Call for papers, International Conference « Gender & Class: Objects, Methods and Perspectives » Lausanne University (Switzerland), November 2017 (dates to be confirmed) How can social scientists adopt an inclusive analysis of gender and class? Many feminist researchers and Gender Studies specialists have addressed this question, either from an epistemological or political perspective. They have stressed the methodological or empirical problems that arise in combining a class and a gender approach. Different conceptions of the multiple ways in which gender and class relations intersect or are “imbricated” (Bilge 2010) have been developed and continue to coexist today. Up until the 1980s, the gender and class relationship was initially posed through a Marxist prism (Trat 2011). Some feminist theorists and activists used the conceptual tools of Marxist thought to analyse gender domination, oppression and exploitation in an analogical way – developing notions like “the class of women” (Guillaumin, 1992 [1978]). They also attempted to develop Marxist theory in a feminist and women-‐ centred perspective. From the outset, the origins of capitalism and patriarchy, and the complex relationship between the two, were the object of heated debates (Hartmann 1979 ; Collectif, 1989 ; Delphy 1998 ; Brenner 2000 ; Federici 2004; Trat 2011). The intersection of productive and reproductive work represented the main focus of studies on the link between gender and class relations and their combined effects on women (Kergoat 1978 ; Molyneux, 1979 ; Combes et Haicault, 1984 ; Battagliola et al., 1990 ; Barrett et McIntosh, 1998). More recently, the widespread adoption of the notion of “intersectionality” in academic and activist circles (Jaunait et Chauvin 2012 ; Falquet et Kian 2015 ; Fassa, Lépinard et Roca i Escoda 2016) has rekindled debates on the gender and class interface. Inspired by the insights of Black feminism (Dorlin 2008), Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989, 1991, 2005) initially proposed the notion of intersectionality to better understand of the specific forms of discrimination experienced by women of colour in the US context. Rapidly extended from its initial Legal Studies context, the notion was widely adopted in the social sciences (Davis 2015), but with an increasing diversity of meanings, objects and definitions (Bilge 2009). The notion of intersectionality has been criticised for its lack of empirical precision, for its tendency to focus primarily on socially subordinate groups and for the potential
1
marginalisation of questions of class, due to a primary focus on the interplay of gender, race and ethnicity (Fraser 2005 ; Dorlin 2009 ; Dunezat et al. 2010 ; Galerand et Kergoat 2014 ; Fassin 2015). Some authors have proposed alternative concepts, such as « consubstantialité » (Kergoat 2012) or « doing difference » (West and Fenstermaker 1995), in order to « reconceptualise oppression » (Collins 1993) and take up the theoretical and empirical challenge of overcoming a potential « competition of issues » in feminist research (Clair 2015). Given the recent renewal in the gender and class debate, the conference invites contributions that provide in-‐depth empirical, methodological or theoretical studies of the ways in which gender and class form two interconnected and co-‐constructed « inequality regimes » (Acker 2009). Although it may be interesting to focus on gender power relations within a given social class (e.g. working class femininities), we are particularly keen to receive paper proposals that address the question of the coproduction of gender and social stratification, class inequalities and power relations. The aim of the conference is to shed light on this particular form of interface in the contemporary context, in order to explore its relevance to understanding social phenomena such as work and employment, social movements, cultural practices, education and training and subjectivities. Of course, the primary focus on gender and class in no way precludes the inclusion of other power relations, be they related to race and ethnicity (Cervulle et Rees-‐Roberts 2010), sexuality (Eribon 2009) or age (Rennes 2016), for example. As a guideline, here is a list of potential streams and workshop topics: 1/ The public / private divide Previous research has already shed some light on the division and delegation of domestic labour and care work (Molinier 2009 ; Ibos 