Understanding and Applying Gender Sociology
Book review of: Guillaume Vallet, *Sociology of Gender*, Thèmes & Débats Sociologie, Bréal, Clamecy, 2018, 176 pp., €9.
By Eric PERERA, January 2024
This book is intended for students and aspiring sociologists, as well as anyone with a thirst for knowledge in sociology. The author, Guillaume Vallet, is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Economics in Grenoble. His goal is to demonstrate how the concept of gender serves as a heuristic framework for analyzing all social phenomena—both old and new—moving far beyond the common misconceptions that naturalize behavioral differences between women and men. The author adopts a “critical” stance toward this binary and naturalized vision that produces hierarchies—of a discriminatory nature—which, in his view, is embodied in the widely publicized and certainly influential criticism of “the alleged excesses of so-called ‘gender theories’ in the school setting” (p. 7). In this sense, the dual gendered categories of man/woman create caricatures, whereas it would suffice to examine them as a system to understand what they shape socially. Undoubtedly, the reader cannot help but appreciate the author’s pedagogical strategy: he sets out to dissect the dynamics of the concept of gender to highlight its illuminating power regarding established social realities, particularly in contemporary France, while taking care to specify that this is not an exhaustive inventory of references or works on the subject.
Undertaking the task of presenting a sociology of gender—making it accessible and practical—is no small feat. Faced with the scale of the task, the author begins by laying the groundwork with an overview of the concept—or rather, the concepts—of gender (Part 1), and then test them against carefully selected real-world examples (Part 2), as encouraged by the “Thèmes & Débats Sociologie” series (edited by Gilles Renouard) in which it is published.
The first part, divided into three chapters, examines the foundations of this gender category. He explains that the category of sex is a “box” that is instinctively used to conceptualize the social, and which gained significance in anthropology as a means of understanding exotic societies. Since then, the social sciences, including sociology, have distanced this simple “box” from biological differences by considering the social dimension of sex, preferring instead the concept of gender. This concept focuses on the roles that a society assigns to what a man and a woman should be—conventions for each sex—and ultimately, identities whose gendered socialization constructs a relationship with others and vice versa. In this sense, the gendered aspect of identity is merely a cultural construct, where the display of sex differences merely reinforces gendered logics that perpetuate inequalities and domination. Clearly, the biological foundation sows “confusion regarding gender,” shaping social representations and struggling to grasp the diversity of gender identities. Moreover, gender, developed as a tool for analyzing social reality, reveals socially constructed and accepted norms of sex categories that impose themselves, often leading to conflict.
Conflicts related to biological order and gender classes, which give rise to a social hierarchy that can be analyzed as a system—including the patriarchal system, in which a form of male domination is expressed. Understanding gender “class struggles” or gender inequalities means examining their construction as it shapes gender relations and power dynamics between the sexes; the sociological interest in this emerged in the 1950s.
This perspective inevitably raises epistemological questions as well, since research itself is entangled in these gender dynamics, and researchers produce knowledge in accordance with their social commitments. This focus presents situated knowledge that takes into account the researcher’s subjectivity, which is far closer to social realities than a neutral stance—a stance that is untenable in practice and too often associated with the illusion of objectivity, whose results would be nothing but truncated. Thus, beginning in the 1980s in France and the United States, a movement known as gender studies emerged, bringing new scientific knowledge, educational programs, and specialized journals on the subject.
This theoretical framework then reveals its full practical significance when the author addresses “masculinities” (Chapter 2) and “women in struggle” (Chapter 3), which form part of the first section. Indeed, male domination is conceived as a system in which men subjugate women on a collective level while historically establishing heterosexuality as the norm at the center of relationships. This male superiority over the female is rooted in a biological determinism in which men are presented as physically much stronger than women[1]. This asymmetrical dynamic manifests in social interactions and, depending on the social context, is exercised more or less directly, highlighting the supposed fragility of women versus the expected virility of men. Virility has established itself as a masculine ideal over time, dating back to the Hellenistic era, forging a hierarchy that favors men. While every era seems to fear a reversal—whether imagined or real—of “effeminization or emasculation,” ideals of masculinity have become more civilized, expressing themselves in controlled and codified ways that reinforce gender identities. From the Renaissance through the Enlightenment, the emphasis was placed on women’s physical and psychological inferiority, excluding them from the political sphere despite the Revolution’s demands for freedom. Universally acknowledged, men’s absolute power over women established a behavioral order of dominant/dominated, strong/weak. This difference was legitimized in the 19th century by medical science as well as the world of work, where the laborer asserted masculinity. Yet the upheaval of World War I did not shake the established order; on the contrary, “the men who died for France embodied the symbolic fathers who protect women and the weak” (p. 54). Masculinity is distinguished from femininity, referring to specific behaviors—exacerbating heterosexuality—known as genderism[2] ( Goffman, 1977). The author is careful to point out the plural and dynamic nature of masculinity and that while male domination persists over time, it remains equally contested.
