanding the underly- the generationof class. There is an interwith ing dynamicthat produces both unpaid dependence betweenthetwo systems, assuming new formsas the delabor in the home and wage inequality at patriarchy work.The value of these attempts to ana- velopment of industrial capitalism adpersists not only belyzedomesticlabormaybe in their affirma- vances. Patriarchy the controlstructure, tion thatwomen's unpaid labor is socially cause it constitutes necessary and that it must be relatedto butalso because malesgain or havegained women's paid labor in orderto understand in the past. The idea of capitalistpatriarchy (Eisenthetotality of thesituation ofwomenin the stein,1979) or of patriarchal class system. capitalism, is, it

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32

SURVEY ESSAYS

seems to me,an advance over ideas of sex at very low wages (e.g., Boserup, 1970; as two Deere, 1976). stratification and class stratification of In today's society,the understanding separatesystems.But,I am notsure thatit work-and of white-collar avoids the problems of the two-systems the significance analyses in thatthe analysisof class under white-collarwork as women's work-is capitalism can be left relativelyundis- critical to understandingclass structure turbed,with patriarchy invokedwhen we and the potentialfor class consciousness 1978). As (Garnsey, of and class organization wantto talkabout the "special" situation to under- West (1978:235) comments,"The Marxist women. Ultimately, these efforts has certain witha theory of pat- analysisof classes in capitalism stand sex inequality those whichcentreon riarchymelded into a Marxisttheoryof greyareas, precisely capitalism pose problems for Marxist the critical significance of 'white-collar' whetherit is now persists across labour,and specifically theoryitself.If patriarchy or is the we mustentertain the part of an expanded proletariat modes of production, class, the petite that there is somethingmore new elementof a distinct possibility fundamental about human societies than bourgeoisie." There is no consensus on (1974) discussion of the labor, materiallife,and the mode of pro- this; Braverman's workargues of white-collar we can argue thatpat- transformation duction.Alternately, Giddens for proletarianization; riarchy has a material base, is rooted in a powerfully of the whitemode of production whichis not (1973) sees the feminization particular it capitalist butwhichpersistsintocapitalism. collar sector as a majorfactorin turning and zone betweentheworking The problemwiththis is to explain whya intoa buffer no longer dominantmode of production middle classes; Poulantzas (1975) argues should have such a significant impact.To for the new petite bourgeoisie position. argue that patriarchyis based in male That manyfemale (and male) white-collar intereststhat cut across class is also to workersare workingclass is given some pose theoretical problems.Whatare those supportby Vanneman(1977), whileWright interests? Are theyideologicalor material, and Perrone(1977) and Robinsonand Kelof thathigherproportions or both? Whatever direction socialist ley(1979) report are fora women are workingclass, using theirobfeminism takes, the implications class theorybe- jective measures,than are men. major revisionof Marxist The degree of openness in the structure cause womendo domesticlaborand do not enter the paid labor force on the same cannot be assessed withoutconsidering studies termsas men.Therefore, the concepts and women. I have criticizedmobility male laborare above, but that is not to say thattheyare theoriesused to understand not sex neutraland are not adequate for useless iftheyare conceived in such a way to women(e.g., the analysisof women.Pendingsuch a re- thatquestions are relevant conceptualization,some useful examina- Wolfand Rosenfeld,1978). The patterning tions of women's position in the class of inequalitybetween familiesis also afof wage earning as defined by location in paid fectedbythe contribution structure 1978). Changes labor are appearing. Garnsey (1978) and women(Treas and Walther, West (1978) provideexcellentsummaries. in family compositionmay also be changdiswitha growing In concluding this review, I will look ing the class structure, comof the posi- advantagedsector or loweststratum, at how a consideration briefly tion of women in the class systemcan ex- posed of mother-headed households 1977). Class conof the (Glazer, 1976; Hoffman, our understanding pand and clarify of and the present structuring sciousness cannot be understoodwithout development I want to go even understanding the consciousness of of class stratification. further and suggest thatit is impossibleto women, and not as simply conservative husbands, the past or the presentwhen laggards behind more militant understand situaattention is paid onlyto men. For example, but as people who have a particular view of the devel- tion thatproduces a particular it can be argued thatthe historical 1978). Thereare 1977; Porter, was as de- world(Smith, opmentof capitalistproduction forexample,that the manualpendent on the unpaid and paid labor of indications, for line is not relevant womenas on the laborof men.Presentday nonmanualdividing own class position their of this are documented in womenin defining manifestations studies of women's labor in some develop- (Vannemanand Pampel, 1977), reflecting ing countries wherethe unpaidagricultural perhaps, the changing nature of some jobs. The sex-based divilaborofwomenallows mento be employed femaledominated

