Notes

1)
What role do gender norms play in the reproduction of inequality in the workplace?
A gender norm, or gender role, in the words of Dr John Money, is a collection of “All those things that a person (…) does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of a man or a woman.’ (An examination of some basic sexual concepts: the evidence of human hermaphroditism - 1955). However, in this essay I will be arguing that gender roles are more than just a status; it is a necessary component in segregating individuals into a lifestyle dependent on their gender. The workplace is part of our lifestyle, and therefore partakes in reproducing gender roles. This essay will look at how this takes place in a work style environment; it’s origins and how it is able to continue even in a contemporary society.
The Marxist view on power understands that the basis for every sociohistorical epoch is production. Our relation to this production defines whether we are the administrators of power, or in fact, the labourer’s. However, when looking exclusively on the Marxist-feminist view; it appears women’s subordination within the work sector pillars the production of capitalism – therefore meaning there must be an element of ‘unfairness’ in the workplace for capitalism to sustain itself. For instance, the bourgeoise influenced society and his workers into the idea of the new ‘modern family’, in which the male of the household works while the woman looks after him, his home and their children. This inequality promotes capital growth for numerous reasons, such as looking after the husband so he can continue to work to upbringing children to adhere to the consumerist system. By illustration, ‘the role of women (…) has always been seen as that of a psychologically subordinated person who, except where she is marginally employed outside the home, is outside production: essentially a supplier of a series of use values in the home.’ (Selma James, et al; ‘The power of women and the subversion of the community’ – p16, 1975). This exemplifies the reproduction of inequality since the way we work and how we judge what is classified as ‘good work’, is influenced by how well men achieve capital goals, not by how well women socialize children for example.
Alternatively, Durkheim expressed the importance of the division of labour. He saw for himself the extraordinary productivity of capitalism when his native country, France, underwent a huge monetary transformation in the 1800s. For Functionalists alike, the division of labour benefits society; it’s order surrounding specific ‘types’ of workers performing their jobs not only establishes a sense of solidarity – it also promotes capitalism. This is because each jobs becomes simplified after being divided, making it easier for individuals to focus on a job dedicated to them – or in this case, their gender. This can be exemplified; ‘he (Durkheim) theorizes their (women) position (…) in society as a ‘woman’s place’ deriving this from the dual casual imperatives: a woman’s nature and a societies’ needs’ (Jennifer M. Lehmann – p33, 1994) Thereby this extract suggests that the gendered division of labour must take place to ensure the two imperatives mentioned above are met.
So far, this essay has looked at the reproduction of gender norms asynchronous from our society today. Meanwhile in post-modernity, the reproduction of gendered norms at the workplace has changed. While the previous accounts mention the valuability of homebound women, contemporary examples can signify that, while things have changed (i.e. women are expected to work) the way they are treated amongst co-workers reveals that the gender norm production is still in place. For example; 29% of women in a poll of 2,000 employees (27th September 2021) felt as if their contribution to the workforce had not been taken seriously. Ted talk’s Sara Sanford supports this; “Howard was never against recruiting more women. But he needed to hear it from a man why it was important to hire more women” (How to design gender bias out of your workplace, 2020 – 1:55). This can express the inability to change gender prejudice since workplace sexism has become instituionalised – it still takes place it’s just not as blatant. Because of this, stereotypes can continue to regenerate under the eye of society thus causing a reproduction of gender norms in the workplace.
In conclusion, a populations’ belief will influence all aspects of society, including the workplace. This essay has looked at two explanations to the production of gender norms, with one critique from leading functionalist, Durkheim.
References (in order)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13260820/
https://libcom.org/files/Dalla%20Costa%20and%20James%20-%20Women%20and%20the%20Subversion%20of%20the%20Community.pdf
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NRHy4sjGeNMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=durkheim+and+women+jennifer&ots=dmtJ-Wx5i-&sig=a02CReXJIxmd64Ll2H8zJ8RTpK4#v=onepage&q=durkheim%20and%20women%20jennifer&f=false
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfOqyuxb5S0&t=222s
https://www.smeloans.co.uk/blog/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Why do social movements come about?
