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 trainees in sociology, 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—far removed from the common misconceptions that treat differences in behavior between women and men as natural. The author adopts a “critical” stance toward this binary and naturalized vision, which produces hierarchies—often discriminatory in nature—that, in his view, are embodied in the widely publicized and certainly influential criticism of “the alleged excesses of so-called ‘gender theories’ in the educational setting” (p. 7). In this sense, the dual gender categories of “man” and “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 in order 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—and making it accessible and practical—is no small feat. Faced with the scale of the task, the author begins by providing 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 themselves from this simple “box” of 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 in which gendered socialization shapes one’s relationship with others and vice versa. In this sense, the sex-based 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 making it difficult to grasp the diversity of gender identities. Moreover, gender—developed as a tool for analyzing social reality—reveals socially constructed and accepted norms regarding categories of sex that are imposed, often leading to conflict.
Conflicts related to biological order and gender classes, giving 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 “class struggles” between the sexes or gender inequalities means examining how they are constructed, shaping gender relations and power dynamics between the sexes; the sociological significance of which 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 perspective presents situated knowledge that takes into account the researcher’s subjectivity—knowledge that 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 inevitably be incomplete. Consequently, beginning in the 1980s in France and the United States, a movement known as gender studies emerged, bringing with it 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 are the focus of the first part. Indeed, male domination is conceived as a system in which men subjugate women on a collective level while historically establishing heterosexuality as the normative center of relationships. This male superiority over women is rooted in a biological determinism in which men are presented as physically much stronger than women[1]. This asymmetrical dynamic manifests itself 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 period, forging a hierarchy that favors men. While every era seems to fear a reversal—whether imagined or real—of “effeminacy or a loss of masculinity,” the ideals of masculinity have become more refined, 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 nineteenth century by medical science as well as by the world of work, where the laborer asserted his 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 protected women and the weak” (p. 54). Masculinity is distinguished from femininity, referring to specific behaviors—which exacerbate 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 has endured 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 increasingly prominent importance of a masculine identity combined with (so-called) feminine qualities—traditional points of reference are shifting, giving way to uncertainty. This uncertainty is all the more pronounced because our individualistic societies place the responsibility on each 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 underlying mechanisms 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 gender identity clings here 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 frameworks for how one gender category opposes the other, but also for how identities are negotiated within each category. Obviously, these frameworks are diverse within each category, with dominant models that evolve over time and according to their sociocultural contexts. While the biological dimension determines this opposition between gender categories as well as their hierarchy, it also shapes specific masculine and feminine behaviors that are passed down. And when resistance emerges—seeking to draw from both gender categories and sow “discord”—the system serves as a guiding principle and exposes individuals to stigmatization. The author derives from this the“Hub and Spokes”model, in which the Hub symbolizes attachment to hegemonic masculinity and the Spokes represent connections—more or less close—to the female world; these connections reveal possible intersectionalities. The influence of hegemonic masculinity (or the “Hub”) also contributes to gender inequalities at the demographic level. This male dominance—which is not only accepted but also internalized—appears to be becoming more widespread and entrenched, thereby “constructing gender” (as referenced in West & Zimmerman, 1987).
This situation would not be possible without women’s struggle to gain recognition for these gendered dynamics. Since the earliest feminist struggles in the 1830s, this social movement has mobilized both women and men to change 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 that perpetuate gender inequalities, S. 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 movement advocating for feminine difference—and in terms of methods of struggle, notably through physical protest, as exemplified by Femen. However, the 1990s called this differentialism into question, as exemplified by 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 encouraging women to take action—promotingempowerment —and to create conditions of gender equality, provided these do not become mere pretense.
One indicator of the impact of feminist actions is women’s reclaiming of their bodies. The marking of bodies—through distinctive clothing styles for each sex—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 cause worth fighting for, but it does not spare women from men’s desire to appropriate 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 established the legal framework for gender equality—particularly after World War II—they did not guarantee equal opportunities for success. Public policies have contributed to this by proposing “specific” measures and/or adopting an “integrated” approach, that is, by taking gender equality into account in their governance. Despite this, political spheres (and civic movements) see varying levels of female participation, which differs significantly 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 dynamics,” an asymmetry driven by various spheres of society.
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 wasn’t until the First Industrial Revolution (around 1830 in France) that women—who were typically associated with domestic work and/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 certain degree of financial independence and giving rise to new forms of relationships in which romantic choice takes precedence over economic considerations. This freedom has transformed attitudes toward marriage, leading to an increase in divorces and the emergence of alternative ways of forming partnerships (cohabitation, common-law marriage, civil solidarity pacts, etc.). Couples have thus taken on a new dimension, moving away 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 in favor 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 is closely intertwined with the domestic (primary socialization) and professional (choosing less “lucrative” fields of study and earning degrees for employment) spheres. It was not until the 1880s that girls gained access to school, even though the curriculum was designed to train them to become “good wives and mothers.” After the expansion of universal education in the 1950s, gender segregation persisted. For example, at the high school graduation level and subsequently in college, statistical disparities can be observed in the choice of academic tracks. This is not to mention 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 environments, which tend to “bring together and separate,” ultimately socializing children into what it means to be a girl or a boy—and even reinforcing these stereotypes.
These stereotypes are also evident in the world of sports. From the very emergence of modern sports in the second half of the 19th century, women were excluded from them and confined to activities that preserved their “nature”—one destined for motherhood and domestic duties. At the time, sports celebrated muscularity and showcased masculinity, both of which were 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 stereotypes 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 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 stand out thus involves adopting the outward signs of hegemonic masculinity, of which the athletic or body-built physique serves as a model for pleasing others, pleasing oneself, and distinguishing 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 with their more developed musculature, but they are also gradually making way for women who practice body fitness—whose bodies are considered 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 keys to understanding certain social realities through the lens of gender. The various chapters in Part Two then offer us practical examples and points for reflection that provide a socio-historical perspective on the mechanisms that construct and/or 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 in the pursuit of gender equality within 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, particularly when the author addresses the realm of sports, 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 explore the relationship between women’s athletic performance and the subtle 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 reductionism. One might nevertheless wonder to what extent these attempts at gendered reduction—which have increasingly been targeted by reporting mechanisms in recent years—tend to “strain” gender relations rather than “undercut” 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 Firearms 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 Sports: 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 Féminin Masculin Recherchers, *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 M. Mulot, 2009, Françoise Héritier: “Men and women will be equal one day, perhaps…,” Sciences et Avenir).
[2] In French, “parades sexuées.”
[3] To learn more about feminist movements, further reading is recommended, including, among others, Guionnet C. & Neveu E. (2004), Clair (2012), Fournier (2014), Froideveaux-Mettrie (2015), etc.
[4] It is worth noting, however, that it is not just any body that is shown: the more the body is exposed, the more it conforms to dominant aesthetic norms, through forms of self-restraint designed to meet those norms (Kauffman, 1995; Détrez, 2002; Perera & Soldani, 2021).