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS
sion of labor may produce bases forconflictwithinclasses. For example, there is evidencethatmales gain from sexism (Villemez, 1977; Feuerberg,1978). As Feuerberg points out, men may not know that theygain, and women may not knowthis either,but such knowledgecould lead to to preservemale privilegenow as efforts in the past. Recent courtchallenges to affirmative action suggest that white men knowthattheygain from bothsexism and racism; this cannot be ignored by class analyses.Finally, the feminist insight about the patriarchal natureof control systemsis important and mustbe takenintoaccount in any effort to understand the overallstrucof inequality. turing

33

Bibb, Robert, and William H. Form. 1977. "The effects of industrial, occupational and sex stratification on wages in blue collar markets." Social Forces 55, 4:974-96. Blau, Francine D. 1978. "The data on women workers, past, present, and future." In Ann H. Stromberg and Shirley Harkess (eds.), Women Working. Palo Alto: Mayfield. Blumberg,Rae Lesser. 1978. Stratification: Social, Economic, and Sexual Inequality. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown. Bose, Christine E. 1973. Jobs and Gender: Sex and Occupational Prestige. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research. Boserup, Ester. 1970. Woman's Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen and Unwin. Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Conclusions Press. Stratification theory has been a theory of Cassell, Frank H., Steven M. Director, and whitemales. Such a theory becomes more Samuel Doctors. 1975. "Discrimination within internal labor markets." Industrial Relations obviouslyinadequate as white males be14, 3:337-44. come more and more a minority (numer- Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 1974. Masculine/ ical) in the laborforce.A vast literature re- Feminine or Human? Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock. lated to women and stratification has ap- Chase, Ivan D. 1975. "A comparison of men's and peared in the last fewyears.This workcan women's intergenerational mobility in the provide the basis for a new and better U.S." American Sociological Review 40,4: 483-505. A understandingof class stratification. theorythat includes women will have to Coulson, Margaret, Branca Magas, and Hilary Wainwright. 1975. "The housewife and her conceptually bridge the gap between under capitalism-a critique." New Left women's unpaid and paid labor and bring labour Review 89:59-72. the structural sources ofsex inequality into Deckard, Barbara. 1979. The Women's Movethe analysis. We have yet to see a sexment. New York: Harper & Row. integrated treatment of class stratification.Deere, Carmen Diana. 1976. "Rural women's That is workforthe future. subsistence production in the capitalist periphery."The Review of Radical Political Economics, 8, 1:9-17. Duberman, Lucile. 1975. Gender and Sex in Society. New York: Praeger. Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1961. "A socioeconomic PublicationsReviewed index for all occupations." In Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (ed.), Occupations and Social Status. New Abrahamson, Mark, Ephraim H. Mizruchi, and York: Free Press. Carlton A. Hornung. 1976. Stratificationand Mobility.New York: Macmillan. Eisenstein, Zillah. 1979. "Developing a theory of and socialist feminism."In Acker,Joan. 1973. "Women and social stratificacapitalist patriarchy tion: A case of intellectual sexism." American Z. Eisenstein (ed.), Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism. New York: Journal of Sociology 78, 4:936-45. Ayella, Mary Elizabeth, and John B. Williamson. MonthlyReview Press. 1976. "The social mobility Falk, William A. and Arthur G. Cosby. 1975. of women: A causal model of socioeconomic "Women and the status attainment process." The success." Sociological Quarterly17, 4:534-54. Social Science Quarterly56, 2:307-14. Beck, E. M., Patrick M. Horan, and Charles M. Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser. 1976. "Sexual inequalities and socioeconomic Tolbert II. 1978. "Stratificationin a dual economy: A sectoral model of earnings determinaachievement in the U.S., 1962-1973." Amerition." American Sociological Review 43, can Sociological Review 41, 3:462-83. 5:704-20. Felson, Marcus, and David Knoke. 1974. "Social status and the married woman." Journal of Beechey, Veronica. 1978. "Women and production: A critical analysis of some sociological Marriage and the Family 36, 3:516-21. theories of women's work." In Annette Kuhn Feuerberg, Marvin. 1978. Sexual Inequality: A and AnnMarie Wolpe (eds.), Feminism and Theoretical and Empirical Exploration. UnpubMaterialism. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. of Oregon. lished dissertation. University

