Rosemary Crompton and Michael Mann - Gender and Stratification
Introduction
● Stratification theory since WW2 has been influenced by the class analyses of Marx and
Weber
○ these were distinct from both the consensual and conflict-based analyses
of post-war society
● Class analysis (particularly Marxist class analysis) focuses on social relationships rather
than individual attributes
○ this has a tendency to depersonalize the agent, including making the
agent non-gendered
○ gender is seen as being subordinate to class in examining socioeconomic
stratification (partly because, if women are economically dependent on working men,
then the have a class identity)
○ women are not seen as constituting a class, and status differences
between them mean they cannot be a status group
● This depersonalization continued with structuralism, which saw classes as positions in the
social organization rather than collections of individuals
○ organization of production created empty spaces, and it was relatively
unimportant who filled them (cf. Hartmann)
■ hence gender remained obscured
● Women are excluded from the analysis of class stratification because:
○ for Weberians, if women’s life chances are not determined by the market,
then they can be regarded as beyond the boundaries of class theory
○ for Marxists, women are members of a class insofar as the occupy
particular positions relative to the forces of production
■ their subjection can be understood through the lens of
the prevailing economic relations and exploitation
● Feminists argue that the subjection of women is not to be seen as secondary to class
oppression
○ patriarchal relations are geographically and historically almost universal,
and thus cannot be considered secondary to capitalist relations
● Reluctance to abandon class theory among feminists has led to dual systems theories,
according to which gender and capitalism are distinct, yet interact and are instrumental in
establishing social stratification/status etc
○ e.g. Hartmann - capitalism creates the places for a hierarchy of workers,
gender/race hierarchies tell us who fills them
■ the problem with this is that the two (or three) cannot be
untangled analytically or historically - the development of capitalist economic
relations was influenced by gender and race related processes, as well as other
structures - states, war, religion etc
● Hartmann is right to introduce more
factors into social stratification analysis, but needs to go further, and not
rely on drawing sharp dividing lines
● Empirical research in stratification sociology is likely to look at occupation structure and
income inequality
Introduction
● Stratification theory since WW2 has been influenced by the class analyses of Marx and
Weber
○ these were distinct from both the consensual and conflict-based analyses
of post-war society
● Class analysis (particularly Marxist class analysis) focuses on social relationships rather
than individual attributes
○ this has a tendency to depersonalize the agent, including making the
agent non-gendered
○ gender is seen as being subordinate to class in examining socioeconomic
stratification (partly because, if women are economically dependent on working men,
then the have a class identity)
○ women are not seen as constituting a class, and status differences
between them mean they cannot be a status group
● This depersonalization continued with structuralism, which saw classes as positions in the
social organization rather than collections of individuals
○ organization of production created empty spaces, and it was relatively
unimportant who filled them (cf. Hartmann)
■ hence gender remained obscured
● Women are excluded from the analysis of class stratification because:
○ for Weberians, if women’s life chances are not determined by the market,
then they can be regarded as beyond the boundaries of class theory
○ for Marxists, women are members of a class insofar as the occupy
particular positions relative to the forces of production
■ their subjection can be understood through the lens of
the prevailing economic relations and exploitation
● Feminists argue that the subjection of women is not to be seen as secondary to class
oppression
○ patriarchal relations are geographically and historically almost universal,
and thus cannot be considered secondary to capitalist relations
● Reluctance to abandon class theory among feminists has led to dual systems theories,
according to which gender and capitalism are distinct, yet interact and are instrumental in
establishing social stratification/status etc
○ e.g. Hartmann - capitalism creates the places for a hierarchy of workers,
gender/race hierarchies tell us who fills them
■ the problem with this is that the two (or three) cannot be
untangled analytically or historically - the development of capitalist economic
relations was influenced by gender and race related processes, as well as other
structures - states, war, religion etc
● Hartmann is right to introduce more
factors into social stratification analysis, but needs to go further, and not
rely on drawing sharp dividing lines
● Empirical research in stratification sociology is likely to look at occupation structure and
income inequality
