This gendered division of labour is itself a social construct. Feminists argue that it is effected by patriarchy and is organised according to the way in which the public and the private are represented within the wider social discourse. The private sphere is commonly associated with domesticity, and hence female gender roles, whilst the public world of paid work is seen as a masculine domain.
However, despite an apparent blurring of the public/private boundary, with increasing numbers of mothers now going out to work, studies have shown that the employment status of women tends to be of marginal importance in the organization of the division of labour within the home (Thomas and Zmroczek, 1985). Indeed, despite many women now acquiring this dual role, numerous studies have shown only a slight increase in fathers’ participation in childcare and housework (e.g. Land, 1983).
According to many sociologists, this inequality within the home, in which men have the ability to define their domestic responsibilities, is a reflection of power relations in the wider social structure. In a patriarchal society it is men who have power, which in turn is derived from the dominant ideologies and is primarily dependent on status, knowledge and access to and control of resources.
Gender relations within the home are structured around these aspects of power. For women, their status in the social system places them in a weaker position, though they have access to power through their knowledge and control of the daily domestic routines. Their ability to build emotional relations with their partners and their children is both valued and depended upon, and this together with their capacity for building sexual relations can render men powerless in this respect. However, feminists argue that men’s assumed superior knowledge of the public world, their control of and access to financial resources, together with their capacity for violence, ensures that power relations within the family remain advantageous to men.
The ideologies surrounding the processes of both mothering and fathering, also tend to place greater pressures on women. The role of ‘mother’ carries with it a narrow and powerful set of expectations that ultimately subordinates the mother’s needs to those of her family (Winnicot, 1964). Indeed, many feminists condemn this role as particularly oppressive for women, since it is characterised by repetition and isolation. In contrast, a study by Russell (1983) found that the role
of ‘father’ gives men several models, ranging from ‘distant’ to ‘highly involved’, all of which are accepted modes of behaviour in fathering.
Despite the unequal power relations within the family, its popularity is seen by some as evidence that many women derive enjoyment from their roles within it. Whilst this is undoubtedly true, feminists point to the constraints of social scripts, and the fact that many people have internalized the beliefs and values of the predominant ideologies to such a degree, that alternative ways of organizing gender relations are simply not considered (Wetherell, 1997).
To summarize, the social/psychological perspective involves claims that gender relations within families reflect those of the wider social structure. This then effectively subordinates women through their inferior position within the sexual division of labour, which in turn constructs differential gender roles. Although this approach is useful in identifying connections between the family and the social world, and sheds some light on why power relations within families seem inherently unequal, it has been criticized in that it fails to deal effectively with the ethnic and cultural diversity prevalent in society.
A further criticism is that sociology tends to privilege ideological influence over psychological traits, in assuming that gender identity simply involves conformity to prescribed social roles. It is argued that role theory is an inadequate explanation for the emotional and motivational complexities of gender identity, and fails to consider fully the significance that most people accord gender identity, despite the insecurities associated with it (Segal, 1987).
The psychoanalytic approach addresses this issue since it takes as its starting point the inner world of the individual. Along with role theory, advocates of
this perspective claim that identity is formed in early childhood; however the fundamental difference is that psychoanalysis argues that it is the inner conflicts
and emotions of the individual that shape identity, and thus inform gender relations within the family, rather than the wider social context.
Advocates of this perspective claim that the human mind consists of three layers, the conscious, the pre-conscious and the unconscious. They argue that the unconscious is created through the repression of socially unacceptable desires, facilitated through early family interactions and relationships. The importance of repression in psychoanalysis is in contrast to role theory, in that socialization involves not simple conformity, but a struggle between society and the desires of the child; as Connell argues ‘…[those] which cannot be expressed under prevailing social conditions become repressed…inaccessible to consciousness.’ (1987, p.114).
Feminist object relations theory postulates that early interpersonal interactions within the family lay the foundations for the development of the mind, and hence individual identity, which then becomes the basis for later relations with others. In contrast to Freudian psychoanalysis, which emphasises the importance of the father, advocates of this approach argue that it is mothers, as the primary caregivers, and with whom children spend most of their time, that are the formative influence for both boys’ and girls’ sense of gender identity. Chodorow (1978, 1989) suggests that although the sex of the child is biologically determined, the forms that masculinity and femininity take are social constructions, born out of the mother/infant dyad, which itself reflects the sexual division of labour within society.