Challenges that raise doubts and reveal a masculinity that seeks to be “defensive.” Faced with certain shifts—such as the belief in the “end of men” or the growing importance of a masculine identity combined with (so-called) feminine qualities—traditional reference points are eroding, giving way to uncertainty. This uncertainty is all the more pronounced as our individualistic societies place the responsibility on every man to define himself, while simultaneously affirming women’s social standing. In this context, clinging to male dominance or crying out about “devirilization” amounts to a defensive reaction whose motivations are akin to the “equity model” and the “equivalence model”: these two models refer to the principles of natural differences between men and women, with the former advocating inequality in favor of men and the latter invoking equality within the differences that naturally separate them. Male identity here clings to once-recognized “traditional” models of masculinity, disregarding collective changes and ultimately fearing an equality with women that is deemed unnatural.
Furthermore, this identity is rooted in a “hegemonic masculinity” embedded in gender relations that benefits men, whose heterosexuality symbolizes the norm—as opposed to femininity—that must be upheld in order to maintain dominance. The existing system provides reference points for how one gender category opposes the other, but also for how identities are negotiated within each category. Obviously, these reference points are numerous within each category, with dominant models that evolve according to the era and their socio-cultural contexts. While the biological dimension determines this opposition between gender categories as well as their hierarchy, it shapes specific masculine and feminine behaviors that are passed down. And when resistance emerges to borrow from both gender categories and sow “discord,” the system serves as a precept and exposes individuals to stigmatization. The author derives the“Hub and Spokes”model from this, where the Hub symbolizes attachment to hegemonic masculinity and the Spokes represent connections—more or less close—to the female world; these reveal possible intersectionalities. The influence of hegemonic masculinity (or the Hub) also contributes to gender inequalities on a demographic level. This accepted but also internalized male dominance appears to be becoming widespread and strengthening to “construct gender,” as referenced in West & Zimmerman (1987).
This situation would not have been possible without women’s struggle to gain recognition for these gender dynamics. Since the earliest feminist struggles in the 1830s, this social movement has mobilized both women and men to transform gender relations. While women’s rights advanced during the period from 1900 to 1940, the feminist movements of the 1950s through the 1970s took on a new dimension following Simone de Beauvoir’s (1949) analysis of our society. By exposing the mechanisms perpetuating gender inequalities, Simone de Beauvoir intellectualized the existing power structures and legitimized feminism’s role in overturning this order. The 1980s then saw the emergence of a more pronounced feminism, both in terms of ideas—with the differentialist current advocating for feminine difference—and in methods of struggle, notably through physical protest, as exemplified by Femen. However, the 1990s re-examined this differentialism, following the lead of J. Butler, who argues that sex is merely a constructed category or even “discourse” used to designate bodies, and proposes “rethinking social relations through multiplicity.” Feminist struggles thus take on multiple forms[3], giving rise to various currents (which the author is sure to present) and pushing women to take action—promotingempowerment —and to create conditions of gender equality, provided these do not become mere pretense.
One telling indicator of the impact of feminist movements is women’s reclaiming of their bodies. The marking of bodies through clothing styles distinctive to each gender has long perpetuated gender differences, (re)affirming male dominance. Nudism, on the other hand, reflects the growing openness and freedom that emerged among women—as well as men—from the 1970s to the 1990s[4]. Revealing the body is certainly a form of freedom and a point of contention, but it does not spare women from men’s desire to possess them. Later, we see “modest” approaches to the presentation of female bodies, whether at the beach or elsewhere, as new social norms take hold, not without the influence of certain religious moral codes. These power dynamics also play out in other spheres, and the author focuses particularly on the political realm. While laws establish the legal framework for gender equality, particularly after World War II, they do not guarantee equal opportunities for success. Public policies contribute to this by proposing “specific” actions and/or adopting an “integrated” approach—that is, by taking gender equality into account in their governance. Despite this, political spheres (or civic movements) are more or less frequented by women, and participation varies greatly from one country to another. Feminist struggles have thus promoted women’s political participation, despite discrimination that still persists today in favor of men. The current system merely perpetuates “gender power,” an asymmetry driven by different spheres.
