Genderproblematics inwestern class analysis: the dynamics oftheoretical approaches

The article represents an analytical review of the axiomatics of sociological approaches to class analysis, taking into account gender diferentiation since the 1940s till nowadays. Te problems of primary units selection of the class analysis, conceptual grounds for determining the class position of women and the features of their social status, conditioned by this position, ways of normalizing gender inequality in conventional approaches and criticizing their legitimacy have been considered in the research. It has been found that within the framework of the structural and functional approach of T. Parsons, the class status of the individual is ascetic, the main mechanism for its acquisition and transmission is kinship, while gender inequality is regarded as condition for maintaining the stability of the social system. Te changing structure of employment and women’s emancipation has led to the revision of the conventional approach foundations by problem consideration of families as the primary units of class analysis. Subsequently, the dominant approach of J. Goldthorpe eliminates the gender inequality aspect, linking the class position of the household with the position of the partner who plays a leading role in its economic provision. E.O. Wright’s approach, representing an infuential neo-Marxist alternative model of class analysis, presupposes the existence of an individual actor as the initial element of class analysis. At the same time, the author emphasizes the existence of exploitation relations in the family, as well as the high degree of risk and uncertainty of the social status of a signifcant number of women. Awareness of the role of individualization in social dynamics, changes in the structure of the global economy and the consequences of de-industrialization in the 1990s changed the original axiomatics of class analysis. Te focus of attention has shifed from the disputes about the criteria of class diferentiation to the analysis of real diferences in people’s way of life, generated by social inequality. Modern studies of social inequality take into account the intersection of gender, class, racial and other characteristics of individuals and communities.

1. Acker J. Women and social stratifcation: a case of intellectual sexism // Te American Journal of Sociology.1973. N78 (4).P.936–945.

2. Becker-Schmidt R., Knapp G.-A., Schmidt B. Eines ist zuwenig — beides ist zu viel. Erfahrungen von Arbeiterfrauen zwischen Familie und Fabrik.Bonn, 1984.

3. Bettie J.Women without class: girls, race, and identity.Berkeley, 2003.

4. Boonstra H.D. What is behind the declines in teen pregnancy rates? // Guttmacher Policy Review.2014. N17 (3).URL: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2014/09/what-behind-declines-teen-pregnancy-rates(accessed: 3.03.2018).

5. Britten N., Heath A.Women, men and social class // Gender, Class and Work / Ed.by E.Gamarnikow, D.H.J.Morgan, J.Purvis et al.L., 1983.P.46–60.

6. Delphy C.Close to home: a materialist analysis of women’s oppression.L., 1984.

7. Erikson R. Social class of men, women and families // Sociology.1984. N 18 (4). P.500–514.

8. Erikson R., Goldthorpe J.H. Te Constant Flux: a study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford, 1992.

9. Garnsey E.Women’s work and theories of class stratifcation // Sociology.1978. N12 (2).P.223–243.

10. Giddens A. Te class structure of the advanced societies.L., 1973.

11. Goldstein J.R., Kenney C.T.Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of frst marriage for U.S.women // American Sociological Review.2001. N 66.P.506–519.

12. Goldthorpe J.H. Social stratifcation in industrial society. Class, status, and power // Social Stratifcation in Comparative Perspective / Ed.by R. Bendix, S.M. Lip set.L., 1966.

13. Goldthorpe J.H. Women and class analysis: in defence of the conventional view // Sociology.1983. N17 (4).P.465–488.

14. Goldthorpe J.H., Hope K. Te social grading of occupations: a new approach and scale. Oxford, 1974.

15. Haavio-Mannila E. Some consequences of women’s emancipation // Journal of Marriage and the Family.1969. N31 (1).P.123–134.

16. Kahl J.A. Te American class structure. N.Y., 1957.

17. McCall L. Te complexity of intersectionality // Journal of Women in Culture and Society.2005. N30 (3).P.1771–1800.

18. Meier A., Allen G.Intimate relationship development during the transition to adulthood: diferences by social class // New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development.2008. N119.P.25–39.

19. Parsons T. Analiticheskij podhod k teorii social’noj stratifkacii [Analitical approach to the social stratifcation theory] // Parsons T. Ostrukture social’nogo dejstvija [About the stucture of social action].M., 2002.P.354–380 (in Russian).

20. Penman-Aguilar A., Carter M., Snead M.C., Kourtis A.P. Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S// Public Health Reports.2013. N128 (2 Suppl.1).P.5–22.

21. Stanworth M. Women and class analysis: a reply to John Goldthorpe // Sociology.1984. N18 (2).P.159–170.

22. Watson W.B., Barth E.A.T.Questionable assumptions in the theory of social stratifcation // Pacifc Sociological Review.1964. N7 (1).P.10–16.

23. Wiltz T.Racial and ethnic disparities persist in teen pregnancy rates. N.Y., 2015. URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/03/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-persist-in-teen-pregnancy-rates(accessed: 3.03.2018).

24. Working-class women in the academy: laborers in the knowledge factory / Ed. by M.M. Tokarczyk, E.A.Fay.Amherst, 1993.

25. Zhang S. Cross-class families: a social capital perspective.A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of PhD.Birmingham, 2013.