Understanding and using gender sociology
Book review: Guillaume Vallet, Sociologie du genre (Sociology of Gender), Thèmes & Débats Sociologie, Bréal, Clamecy, 2018, 176 pages, €9.
By Eric PERERA, January 2024
The book is aimed at sociology students and apprentices, but also at anyone with a thirst for knowledge in sociology. The author, Guillaume Vallet, is a lecturer in economics at the Faculty of Economics in Grenoble. His aim is to show how the concept of gender provides a heuristic framework for approaching all social phenomena, both old and new, far removed from preconceived ideas that naturalize differences in behavior between women and men. The author takes a "critical" stance towards this binary and naturalized vision, which produces hierarchies—in discriminatory forms—that he believes are embodied in the criticism of "the alleged excesses of so-called 'gender theories' in schools" (p. 7), which is widely publicized and certainly effective. In this sense, the dual gender categories of man/woman create caricatures, whereas it would suffice to examine them as a system to understand what they shape socially. The reader can only 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 in relation to established social realities, particularly in contemporary France, while taking care to point out that this is not an exhaustive inventory of references or works on the subject.
Setting out to present a sociology of gender, making it accessible and functional, is no small task, and given the scale of the undertaking, the author first underpins the work with an overview of the concept, or rather concepts, of gender (part 1), before testing them against carefully themed realities in the field (part 2), as encouraged by the "Thèmes & Débats Sociologie" collection (edited by Gilles Renouard) in which it is published.
The first part, divided into three chapters, focuses on the foundations of this gender category. He explains that the category of sex is a "box" spontaneously used to think about society, which has found meaning in anthropology as a way of understanding exotic societies. Since then, the humanities, including sociology, have distanced themselves from this simple "box" of biological differences by considering the social aspect of sex, preferring instead the notion of gender. This notion focuses on the roles that a society attributes to what a man and a woman should be, the conventions for each sex and, ultimately, the identities whose gendered socialization constructs a relationship with others and vice versa. In this sense, the gendered part of identity is only culturally constructed, where the display of gender differences merely affirms gendered logics that imply inequality and domination. Clearly, biological anchoring sows "gender confusion," forging social representations and struggling to grasp the diversity of gender identities. Furthermore, gender, developed as a tool for analyzing social reality, reveals socially constructed and accepted norms of gender categories that impose themselves, not without becoming conflictual.
Conflicts related to biological order and gender classes, producing a social hierarchy that can be analyzed as a system, including the patriarchal system, where a form of male domination is expressed. Understanding gender "class struggles" or inequalities means examining how they are constructed, shaping gender relations and power relations between the sexes, which became a subject of sociological interest in the 1950s.
This insight necessarily raises epistemological questions, as research itself is caught up in these gender relations and researchers produce knowledge according to their social engagement. This focus presents situated knowledge that takes into account the subjectivity of the researcher, which is much closer to social realities than a neutral stance, a stance that is untenable in situ and too often associated with the illusion of objectivity, the results of which would only be truncated. Thus, in the 1980s in France and the United States, a movement called gender studies emerged, bringing with it new scientific knowledge, training, and specialized journals on the subject.
This theoretical foundation then reveals its full functional scope when the author addresses "masculinities" (chapter 2) and "women in struggle" (chapter 3), elements of the first part. Indeed, male domination is conceived as a system in which men collectively enslave women while historically establishing heterosexuality as the norm at the center of relationships. This male superiority over women is rooted in a biological determinism in which men are presented as much stronger physically than women[1]. This asymmetrical stance is affirmed in social interactions and, depending on the social setting, is exercised more or less directly, recalling the supposed fragility of women versus the virility expected of men. Virility has established itself as a masculine ideal over time, since the Hellenistic period, forging a hierarchy in favor of men. While each era seems to fear a reversal—whether imagined or real—of "effeminacy or emasculation," ideals of masculinity have become civilized, expressing themselves in controlled and codified ways that reinforce gender identities. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, the emphasis was on the physical and psychological inferiority of women, excluding them from the political sphere despite the demands for freedom during the Revolution. Recognized by all, the omnipotence of men over women established the order of dominant/dominated, strong/weak behaviors. This difference was legitimized in the 19th century by medical science and the world of work, where masculinity was asserted by male workers. However, the upheaval of the First World War 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—exacerbating heterosexuality—called genderism[2] ( Goffman, 1977). The author does not fail to point out the plural and dynamic nature of masculinity and that while male domination has endured over time, it remains nonetheless contested.
Controversies that raise doubts and reveal a masculinity that seeks to be "defensive." Faced with certain reversals, such as the belief in the "end of men" or the increasingly relevant importance of a masculine identity coupled with (perceived) feminine qualities, traditional reference points are changing, giving way to uncertainty. This uncertainty is all the more pronounced as our individualistic societies place the responsibility for becoming a man on each individual, not without affirming the social position of women. In this context, maintaining male domination and/or crying out against "emasculation" is a defensive reaction whose origins are similar 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 in the differences that separate them by nature. Male identity clings here to "traditional" models of masculinity that were once recognized, ignoring collective changes and ultimately fearing equality with women as unnatural.