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

SURVEY ESSAYS
Matras, Judah. 1975. Social Inequality,Stratification, and Mobility. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. McCord, William, and Arline McCord. 1977. Power and Equity: An Introduction to Social Stratification.New York: Praeger. McDonough, Roisin, and Rachel Harrison. 1978. "Patriarchy and relations of production." In Annette Kuhn and AnnMarie Wolpe (eds.), Feminism and Materialism. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McClendon, McKee, J. 1976. "The occupational status attainment process of males and females." American Sociological Review 41, 1:52-64. McLaughlin, Steven D. 1978. "Occupational sex identificationand the assessment of male and female earnings inequality." American Sociological Review 43, 6:909-21. Milkman, Ruth. 1976. "Women's work and the economic crisis: Some lessons fromthe Great Depression." The Review of Radical Political Economics 8, 1:73-97. Nielsen, Joyce McCarl. 1978. Sex in Society: Perspectives on Stratification. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Nilson, Linda Burzotta. 1976. "The social standing of a married woman." Social Problems 23:582-91. . 1978. "The social standing of a housewife." Journal of Marriage and the Family 40, 3:541-48. Nock, Steven L., and Peter H. Rossi. 1978. "Ascription versus achievement in the attribution of familysocial status." American Journal of Sociology 84, 3:565-90. Oakley, Ann. 1974. The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon. Oppenheimer, Valerie K. 1970. The Female Labor Force in the United States: Demographic and Economic Factors Governing its Growth and Changing Composition. Population Monograph Series, No. 5. Berkeley: Universityof California, Instituteof International Studies. Philliber, William H., and Dana V. Hiller. 1978. "The implication of wife's occupational attainment for husband's class identification." The Sociological Quarterly 19, 3:450-58. Porter, Marilyn. 1978. "Consciousness and second-hand experience: Wives and husbands in industrial action." The Sociological Review 26, 2:263-82. Poulantzas, Nicos. 1978. Classes in ContemporaryCapitalism. London: Verso. Ritter,K. V., and L. L. Hargens. 1975. "Occupational positions and class identifications:A test of the asymmetryhypothesis." American Journal of Sociology 80:934-48. Robinson, Robert V., and Johnathan Kelley. 1979. "Class as conceived by Marx and Dahrendorf." American Sociological Review 44, 1:38-58. Rosenfeld, Rachel A. 1978a. "Women's intergenerational occupational mobility." American Sociological Review 43, 1:36-46.

Gardiner, Jean. 1975. "Women's domestic labour." New Left Review 89:47-58. . 1976. "Political economy of domestic labor in capitalist society." In Diana Barker and Sheila Allen (eds.), Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage. London: Longman. Garnsey, Elizabeth. 1978. "Women's work and theories of class stratification."Sociology 12, 2:224-43. Giddens, Anthony. 1973. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. New York: Harper & Row. Glazer, Nona. 1976. "The new class crisis for women." Paper presented at the Pacific Sociological Association meetings, San Diego. Goldthorpe, John, and Keith Hope. 1972. "Occupational grading and occupational prestige." In John Goldthorpe and Keith Hope (eds.), The Analysis of Social Mobility: Methods and Approaches. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hacker, Helen Mayer. 1975. "Class and race differences in gender roles." In Lucile Duberman (ed.), Gender and Sex in Society. New York: Praeger. Hartmann, Heidi. 1976. "Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex." Signs 1, 3, Part 2:137-70. Haug, Marie R. 1973. "Social class measurement and women's occupational roles." Social Forces 52, 1:86-98. . 1977. "Measurement in social stratification." Annual Review of Sociology 3:51-77. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. Hauser, Robert M., and David L. Featherman. 1977. The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses. New York: Academic Press. Hiller, D. V., and W. W. Philliber. 1978. "Derivation of status benefits from occupational attainments of working wives." Journal of Marriage and the Family 40:63-69. Hoffman, S. 1977. "Marital instabilityand the economic status of women." Demography 14:67-76. Horan, Patrick M. 1978. "Is status attainment research atheoretical?" American Sociological Review 43, 4:534-40. Hudis, Paula M. 1976. "Commitment to family and to work: Marital status differences in women's earnings." Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, 2:267-78. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Krauss, Irving. 1976. Stratification, Class and Conflict. New York: Free Press. Kuhn, Annette. 1978. "Structures of patriarchy and capital in the family." In Annette Kuhn and AnnMarie Wolpe (eds.), Feminism and Materialism. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lloyd, Cynthia B. (ed.) 1975. Sex, Discrimination and the Division of Labor. New York: Columbia UniversityPress. Mahoney, E. R., and J. G. Richardson. 1979. "Perceived social status of husbands and wives: The effects of labor force participation and occupational prestige." Sociology and Social Research 63, 2:364-74.