2012 ; Le Feuvre, Benelli et Rey 2012 ; Avril 2014), the globalisation of care (Hochschild 2000 ; Falquet et al. 2010), or the role of institutions (Siblot 2006). Other authors have worked on the gender and class dimensions of sexualities (Skeggs 2015 ; Connell 2005), masculinities (Connell 2005 ; Connell et Messerschmidt 2005), on the production of « private » and « public » worlds (Schwartz 1990 ; Davidoff et Hall 1987), and on different forms of resistance, transgression and reconfiguration of gender and class relations. Papers can address different questions, for instance: What are the effects of the current restructuring of the Fordist model of capitalism on the public / private divide and on the gender and social division of productive labour and care? How does the renegotiation of the boundaries
2
between productive and reproductive labour contribute to the (re)production of gender and class relations in different occupational or national contexts? 2/ Social Movements A so-‐called « conflict of issues » is often presented as one of the consequences of the interplay of multiple oppressions on social movements (feminist, anti-‐capitalist, anti-‐ racist, etc.). Under what conditions can such divisions be overcome ? What does a combined class and gender perspective bring to the analysis of social movements, to the study of inequalities and hierarchies within « militant itineries » (Filleule 2001 ; Guillaume et Pochic 2011) ? How can insights from the analysis of women’s movements (Bereni 2012) be transferred to the analysis of apparently very different movements and forms of mobilisation? How should we approach the analysis of under-‐studied objects, such as associations of female employers or professionals (Blanchard, Boni-‐Le Goff et Rabier 2013)? 3/ Subjectivities How are individual gender and class identities or subjectivities constructed in particular sociohistorical contexts? What are the respective roles of gender and class in the social framing of emotions (Elias 1973 ; Hochschild 1979) ? How is the legitimate expression of emotions defined and controlled, for example through defining the « good » and « bad » profil of welfare recipients (Delage 2014)? How are class and gender intertwined in the sexual division of emotional labour and in the definition of its market value (Hochschild 1979 ; Adkins 1995 ; Bernstein 2007 ; Skeggs 2015) ? Which subjective emotions – from shame, hate and contempt, through to laughter and humour, pleasure and affection – can the social sciences help to understand? What do they tell us about social inequalities or changing power relations in contemporary societies? 4/ Educational and cultural practices Are cultural practices determined to the same extent as other social practices by gender and class membership or do they offer more opportunities for resistance? Does cultural consumption necessarily reinforce gender and class hierarchies, or can it also serve to subvert them ? Several ethnographic studies of class and gender in popular culture, such as romantic literature (Radway 1991; Houel 1997) or soap operas (Ang 1991 ; Brown 1994), were carried out in the 1990s. However, less attention has been paid to the role of gender in the cultural practices of distinction among the middle and upper classes (Albenga 2007 ; Benstock 1986).
3
Secondly, it is now the case that, in many Western countries, women out-‐perform men at all levels of the educational system. Their educational achievements can even lead them to experience certain forms of social mobility in the early stages of the life-‐course (Terrail 1992 ; Duru-‐Bellat et al. 2001), although we still need more research on the role of certain forms of feminine socialisation in overcoming educational handicaps related to social origins. Likewise, a few authors have started to study the relationship between sexuality and educational mobility (Bérubé 1997 ; Eribon 2011), but more research on such themes is required. In the same vein, research on school violence has opened up new research themes on the relationship between gender, class and adolescent sexualities, notably by showing how the development of intimate relationships and sexual practices are judged against double class and gender standards (Albenga et Garcia, in press). 