In addition, this identity clings to a "hegemonic masculinity" established in social gender relations for the benefit of men, whose heterosexuality symbolizes the norm—as opposed to femininity—that must be maintained in order to dominate. The existing system provides benchmarks for how one gender category opposes another, but also for how each category negotiates within itself. Obviously, there are multiple benchmarks in each category, with dominant models that evolve according to the times and their socio-cultural contexts. While the biological dimension determines this opposition between gender categories and their hierarchy, it also shapes specific male and female behaviors that are passed on. And when resistance is expressed by borrowing from both gender categories and sowing "trouble," the system serves as a precept and exposes individuals to stigmatization. The author deduces the "Hub and Spokes" model, where the Hub symbolizes the attachment to hegemonic masculinity and the Spokes symbolize the more or less close links to the feminine world, revealing possible intersections. The influence of hegemonic masculinity (or the Hub) also contributes to gender inequalities in demographic terms. This accepted but also internalized male domination seems to be becoming more widespread and reinforced in order to "make gender" (with reference to West & Zimmerman, 1987).
This situation cannot be understood without considering women's struggle to raise awareness of gender issues. Since the first feminist struggles in the 1830s, this social movement has mobilized both women and men to change gender relations. While women's rights progressed during the period 1900-1940, the feminist movements of the 1950s-1970s took on a new dimension following Simone de Beauvoir's (1949) examination of our society. By revealing the mechanisms that perpetuate gender inequality, Simone de Beauvoir intellectualized the existing power relations and legitimized feminism as a means of overturning this order. The 1980s then saw the emergence of a more pronounced feminism, both in terms of ideas, with the differentialist movement advocating female difference, and in terms of methods of struggle, notably through the use of the body, as exemplified by Femen. However, the 1990s saw a re-examination of this differentialism, with J. Butler arguing that sex is only a constructed category or "discourse" used to designate bodies, and proposing to "rethink social relations through multiplicity." Feminist struggles thus take many forms, giving rise to different currents (which the author does not fail to present) and pushing women to act—promotingempowerment —and to create conditions of equality between men and women, provided that these do not become mere pretense.
One indicator of the effects of feminist actions is women's reappropriation of their bodies. The marking of bodies, through distinctive clothing for each sex, has long maintained gender differences, (re)affirming male domination. Nudism, on the other hand, shows the degrees of openness and freedom that women—as well as men—asserted in the 1970s to 1990s. Revealing the body is certainly a form of freedom, a cause worth fighting for, but it does not spare women from men's desire to appropriate them. Later, we see a "modest" approach to the presentation of women's bodies, whether at the beach or elsewhere, with new social norms being established, not without the influence of a certain religious morality. These power relations also play out in other spheres, and the author focuses particularly on politics. Although legislation established the legal framework for gender equality, particularly after World War II, it did not guarantee equal opportunities for success. Public policies contributed to this by proposing "specific" actions and/or adopting an "integrated" approach, i.e., taking gender equality into account in their governance. Despite this, women's participation in political spaces (or associations) varies greatly from one country to another. Feminist struggles have thus promoted women's political participation, despite the discrimination that still persists today in favor of men. The current system merely maintains the "power of gender," an asymmetry induced by different spheres.
Three spheres are chosen and analyzed by the author 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 entries clearly constitute the book's appeal in capturing the operative nature of the concept of gender in an original way.
The domestic and professional spheres are part of this, and although 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 more commonly associated with domestic work and/or agricultural activities, began to be paid wages. The mass entry of women into the labor market only became noticeable after the end of World War II. Since then, we have witnessed the gradual emancipation of women, offering them a certain financial autonomy and organizing new forms of conjugality where romantic choice takes precedence over economic considerations. This freedom has created a different relationship to marriage, encouraging divorce and other ways of uniting (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 according to a patriarchal tradition, reducing women's access to professional careers in favor of men), wages (gendered jobs with the effects of the "glass ceiling" and the "sticky floor"), or leisure activities.
This male domination is also at work in the educational sphere, with fruitful interrelationships with the domestic sphere (primary socialization) and the professional sphere (choice of less "profitable" courses and obtaining degrees for employment). 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 massification of education in the 1950s, the separation between the sexes remained. For example, at the high school and university levels, there are statistical inequalities in the choice of fields of study. This is without taking into account the content of school textbooks, which promote male domination, and 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 proven, the French Ministry of Education has taken measures in recent years to combat gender inequality. 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 what it means to be a girl or a boy and even reinforcing these stereotypes.