Chodorow claims that daughters will identify closely with their mother and assume many of the same characteristics, thus femininity is based on empathy, nurturance, dependence and a sense of attachment. Boys however, knowing that they are different to their mother, must loosen the bonds of attachment in order for their masculine identity to develop. However, since fathers are
traditionally marginal figures within the domestic sphere ‘…learning to be masculine comes to mean learning to be “not-feminine” (Goldner et al, 1990).
This then sows the seeds for the masculine characteristics of detachment and autonomy. Given that this process takes place in a patriarchal social order, which positions women as mothers, and thus as a subordinate, the constitution of gender identity also ensures the reproduction of patriarchy.
Since it is assumed that the personality formulated in early childhood is fixed, this then has far-reaching effects for future relationships when the child becomes an adult. Olivier (1989) argues that masculine and feminine psyches are inherently incompatible, and suggests that a common pattern occurs in heterosexual relationships. The woman’s needs of attachment and her feelings of dependency merely serve to cause anxiety in the man, who fears entrapment. This then leads the man to adopt a strategy of retreat, which in turn heightens fears of abandonment within the woman.
Eichenbaum and Orbach (1982) suggest that since men cannot give women the attachment they need, women then ‘project’ this need onto their children, particularly their daughters, since through a shared gender, there is a closer identification than with sons. In this way, the prevailing gender relations are reproduced. This then reveals a further core assumption of psychoanalysis that familial relations must be understood within their historical context. In other words, adults within sexual relationships bring with them experiences from their families of childhood.
Psychoanalysis has been criticized for its narrow view of the social context within which psychological traits are developed. Timpanaro (1976) notes that this perspective fails to take account of the different social circumstances experienced by different social groups. Also, although Chodorow (1978, 1989) attempts to include both the psychoanalytic and the social in her theory of gender identity, there is still the assumption that the familial context is white, nuclear, patriarchal and heterosexual. As Spelman (1988) argues ‘…do families have no racial or class or ethnic identity?’. In more recent work, Chodorow acknowledges this criticism, suggesting that whilst the form of the human mind is as psychoanalysis claims, the content is likely to vary with culture. However, this criticism is not unique to psychoanalysis, since both approaches tend towards assuming commonality, perceiving social groups to be homogeneous in their experiences and beliefs.
This aside, it would seem, given the critiques of both the social/psychological and the psychoanalytic approaches, that although both acknowledge the importance of gender and gender relations to family life, it would be beneficial to consider aspects of both perspectives to gain a fuller understanding. It is true that families, whatever their form, both reflect and help to maintain the social order. Indeed, the Freudian concept of the unconscious, created through repression must inevitably be the product of culture, since what is repressed is taboo, and taboos are social phenomena. As Goldner et al (1990) argue the construction of gender is not simply a psychological process, nor merely a product of society, it is ‘…a universal principle of cultural life…’ incorporated within both the individual psyche and the ideologies of society.
References
Chodorow, N. (1978) The Reproduction of Mothering: psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘The psychoanalytic approach to family life’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Chodorow, N. (1989) Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘The psychoanalytic approach to family life’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power, Cambridge, Polity Press in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘The psychoanalytic approach to family life’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Eichenbaum, L and Orbach, S. (1982) Outside In and Inside Out:women’s psychology: a feminist psychoanalytic approach, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘The psychoanalytic approach to family life’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Goldner, V., Penn, P., Sheinberg, M., Walker, G., (1990) ‘Love and violence: gender paradoxes in volatile attachments’, Family Process, vol.29, no.4
Land, H. (1983) ‘Poverty and gender: the distribution of resources within the family’, in Brown, M. (ed.) The Structure of Disadvantage, London, Heinemann in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of
parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Olivier, C. (1989) Jocasta’s Children: the imprint of the mother, London, Routledge in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Russell, G. (1983) The Changing Role of Fathers, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Segal, L. (1987) Is the Future Female?: troubled thoughts on contemporary feminism, London, Virago Press in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Spelman, E.V. (1988) Inessential Woman: problems of exclusion in feminist thought, Boston, MA, Beacon Press in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Thomas, G. Zmroczek, L. (1985) ‘Household technology: the “liberation” of women from the home’, in Close, P and Collins, R, (eds) Family and Economy in Modern Society, London, Macmillan in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Timpanaro, S. (1976) The Freudian Slip, London, New Left Books in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University
Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.
Winnicot, D. (1964) The Child, the Family and the Outside World, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books in Wetherell, M. (1997) ‘Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: the case of parenting’ in Muncie, J. et al. (eds) Understanding the Family, London, Sage/The Open University.