The author selects and examines three spheres in detail to form the second part of the book: the domestic sphere (Chapter 4), the school environment (Chapter 5), and the world of sports (Chapter 6). These three areas clearly constitute the book’s strength in offering an original understanding of the operational nature of the concept of gender.
The domestic and professional spheres are part of this, and while they have certainly undergone changes over time, resistance persists. It was not until the First Industrial Revolution (around 1830 in France) that women—who were typically associated with domestic work or agricultural activities—began to be paid wages. The mass entry of women into the labor market did not become significant until after the end of World War II. Since then, we have witnessed the gradual emancipation of women, granting them a degree of financial independence and giving rise to new forms of partnership where romantic choice takes precedence over economic considerations. This freedom has reshaped attitudes toward marriage, leading to an increase in divorces and the emergence of alternative ways of forming unions (cohabitation, common-law marriage, civil solidarity pacts, etc.). The couple thus takes on a new dimension, far removed from the family model in which women played a passive role. That said, inequalities have not been eliminated, whether in domestic tasks (assigned to women in accordance with a patriarchal tradition and limiting women’s access to professional careers to the benefit of men’s), wages (from gendered jobs to the effects of the “glass ceiling” and the “sticky floor”), or leisure activities.
This male dominance is also at work in the educational sphere, and it is closely intertwined with the domestic (primary socialization) and professional (choosing less “lucrative” fields of study and obtaining degrees for employment) spheres. It was not until the 1880s that girls gained access to school, even though the curriculum trained them to become “good wives and mothers.” After the expansion of school enrollment in the 1950s, gender segregation persisted. For example, at the high school level and then in college, there are statistical disparities in course selection. This is without considering the content of textbooks, which promote male dominance, coupled with teachers who are reluctant to “break down gender barriers” due to a lack of training on the subject. However, with these gender effects now scientifically documented, the Ministers of National Education have taken measures in recent years to combat gender inequalities. Despite a desire for neutrality in gender diversity, gender identities are shaped in both the school and family spheres, which tend to “bring together and separate,” ultimately socializing children into what it means to be a girl or a boy—or even reinforcing these stereotypes.
These stereotypes are also evident in the world of sports. From the very emergence of modern sports in the latter half of the 19th century, women were excluded from them, confined to activities that preserved their “nature”—one destined for motherhood and domestic duties. At the time, sports celebrated physical strength and showcased masculinity, traits associated with men. This does not prevent women from finding a space for self-expression within sports, from demonstrating feminine excellence, and from challenging gender representations associated with the body. However, inequalities persist—particularly in the media and the economy—since performance, as the central focus of sports, is inherently associated with masculinity. On the one hand, sports promote and affirm a hegemonic masculinity through these specific attitudes; on the other, they condemn anything that deviates from it or aligns with the feminine, such as homosexuality. The athletic body, for example, is a barometer of this expression of masculinity. By conforming to masculine norms, it becomes a means of “performing gender” and affirming the male gender category. Making one’s body remarkable thus consists of appropriating the outward signs of hegemonic masculinity, of which the athletic or body-built physique are models designed to please others, please oneself, and distinguish oneself from others. Female athletes, on the other hand, are reduced to displaying feminine traits at the risk of being discredited despite their performance. In this sense, the example of female bodybuilders—who seem to have been challenging gender norms since their emergence in the 1970s—is telling: not only do they downplay female bodybuilders due to their lesser muscle development, but they are also gradually making way for women who practice body fitness, whose bodies are deemed more feminine and therefore more acceptable. These logics of gender expression are particularly visible in the world of sports because they are crystallized in the relationship to the body within a hegemonic masculinity.
Ultimately, this book provides us with insights into certain social realities through the lens of gender. The various chapters in the second part then offer practical examples and points for reflection that take a socio-historical perspective on the mechanisms that construct and deconstruct gender. The book’s value lies in its selection of topics, ranging from the domestic sphere to schools and sports. This approach aims to be heuristic in highlighting processes of control and resistance regarding gender equality in our contemporary, androcentric societies.