5/ Methodological Issues What research methods are best adapted to the imbrication of class and gender? Recent studies have attempted to analyse working class gender norms and practices, on the one hand (Hamel et Siméant 2005), and upper class norms on the other (Le Feuvre et Lapeyre, 2011 ; Benquet et Laufer 2016). What methodological lessons can be drawn from such studies? Is it possible to use the same research techniques to analyse middle and upper class women and those from the working classes? To what extent can ethnographic methods, literature analysis, historical approaches or quantitative methods be used or combined? What are the advantages and pitfalls of “situated knowledge”, which starts with the point of view of the oppressed (Harding 2008)? What are the methodological consequences of particular theoretical frameworks, be they inspired by materialist, interactionism or poststructuralist perspectives? What are the methodological requirements of a truly “intersectional” approach? In order to answer these questions, we invite papers that reflect critically on methodological practices and present empirical experimentations. The conference is open to papers from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives. We expect the papers to develop theoretical and methodological reflexions that are directly relevant to the call and to the theme topics presented above. Particular care should be given to the presentation and contextualisation of the empirical data used to address the research questions. Paper proposals of 500 to 600 words should be sent before March 6th 2017 to the following E-‐mail address:
[email protected]
4
Local organisation committee: Soline Blanchard (LACCUS), Isabel Boni-‐Le Goff (CEG), Delphine Chedaleux (CLARE), Pauline Delage (CEG), Nicky Le Feuvre (LACCUS) Scientifique committee, the above, plus: Viviane Albenga (Mica), Pierre Bataille (METICES), Sébastien Chauvin (CEG), Isabelle Clair (Iris), Fanny Gallot (CREHC), Morgane Kuehni (LACCUS), Sophie Pochic (CMH), Isabelle Zinn (LACCUS). References ACKER J., « From glass ceiling to inequality regimes », in Buscatto M., Marry C., dossier « Le plafond de verre dans tous ses éclats », Sociologie du travail, 2009, vol. 51, p. 199-‐217. ADKINS L., Gendered work: sexuality, family and the labour market, Philadelphia, Open University Press, 1995. ALBENGA V., « Le genre de "la distinction" : la construction réciproque du genre, de la classe et de la légitimité littéraire dans les pratiques collectives de lecture », Sociétés & Représentations, 2007, vol. 2, n° 24, p. 161-‐176. ALBENGA V. et GARCIA M.-‐C., « La sur-‐reponsabilisation des filles dans “l’éducation à la sexualité” : une norme scolaire asymétrique », in Hélène BUISSON-‐FENET et Christine MORIN-‐ MESSABEL (dir.) École(s) des filles, école(s) des femmes, Bruxelles, de Boeck, à paraître en 2017. ANG I., Watching Dallas, London, Routledge, 1991. AVRIL C., Les aides à domicile. Un autre monde populaire, Paris, La Dispute, 2014. BARRETT M. et M. MCINTOSH, “The Anti-‐Social Family”, in Karen V. HANSEN et Anita I. GAREY (ed.), Families in the US: Kinship and Domestic Politics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1998. BATTAGLIOLA, F., COMBES, D., DAUNE-‐RICHARD, A.-‐M., DEVREUX, A.-‐M., et FERRAND, M. A propos des rapports sociaux de sexe : Parcours épistémologiques. Paris: CSU-‐CNRS, 1990. BENCQUET M. et J. LAUFER (dir.), « Femmes dirigeantes », Travail, genre et sociétés, 2016, vol. 1, n° 35, p. 19-‐125. BENSTOCK S., Women of the left bank: Paris, 1900-‐1940, University of Texas Press, 1986. BERENI L., « Penser la transversalité des mobilisations féministes : l'espace de la cause des femmes », in Christine BARD (dir.), Les féministes de la 2ème vague, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2012, p. 27-‐42. BERNSTEIN E., "Sex work for the middle classes", Sexualities, 2007, vol. 10, n° 4, p. 473-‐488. BERUBE A. “Intellectual Desire,” in Susan Raffo, ed., Queerly Classed, Boston: South End Press, 1997, 43-‐66. BILGE S., « Théorisations féministes de l'intersectionnalité », Diogène, 2009, vol. 1, n° 225, p. 70-‐ 88. BILGE S., « De l'analogie à l'articulation : théoriser la différenciation sociale et l’inégalité complexe », L’Homme et la société, 2010, vol. 2, n° 176-‐177, p. 43-‐64. BLANCHARD S., BONI-‐LE GOFF I. et M. RABIER, « A priviledged Fight? Women’s movements for Equal Access to Corporate Leadership and Management Positions», Sociétés Contemporaines, 2013, n° 89, p. 101 -‐130. BROWN M. E., Soap Opera and Women’s Talk, London, Sage, 1994. BUTLER J., Le pouvoir des mots. Politique du performatif, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam, 2004. BRENNER J., Women and the Politics of Class, New York, Monthly Review Press, 2000. CERVULLE M. et N. REES-‐ROBERTS, Homo Exoticus. Race, classe et critique queer, Paris, Armand Colin, 2010. CLAIR I., Sociologie du genre, Paris, Armand Colin, 2015. COLLECTIF. Recherches sur les femmes et recherches féministes : Présentation des travaux de l'Action thématique programmée (ATP) (Vol. I). Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1989. COMBES D. et M. HAICAULT, « Production et reproduction, rapports sociaux de sexe et de
