Feminism Sociology and Max Weber PDF

Preview

Summary

Sociology has long been a male-dominated field. Sociology is still a male-dominated subject, according to Abbott, Wallace, and Tyler (pp 1). Both in terms of the number of women who have risen to the top of the sociological profession and the concepts that have become centralised in sociology. Femin...

Description

Feminism, Sociology and Max Weber Introduction Sociology has long been a male-dominated field. Sociology is still a male-dominated subject, according to Abbott, Wallace, and Tyler (pp 1). Both in terms of the number of women who have risen to the top of the sociological profession and the concepts that have become centralised in sociology. Feminists claim this basic problem has impacted sociology's theories, methodology, research, and teaching. However, the feminist movement and feminist study posed basic sociological and societal problems. These questions challenged the sociological canon, particularly the classical canon. It has given us a feeling of our entitlement to have women's interests reflected in sociology, rather than merely accepting as authoritative the interests typically represented in a sociology put together by males, as Dorothy Smith explains (Smith: 27). A second wave of feminism tried to retrieve these women and their labour, according to George Ritzer in Sociological Theory (Ritzer). Would sociology be different if these women had appropriate representation in the canon? Would sociological conceptions of gender be any different? We can confidently state that feminism has had such an influence on modern sociology that it can no longer disregard gender issues. Feminist study has sought to challenge, critique, and refashion malestream fields. Obviously, this has repercussions in sociology. As stated previously, feminist sociology examines the number of women in sociology, their contributions, and their fate. It also raises fundamental questions about sociology itself. In addition to addressing the shortage of female sociologists in academia, feminists dispute the ontological and epistemological assumptions that sociologists make about the world. The feminist goal is to unveil the social world's profoundly gendered character. George Ritzer claims that “feminism and sociology have a long-standing relationship, originating in feminists turning to sociology for answers on basic issues such as “what about the women,” “why is everything like it is,” and “what about variations among women?” (547) Ritzer Since sociology aims to comprehend the link between our personal experiences and the social structures we inhabit, the study of social structures and the individual has always been the stated objective of sociology. a connection to it “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without the other,” argues C.Wright Mills. (3 mills) Following this sociological perspective, it is vital to pose sociological issues from the perspective of women. In reality, critical sociology seeks to explain the inequalities of power relations that shape people's social standing. Despite this, sociology is still biassed towards men. Because sociology arose during the Enlightenment, when society in the West was arranged around the Cartesian duality of mind/body, public/private, culture/nature, male/female, etc. A thorough examination of this divide led to a serious challenge to sociology's foundations.“Feminist writing is linked to feminist social activism, which has varied in intensity over the last two hundred years; high points occur in the liberationist “moments” of modern Western history,” writes Ritzer (Ritzer, pp. 457). Ritzer elaborates on the connections between

feminism's various waves and their impact on sociology. He argues that second wave feminism reassessed the modernist boundary between public and private. Contrary to popular belief, this entails much more than treating the feminist perspective as a ‘add on' to mainstream sociology, as a mere ‘add on' does not account for the separation between the worlds of men and women, nor does it analyse t A mention of a gender viewpoint to placate feminists is not enough; it is more likely to belittle the feminist cause than to give it justice. Further, Sharmila Rege claims that while the separation of sociology and feminism caused by the growth of women's studies institutes in universities was essential in certain aspects, it also contributed to a ghettoisation of academia (Rege). However, feminism's effect on the overall theoretical and methodological canon is still unequal. The malestream bias still holds sway in sociological theory. Increasingly, feminist sociologists are advocating for a different methodology that brings feminist contributions to sociology front and centre. Also, feminist sociologists strive to link sociological theory by criticising it and identifying continuities. This module is an attempt to do so with Max Weber's work. This module is not exhaustive. Classical Sociology arose at a time of rapid social upheaval known as the Enlightenment. This background inevitably influenced the works of the ‘founding fathers' of sociology – Marx, Durkheim, and Weber – each striving to comprehend change. More crucially, the discipline's masters determine the discipline's grammar. They all contended that sociology, unlike common sense or philosophy, must be a scientific discipline. The Enlightenment gave rise to two major ideas: rationality and modernity, which dominated social works of the period. Contemporary sociology has not only expanded on but also challenged these philosophers' work and beliefs. The same goes for feminist sociology. Weber, of the three traditional sociologists, is the most difficult to understand. This subject is exploratory in nature, and we want you to apply your previous Weber knowledge to raise feminist questions. Weber developed the Interpretivist sociological tradition. Interpretivism has been an ally of feminist ontologies and epistemologies for a long time. This section demonstrates how to maintain continuity with Weber's methodological concepts. Ontology. This is something the feminists have done organically in their own arena, as well. It would assist build a Weberian feminist sociology if there were connections between Weber's interpretivism and feminist critique of positivism. Contrary to positivism, interpretivism claims that the social cosmos is a fabrication. Simply said, we build society by providing meaning to our activities as individuals and as a community. In summary, we are not puppets controlled by nature or society. This aids feminists in arguing sex vs gender distinction. Gender is socially and culturally formed through the Weberian process of meaning providing. Men and women's roles are not fixed, and may be modified. So, if society moulds and creates the physical body, then so does sex. For