A social movement can be defined as “a set of opinion and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social structure” (John McCarthy et al – The Dynamic of social movements – 1979) This essay will demonstrate why social movements develop
Foremost, one of the main reasons as to why social movements come about is because there is a need for a change in a society. Known as the Deprivation Theory, movements begin to evolve when the three imperatives are met – a feeling of deserving better, relative deprivation and a belief that conventional methods in changing the system won’t work. This perspective was popular during the 1960s Civil Rights movement for example, where the black community were politically and socially segregated. The deprivation an induvial experience, can be described as the catalyst for social movements since, as Barbara Greschwender (et al) writes; ‘relative deprivation may be one state of mind which motivates participation in social movements’ (Relative Deprivation and Participation in the Civil Rights Movement – 1973.) Greschwender suggests that financial hardship for example, or racial threats invigorate an internal feeling of objection; thus powering a social movement. On the other hand, the Mobilization theory can become of interest when researching the cause of social movements. Rather than exploring protestors and their journey towards social justice, it looks at the processes that prevent change, for instance, political influence. With this in mind, some movements are caused by the failure to ‘mobilize’ – Abort67’s protest of December 2014 can exemplify this. Protesting outside abortion clinics, this movement failed as a result of societies’ disapproval. As a result with every movement they failed to succeed in, a new protest would be established.
A more alternative cause for social movements can be credited to the Mass Society Theory. This is built upon the idea that social movements are the result of an induvial feeling socially detached. Consequently, movements are established since protestors are looking for a unified group where they feel a sense of solidarity. Nazism could be an example of this, at the time German society felt detached from the Reichstag and objected non-nationalist views, leading to one of the most historical totalitarian movements. This theory suggests solidarity itself is a movement; it helps sustain social development by using it’s popularity and unity to create a basis of concord. Jonathan Christiansen introduces the work of Rex Hopper in his book ‘Four Stages of Social Movements’ (2009) whereby he argues that, within studying revolutionary processes in social movements, ‘unrest is no longer covert, endemic, and esoteric: it becomes overt, epidemic and exoteric. Discontent is no longer uncoordinated’ (1950). This extract can signify how discontent can be inverted to unity within a movement, thus making the participation greater.
ONE MORE PARAGRAPH PLUS CONCLUSION
How is knowledge legitimized in university?
There are many forms of knowledge; yet since the evolvement of modernity, universities have legitimized a new curriculum over any other – scientism. This essay will demonstrate societies’ transition towards scientific knowledge while using references and critiques to signify whether or not scientific knowledge is still favoured over other disciplines.
The transition to modernity was a turning point in the history of legitimizing knowledge. Modernity can be defined as a period of time where society transitioned from feudalism to capitalism; where improvement and progress was of most importance. Being a part of society itself, universities therefore adopted this change. Modernity emcompasses the following progressions of urbanization, individualization and democrac, being described as QUOTE HERE according to NAME (book) After the transition to economic importance, scientific knowledge was used and respected for technological advances. These advances were imperative for capitalism to thrive – many modern appliances such as computers wouldn’t exist without it. This legitimized knowledge scientism as it became fundamental to a consumerist economy; with this form of knowledge came power and protection. Not only did it assist household technology it also led to such inventions as nuclear power systems for example.
With the contextual information above, we can begin to understand why universities transitioned their focus onto scientism. Precedent to modernity, universities and it’s students concentrated on religious understandings of the world, with art and humanities being an extracurricular form of studying. By the time modernity had passed, students wanted to study the ‘truth’, albeit scientific trut. Art became less important, being studied for beauty as opposed to knowledge – it was also connotated as a ‘feminine subject’ unlike the hard sciences which helped capital advancement. On the other hand, as society progressed, scholars began to find differences surrounding subjects, and thus felt necessary to distinguish distinct courses such as sociology or political science for instance. This became an issue for those supporting scientism; while the majority of society followed an idea of science overruling all forms of knowledge, it became apparent that many related subjects branched from the Arts. As Roger Scruton writes in his article ‘Scientism and the Arts and Humanities’ (2013), “the simultaneous expansion of the social sciences (…) meant that many of the new area of study fell uneasily between arts and sciences and required extensive borrowings from both”. This can suggest that science cannot be an overruling form of knowledge since it takes core concepts from other subjected that are not necessarily scientific.