5
classe », in collectif, Le sexe du travail : Structures familiales et système productif, Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 1984, p. 155-‐174. CONNELL R., Masculinities, Berkeley et Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2005, [2nd ed.]. CONNELL R. et J. W. MESSERSCHMIDT, “Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept”, Gender and Society, 2005, vol. 19, n° 6, p. 829-‐859. CRENSHAW K., “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics”, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, vol. 1989, n° 1, p. 139-‐67. CRENSHAW K., “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”, Stanford Law Review, 1991, vol. 43, n° 6, p. 1241–1299. CRENSHAW K., « Cartographie des marges : intersectionnalité, politiques de l’identité et violences contre les femmes de couleur », Cahiers du genre, 39, 2005, pp. 51-‐82. DAVIDOFF L. et C. HALL, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780-‐1850, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1987. DAVIS K., « Intersectionnalité, un mot à la mode. Ce qui fait le succès d’une théorie féministe », Les Cahiers du Cedref [en ligne], n° 20, 2015. DELAGE P., Violence conjugale/Domestic violence. Sociologie comparée d’une cause féministe (France/Etats-‐Unis, 1970-‐2013), Thèse de sociologie, Paris, EHESS, 2014. DELPHY C., L’ennemi principal, Tome 1. L’économie politique du patriarcat, Paris, Syllepse, 1998. DELPHY C., L’Ennemi Principal. Tome 2 : Penser le genre, Paris, Syllepse, 2001. DORLIN E. (dir.)., Black Feminism. Anthologie du féminisme africain-‐américain, 1975-‐2000, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2008. DORLIN E. (dir.), Sexe, race, classe, pour une épistémologie de la domination, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2009. DORLIN E., La matrice de la race. Généalogie sexuelle et coloniale de la Nation française, Paris, La Découverte, 2009. DUNEZAT, X., HEINEN, J., HIRATA, H. et PFEFFERKORN, R. (dir.) Travail et rapports sociaux de sexe. Rencontres autour de Danièle Kergoat, Paris, l’Harmattan, Coll. « Logiques sociales », 2010. DURU-‐BELLAT M., KIEFFER A. et C. MARRY, « La dynamique des scolarités des filles : le double handicap questionné », Revue française de sociologie, 2001, vol. 42, n° 2, p. 251-‐280. FRASER N., « Multiculturalisme, anti-‐essentialisme et démocratie radicale », Les Cahiers du genre, 2005, vol. 2, n° 39, p. 27-‐50. ELIAS N., La Civilisation des mœurs, Paris, Calmann-‐Lévy, 2005 [1973]. ERIBON D., Retour à Reims, Paris, Fayard, 2009 ERIBON D., Retours sur Retour à Reims, Paris, Cartouche, 2011 FALQUET J., HIRATA H., KERGOAT D., LABARI B., LE FEUVRE N. et F. SOW (dir.), Le sexe de la mondialisation. Genre, classe, race et nouvelle division du travail, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2010. FALQUET J. et A. KIAN (dir.), « Intersectionnalité et colonialité », Les Cahiers du CEDREF [en ligne], 2015, n° 20. FASSA F., LEPINARD E. et M. ROCA i ESCODA (dir.), L’intersectionnalité : Enjeux théoriques et politiques, Paris, La Dispute, 2016. FASSIN E., « D’un langage l’autre : l’intersectionnalité comme traduction », Raisons politiques, 2015, n° 58, p. 9-‐24. FEDERICI S., Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation, Brooklyn, Autonomedia, 2004. FILLEULE O. « Propositions pour une analyse processuelle de l’engagement individuel », Revue française de science politique, 2001, vol. 51, n° 1-‐2, p. 199-‐215. FRASER N., « Multiculturalisme, anti-‐essentialisme et démocratie radicale », Les Cahiers du genre, 2005, vol. 2, n° 39, p. 27-‐50. GALERAND E. et D. KERGOAT, « Consubstantialité vs intersectionnalité ? À propos de l’imbrication des rapports sociaux », Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 2014, vol. 26, n° 2, p. 44-‐61. GALLOT F., En découdre. Comment les ouvrières ont révolutionné le travail et la société, Paris, La