example, feminists believe that eating and nutrition practises, as well as aesthetic ideals, manufacture women's inherent physical inferiority. As a result of the ideals and values around what a woman's body should accomplish or seem like, she becomes physically weaker. Ontology of social constructionism is more suited to feminist ideas of how gender is constructed than positivism's claim that the sexual division of labour or gender differences are largely fixed by nature and biology, and that the social system simply uses these natural tendencies to organise societies, according to Weber. Sandra Harding (Harding) claims that interpretivist approaches may sometimes be used to defend a complete relativist perspective where all modes of being are justified, even patriarchal. We may be forced to treat feminist and patriarchal interpretations of the truth equally. In feminist politics, women's oppression experiences and meanings are prioritised over men's. Is it not an insult to the feminist politics that pleads for justice if we employ interpretivist approaches to analyse and defend son-preference in India? What we need to be wary about is the danger of interpretivism leading to utter relativism. Let us also draw on Weber's social action ideas. Weber's social constructionism emphasises human action in society. It is important to note that Weber's definition of social activity encompasses all potential types of action. His social action schema includes elements that both explain and resist patriarchy. His value rational action may be used to analyse kinds of behaviour that challenge patriarchies on the basis of values like equality, fairness, and rights. In truth, the feminist movement is a value motivated collective action. Our country's traditions of female infanticide and foeticide can be challenged by the right to life for women. Epistemology Weberian interpretivist epistemology may be based on the idea of verstehen, which means knowing and understanding what the subjects have done and why they did it. This, he said, needed to be done with empathy, not distance. People who study society are different from people who study nature. This is what Weber said. Because the subject of the social sciences is different from the subject of the natural sciences, the goal of the social sciences is different, he said. Weber says that humans are the ones who make things make sense. Consequently, sociologists have to go even deeper into understanding people's subjectivities to figure out what meanings are. This is a common theme in feminist epistemologies, which emphasise the subjective "experience" of women as an epistemic category, which is why sociologists have to go even deeper into understanding people. Women have said that a lot of theoretical knowledge about society is based on ideas and not on real-world experience. They say that theorising about women's lives should start with how they live their lives. People who think about family structure and function say that having women be homemakers and men be breadwinners is good for the larger social system because it keeps things stable. It says that if people are wellsocialized, both men and women will be happy with this arrangement. Research done by feminists says that if we ask women if and how they experience family life, the answer is often no. Women say that they want to work, run for office, and be in the public eye. Feminist epistemologies, which are very much in line with Weberian sociology, say that if we start our

theories with these subjective experiences, our theories will be able to help us understand instead of just claiming.

Another idea that Weber came up with was that you should not care about what other people think. As part of his work with understanding, Weber said that it is possible to become objective. People who study social truths should be able to empathise with the people they are studying and keep their own common sense views, values, and beliefs separate from what they are studying, he says. Weber says that the sociologist has to figure out what their own values are and get over their own personal biases when they do sociological research. Reflexivity is a good way to do good research, both from a feminist standpoint and from a postmodern one. Reflexivity requires the researchers to get a distance from their own places, which means that they are implicated. Weber's goal of value neutrality is very different from the goal of reflexivity, but the process could be the same for both goals.

In the next part, we'll look at the concept of patriarchy, which is when there aren't enough social resources or power for everyone. Weber may have been the first person to use the term "patriarchy" to talk about and describe different types of social structures. But he only used it for a short time. He used it mostly to talk about how men had power over each other, but he didn't think about how women had power in the structures of power. Feminists use the same concept of patriarchy to show how women are held back in the structure of society. Early feminists talked about patriarchy as if it were a single, homogenous category that covered class, caste, race, and nationality. Contemporary feminisms say that there are many and many patriarchies that work in different ways and at different places. It's important for us to look at Weberian ideas about patriarchy from a feminist point of view. In this part of the module, you'll do a task and show how to write a critique of Weber from a feminist point of view. Patriarchy A sort of dominance typical of the home group or clan structured on kinship and economic lines, according to Weber. ‘The authority of the father, husband, senior of the home...' The "founding father" or some remote historical link with a major or even heavenly relationship or event frequently formed the basis for the claim to authority. In this case, the deity may be male or female, but the male line claims authority.' (Sydie, p. Weber viewed patriarchy as an essential way of legitimization of power structures and systems of dominance and submission within conventional societal institutions. In feudal cultures, a monarch, official, lord or master wielded dominance over his followers or servants. Weber regarded patriarchy as dominating in premodern civilizations when members of that group did not question the power arrangements conferred by tradition. By virtue of being selected, the patriarch could wield his power without limitation or opposition from inside the community, because criticising his authority was equal to