Stereotypes that are also expressed in the sporting arena. From the emergence of modern sports in the second half of the 19th century, women were excluded, assigned to activities that preserved their "nature" destined for motherhood and domestic tasks. When sport celebrates muscle and showcases virility, associated with men. This did not prevent women from finding a space for expression, asserting feminine excellence, and challenging gender representations associated with the body. However, inequalities remain—particularly in the media and economy—since performance as a sporting challenge is inherently associated with masculinity. On the one hand, sport values and affirms a hegemonic masculinity with its specific attitudes, and on the other, it condemns anything that deviates from this and anything that is closer to femininity, such as homosexuality. The athletic body, for example, is a revelation of this expression of masculinity. By conforming to masculine norms, it becomes a means of "doing gender" and affirming the male sex category. Making one's body remarkable then consists of appropriating the external signs of hegemonic masculinity, of which the athletic or body-built body are models for pleasing others, pleasing oneself, and distinguishing oneself from others. Female athletes, on the other hand, are reduced to displaying feminine signs at the risk of being discredited despite their performances. 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 promote bodybuilders with less muscle development, but they are gradually giving way to women who practice body fitness with bodies that are considered more feminine and therefore more acceptable. These gender expression patterns are particularly visible in the world of sport because they are crystallized in the relationship to the body of a hegemonic masculinity.
Finally, this book provides us with keys to understanding certain social realities through the lens of gender. The various chapters in the second part then offer us practical examples and reflective insights that provide a socio-historical perspective on understanding the mechanisms that construct and/or deconstruct gender. The book's appeal lies in its choice of topics, ranging from the domestic sphere to school and sport. This approach is heuristic in highlighting processes of control and resistance to gender equality in our contemporary societies with their androcentric values.
This anchoring of the concept of gender across contemporary fields of discourse nevertheless needs to be supplemented and discussed by literature that is absent from the book. As mentioned above—in footnotes—it would be necessary to include certain works on the sociology of gender, particularly when the author addresses the sporting sphere, such as the works of Louveau & Métoudi (1986), Louveau (2002, 2004), Mennesson (2005), Guerandel (2016), and more recently Froidevaux (2019, 2020, 2022). These references discuss the relationship between women's athletic performance and the silent effects of social norms.
It is therefore important to be attentive to resistance, to what causes "trouble"—a subject of research in sociology—not only to reinforce and promote other ways of expressing gender categories, but also to "undo" any attempts at gender reduction. One may nevertheless wonder to what extent these attempts at gender reduction, which have been increasingly targeted by reporting mechanisms in recent years, tend to "strain" gender relations rather than "undo" them.
Bibliography
Clair I. (2012); Sociology of Gender, Paris, Armand Collin, coll. "128," 125 p.
Détrez, C. (2002). The Social Construction of the Body. Paris: Seuil.
Fournier, M. (2014). Masculine-Feminine. Pluriel. Essays, DS. Humanities, 264 p.
Guionnet C. & Neveu E. (2004),Feminine/Masculine. Sociology of Gender, Paris, Armand Colin.
Froideveaux-Mettrie C. (2015), La révolution du féminin (The Feminine Revolution). Gallimard, Paris, 370 p.
Froideveaux S. (2019), Weapons, sports, men... and women. Gender and techniques in shooting sports 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, Thesis, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne.
Froideveaux S. (2022), The production of "sexual difference" in the body in the sport of archery, SociologieS, 1-7.
Guerandel C. (2016). Sport makes men. The making of girls and boys in the suburbs. Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 230 p.
Kaufmann, J. (1995). Women's bodies, men's eyes: the sociology 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: social construction of femininity and division of labor. Cahiers de l’INSEP, 32-1, 49-78.
Louveau C. (2004). Genderization of sports and the social construction of femininity, Association féminin masculin rechercher, Cahiers du Genre, 1, 36, 163-183.
Mennesson C. (2005). Being a woman in a man's world. Socialization through sport and gender construction, Paris, L'Harmattan, 365 p.
Perera E. & Soldani J. (2021) Recreational nudity. Nature & Recreation magazine, no. 11. https://fr.calameo.com/books/00485275747fb798179eb
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). "Doing gender." Gender and society, 1, pp. 125-1.
[1] To understand this relationship of male domination over women, François Héritier refers to the "differential valence of the sexes." According to the author, "this relationship stems from men's desire to control reproduction, as they cannot produce their own sons. Men have appropriated and divided women among themselves, disposing of their bodies and forcing them into reproductive roles" (interview with Mulot M., 2009, Françoise Héritier: "Men and women will be equal one day, perhaps...", Sciences et Avenir).
[2] In English, "sexual displays."
[3] To learn more about feminist movements, further reading is recommended, including Guionnet C. & Neveu E. (2004), Clair (2012), Fournier (2014), Froideveaux-Mettrie (2015), etc.
[4] It should be noted, 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, with these forms of self-imposed constraints designed to meet these norms (Kauffman, 1995; Détrez, 2002; Perera & Soldani, 2021).