6
Découverte, 2015. GUILLAUME C. et S. POCHIC, “The Organisational Nature of Union Careers. The touchstone of equality policies? Comparing France and the UK”, European Societies, 2011, vol. 1, p. 1-‐25. GUILLAUMIN C., Sexe, race et pratique du pouvoir. L’idée de nature, Paris, Côté-‐femmes & Indigo, 1992 [1978]. HAMEL C. et J. SIMEANT (dir.), « Genre et classes populaires », Genèses, 2006, vol. 3, no 64. HARDING S., Sciences From Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialisms, and Modernities, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2008. HARTMANN H. I., “The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union”, Capital & Class, 1979, vol. 3, n° 2, p. 1-‐33. HILL COLLINS P., “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection”, Race, Sex & Class, 1993, vol. 1, n° 1, p. 25-‐45. HOCHSCHILD A. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure”, American Journal of Sociology, 1979, vol. 85, n° 3, p. 551-‐575 HOCHSCHILD A., « Global care chains and emotional surplus value », in W. HUTTON and A. GIDDENS (eds), On The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, London, Jonathan Cape, 2000, p. 130-‐ 46. HOUEL, A. Le roman d’amour et sa lectrice. Une si longue passion. L’exemple du roman Harlequin, Paris, l’Harmattan, Coll. “La Bibliothèque du féminisme”, 1997. IBOS C., Qui gardera nos enfants ? Les « nounous » et les mères, Paris, Flammarion, 2012. JAUNAIT A. et S. CHAUVIN, « Représenter l’intersection. Les théories de l’intersectionnalité à l’épreuve des sciences sociales », Revue française de science politique, 2012, vol. 62, n° 1, p. 5-‐20. KERGOAT D., « Ouvriers = ouvrières ? Propositions pour une articulation théorique de deux variables : sexe et classe sociale », Critiques de l’économie politique, 1978, n° 5, p. 65-‐97. KERGOAT D., Se battre disent-‐elles..., Paris, La Dispute, 2012. LE FEUVRE N., BENELLI N. et S. REY, « Relationnels, les métiers de service ? », Nouvelles questions féministes, 2012, vol. 31, n° 2, p. 4-‐12. LE FEUVRE, N. et LAPEYRE, N. « Féminisation et aspiration à une meilleure ‘qualité de vie’ : Dynamique majeure des classes moyennes supérieures », In P. Bouffartigue, C. Gadéa & S. Pochic (dir.) Cades, classes moyennes : vers l’éclatement ?, Paris, Armand Colin, 2011, pp. 224-‐233. LÖWY I. et C. MARRY, Pour en finir avec la domination masculine : de A à Z, Paris, Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond/Le Seuil, 2007. MOLINIER P., « Des féministes et de leurs femmes de ménage : entre réciprocité du care et souhait de dépersonnalisation », Multitudes, 2009, vol. 2, n° 37-‐38), p. 113-‐121. MOLYNEUX M., “Beyond the domestic labour debate”, New Left Review, 1979, n° 116, p. 3-‐27. PFEFFERKORN R., Inégalités et rapports sociaux. Rapports de classes, rapports de sexes, Paris, La Dispute, 2007. RADWAY J., Reading the Romance, London, University of North Carolina Press, 1991 [1984]. RENNES J., Encyclopédie critique du genre. Corps, sexualité, rapports sociaux, Paris, La Découverte, 2016. REVILLARD A. et L. DE VERDALLE, « « Faire » le genre, la race et la classe » Introduction à la traduction de « Doing Difference », Terrains & travaux, 2006/1 n° 10, pp. 91-‐102. SIBLOT Y. « « Je suis la secrétaire de la famille ! » La prise en charge féminine des tâches administratives entre subordination et ressource », Genèses 2006/3 (no 64), p. 46-‐66. SKEGGS B., Des femmes respectables. Classe et genre en milieu populaire, Marseille, Agone, 2015 [traduction française de Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable, London. Sage, 1997]. SMITH D.E., The everyday world as problematic. A feminist sociology, Boston, Northwestern University Press, 1987. SCHWARTZ O., Le Monde privé des ouvriers. Hommes et femmes du Nord, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1990. TERRAIL J.-‐P., « Réussite scolaire : la mobilisation des filles », Sociétés contemporaines, vol. 11, n° 1, 1992, p. 53-‐89. TRAT, J., (coord.) Les Cahiers du Féminisme (1977-‐1998). Dans le tourbillon du féminisme et de la
7
lutte des classes, Paris, Syllèpse, 2011. WEST C., ZIMMERMAN, D., « Doing Gender », Gender and Society, vol.1, n°2, 1987, pp.125-‐151. WEST C., FENSTERMAKER S., « Doing Difference », Gender and Society, vol. 9, n°1, 1995, pp. 8-‐37. WRIGHT T, Gender and Sexuality in Male-‐Dominated Occupations: Women Working in Construction and Transport, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
8