This grounding of the concept of gender in contemporary contexts nevertheless needs to be supplemented and discussed with reference to literature that is absent from the book. As mentioned above—in the footnotes—it would be necessary to incorporate certain works in the sociology of gender, and even more so when the author addresses the sports sphere, such as the works of Louveau & Métoudi (1986), Louveau (2002, 2004), Mennesson (2005), Guerandel (2016), or, more recently, those by Froidevaux (2019, 2020, 2022). These references discuss the relationship to women’s athletic performance and the silent effects of social norms.
The goal, then, is to be attentive to resistance, to what sows “discord”—a subject of sociological research—not only to reinforce and highlight alternative ways of expressing gender categories but also to “undermine” all attempts at gendered reduction. One might still wonder to what extent these attempts at gendered reduction, which have increasingly been targeted by reporting mechanisms in recent years, tend to “tighten” gender relations rather than “undermine” them.
Bibliography
Clair I. (2012); Sociology of Gender, Paris, Armand Collin, “128” series, 125 pp.
Détrez, C. (2002). The Social Construction of the Body. Paris: Seuil.
Fournier, M. (2014). Masculine-Feminine. Pluriel. Essays, DS. Humanities, 264 pp.
Guionnet, C., & Neveu, E. (2004),Feminine/Masculine: The Sociology of Gender, Paris: Armand Colin.
Froideveaux-Mettrie, C. (2015), The Feminine Revolution. Gallimard, Paris, 370 pp.
Froideveaux, S. (2019), Weapons, Sports, Men… and Women. Gender and Techniques in Sport Shooting in Switzerland. Artefact, 9, 175–195.
Froideveaux, S. (2020), Bodies and Weapons: Becoming a Gendered Subject Through the Practice of Archery and Firearm Shooting in Switzerland, Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne.
Froideveaux, S. (2022), “The Construction of ‘Sexual Difference’ in the Bodies of Archers,” SociologieS, 1–7.
Guerandel, C. (2016). Sport Makes You a Man: The Construction of Girls and Boys in Public Housing Projects. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 230 pp.
Kaufmann, J. (1995). Women’s Bodies, Men’s Gaze: A Sociological Study of Bare Breasts. Paris: Nathan, “Essays & Research.”
Louveau, C., & Metoudi, M. (1986). Stiletto heels and aluminum cleats… Women in traditionally male sports. [Research report] National Institute of Sport and Physical Education (INSEP).
Louveau, C. (2002). Women in Sport: The Social Construction of Femininity and the Division of Labor. Cahiers de l’INSEP, 32-1, 49–78.
Louveau, C. (2004). “Gender in Sports and the Social Construction of Femininity,” Association Féminine et Masculine de Recherches, *Cahiers du Genre*, 1, 36, 163–183.
Mennesson, C. (2005). Being a Woman in a Man’s World: Sports Socialization and Gender Construction. Paris: L’Harmattan, 365 pp.
Perera, E., & Soldani, J. (2021). Recreational nudity. *Nature & Recreation* Journal, No. 11. https://fr.calameo.com/books/00485275747fb798179eb
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). “Doing gender.” D.H. (1987). “Doing gender.” *Gender and Society*, 1, pp. 125–1
[1] To understand this relationship of male domination over women, François Héritier speaks of the “differential valence of the sexes.” According to the author, “this relationship stems from men’s desire to control reproduction, since they cannot produce their own sons. Men have appropriated women and divided them among themselves by disposing of their bodies and compelling them to fulfill a reproductive function” (interview with Mulot M., 2009, Françoise Héritier: “Men and women will be equal one day, perhaps…,” Sciences et Avenir).
[2] In French, “gendered displays.”
[3] For more information on feminist movements, further reading is recommended, including works by Guionnet C. & Neveu E. (2004), Clair (2012), Fournier (2014), Froideveaux-Mettrie (2015), and others.
[4] It is worth noting, however, that it is not just any body that is displayed: the more the body is exposed, the more it conforms to dominant aesthetic norms, often through self-imposed constraints designed to meet those standards (Kauffman, 1995; Détrez, 2002; Perera & Soldani, 2021).