disputing the sanctity of age-old laws that the social group recognised. Traditions legitimised the patriarch's status within a societal framework and he became the vehicle for guaranteeing its preservation. The patriarch's power was often considered as divinely derived, making the custom even more strict and inviolable. Like Marx and Engels, Weber sees the foundations of patriarchy in economic relations and, especially, in the division of labour within a home or clan. The woman, whose sexuality was subordinated to the patriarchal power, was compelled by social norms to stay home and care for her children. 'At the start of organised society, with the foundation of houses, women are already subservient to males,' Sydie writes. The subjugation of women to one man and the control of sexual interactions among family members are advanced patriarchal power relationships' (Sydie, pp. 61). The man's tasks were mostly outside the home as a hunter, gatherer, or warrior, and his principal duty within the family was to establish and maintain his dominance. Given that there has never been a "female equivalent of the exercise of political power by men over women" (Sydie, p. 64), Weber contends that patriarchy is the earliest framework founded on inequality and power. However, Weber's position is flawed since he strives to define patriarchy by defining 'natural' and'social' home connections. For Weber, sociology is concerned with social action, not the natural. For Weber, the mother-child bond is natural, and the role of a woman in "childbearing/childrearing" is not social but natural. A woman must reproduce, socialise, and raise a kid until 'he' can take care of his own means of subsistence and livelihood. Weber sees this mother-child relationship as natural and devoid of societal significance. In contrast, outside the family, when patriarchal equations are not functional, other processes take over, establishing alternative hierarchies and forms of dominance. These rise to ruler-ruled, master-slave, employer-employed connections, which finally assume the shapes of social institutions today. Weber legitimises patriarchal dominance by calling it 'natural' and removing it from the domain of the'social'. Weber's ambiguous division justifies patriarchal dominance and the supremacy of man in society. In the process, his'social' is de-gendered, yet only males occupy it, while women are annihilated. The rationalising processes of modernity, according to Weber, substituted status with contract, or, as Winkler puts it, "Weber believed that women's oppressed status as members of patriarchal households is replaced by her lower bargaining power in the contractual marriage" (Winkler, p. 3). But, because Weber views patriarchy as inherent and not social, these alterations can only be formal, and they always allude to an underlying patriarchy that endures. Many feminist critics have addressed Weber's thesis as flawed in various ways. First, he doesn't give a framework for understanding the household's gendered connections. Noting the skewedness, he accepts it as "natural", therefore implying that women are naturally inferior to males. He doesn't have to address the issue of gender equality because he doesn't have to. He is born into inequity, thus women are trapped under patriarchy. "Weber's analysis obscures the nature of power in sex relations and reinforces the idea that patriarchal forms are natural, historical, and unchangeable," Sydie argues (Sydie, p. 87).

He also conflates childbearing with childrearing. While the first is a biological need, childrearing is not exclusively a woman's role. Weber does not even entertain the possibility of sharing child-rearing responsibilities with the father, or even other family members like grandparents and siblings. In contrast, when a child grows and develops as a social creature, his father, not his mother, mediates his interaction with society. The father legitimises the child's relationship to his parents socially and legally. Even the mother-child bond is legitimised by the father. Despite the patriarchal norms common in society, women typically play large positions in social institutions and are active actors in many social processes. This might be due to a variety of non-social variables. This phenomena may be driven by economic causes ranging from basic survival to land ownership and property rights. Weber's exclusion of women from key social contacts leaves him unable to understand increasingly complicated social phenomena. Despite these flaws, Weber's critique of patriarchal power and authority is unique and valuable. Despite his flaws, later sociologists owe a lot to Weber's understanding of power and dominance. Weber's view of sociology as a study affected by ideology, rather than an objective discipline as positivists would have it, owes a lot to feminists. This Weberian challenge to positivism allowed feminist researchers to perceive sociology as a patriarchal, masculine industry. Conclusion The feminism-Weber link is complicated. While a Weberian technique can generate links and continuity, as mentioned in Part 1 of this module, it is vital to critically analyse his substantive sociology, as addressed in Part 2. This curriculum does not cover Weber or Feminisms in depth. We wanted to raise issues about how a feminist sociology criticises and continuities with Max Weber's work....