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY ESSAYS

35

. 1978b. "Women's employment patterns Treiman, D. J.,and K.Terrell. 1975a. "Sex and the and occupational achievements." Social Sciprocess of statusattainment: A comparison of ence Research 7, 1:61-80. working men and women." American Rossi,PeterH., William A. Sampson,Christine E. Sociological Review40, 2:174-200. Bose, Guillermina Jasso,and Jeff . 1975b. "Women,work and wagesPassel. 1974. "Measuringhousehold social standing."Sotrendsin the femaleoccupationalstructure." cial Science Research 3, 3:169-90. Pp. 157-99 in Kenneth C. Land and Seymour Rossides, Daniel W. 1976. The AmericanClass Spilerman (eds.), Social Indicator Models.New System.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. York: Russell Sage. Rothman, Robert A. 1978. Inequality and Stratifi- Tyree, Andrea, and Judith Treas. 1974. "The occation in the UnitedStates. EnglewoodCliffs, cupational and maritalmobility of women." N.J.:Prentice-Hall. American Sociological Review39, 3:293-302. Rowbotham, Sheila. 1973. Woman'sConscious- Tyree, Andrea, and Robert W. Hodge. 1978. ness, Man's World.Harmondsworth, England: "Editorial foreword: Five empirical landPenguinBooks. marks."Social Forces 56, 3:761-69. Sampson,William A., and Peter H. Rossi. 1975. Vanneman, Reeve. 1977. "The occupational "Race and family standing." American composition ofAmerican classes: Resultsfrom Sociological Review40, 2:201-14. clusteranalysis,"American Journal of SociolSeccombe, Wally. 1974. "The housewife and her ogy 82, 4:783-807. labour under capitalism." New Left Review Vanneman,Reeve, and Fred C. Pampel. 1977. 83:3-24. "The American perception of class and Signs, Vol. 1, No. 3, Part2, Spring,1976. status." American Sociological Review 42, Simeral,Margaret H. 1978. "Womenand the re3 :422-37. servearmy of labor."Insurgent WayneJ. 1977. "Male economic gain Sociologist8, 2 Villemez, and 3. fromfemalesubordination: A caveat and reanalysis."Social Forces 56, 2:626-36. E. 1977. Feminism Smith, Dorothy and Marxism: A Place to Begin a Way to Go. Vancouver, Walum,Laurel Richardson. 1977. The Dynamics of Sex and Gender: A Sociological PerspecCanada: New Star Books. tive.Chicago; Rand McNally. Paul. 1978. "Domesticlabourand Marx's Smith, sex, and class." In theory of value." In Annette Kuhn and West,Jackie.1978. "Women, AnnMarie Wolpe (eds.), Feminism and Materi- AnnetteKuhn and AnnMarieWolpe (eds.), Feminism and Materialism. alism. Boston: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Snyder, David,and Paula M. Hudis.1976. "OccuJohn,and Henrietta Resler. 1975. pational income and the effectsof minority Westergaard, Class in a Capitalist Society.New York:Basic and segregation: A reanalysis competiton and Books. some new evidence." AmericanSociological Wolf,WendyC., and Rachel Rosenfeld.1978. Review41, 2:209-34. "Sex structure of occupationsand job mobilSteinberg,Edward. 1975. "Upward mobility in ity."Social Forces 56, 3:823-44. the internal labormarket." Industrial Relations Wolf, Wendy C., and NeilD. Fligstein. 14, 2:259-65. 1979. "Sex and authority in the workplace: The causes of Stoll, Clarice Stasz. 1974. Female and Male. sexual inequality." American Dubuque, Iowa: William Sociological ReC. Brown. view44, 2:235-52. Suter,Larry P. Miller. E., and Herman 1973. "Income differences between men and career Wright,Erik Olin, and Luca Perrone. 1977. "Marxist class categoriesand incomeinequalwomen." AmericanJournalof Sociology 78, ity." American Sociological Review 42, 4:200-12. 1:32-55. and Robin Jane Walther.1978. Treas, Judith, Erik Olin. 1978. Class, Crisis and the "Family structure and thedistribution offamily Wright, State. London: New LeftBooks. income."Social Forces 56, 3:866-80.

Explaining A Surveyof Perspectives Inequality: Representedin Introductory SociologyTextbooks

University of Illinois,Chicago Circle Purelyindividualistic explanationsof inequalityhave increasingly been called into questionin recentyears.Both humancapital theoristsin economics and status attainment modelersin sociology have been
seriously challenged by those who contend that structuralfactors are far more powerful determinants of individual inequality than are the characteristics of individuals. Burawoy (1977) has echoed Coser's
WAYNE J. VILLEMEZ

This content downloaded from 207.30.63.143 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:01:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions