Margaret L. Andersen

Restructuring for whom? Race, class, gender, and the ideology of invisibility

This paper examines how changes resulting from economic restructuring affect views of racial inequality across different race, class, and gender groups. First reviewing some of the consequences of restructuring for different race, class, and gender groups, the paper also reviews research documenting the different views of racial inequality held by dominant and subordinate groups. The paper concludes by examining how race-blind ideologies affect discussions of race and multiculturalism and suggests that race-blind thinking has thwarted teaching about structural racism.

Thinking About Women Some More A New Century's View

When I wrote “Thinking about Women: A Quarter Century’s View,” I hoped the article would not only review some of the development of the sociology of gender but would also stimulate additional thinking about the connections between gender, race, class, and sexuality. I am grateful for the thoughtful comments of the six authors responding here, not only because of the substance of their comments but also because of the tone with which they have furthered this discussion and analysis. I did not have the benefit of having read Joan Acker’s (2006) Class Questions, Feminist Answers when I wrote the article, so I appreciate how she has recast classical analyses of class to ground our understanding of class processes as—at one and the same time—race and gender processes. She reminds us that political economy is not a “thing,” a superstructure standing apart from the practices of human social action. In other words, it is not a “context” per se but is itself constructed from the social actions of race, gender, and class relations. Such a model is distinct from what I would call the discrimination model that characterizes some scholarship on race, class, gender, and sexuality. By the discrimination model, I mean an analysis of inequality (whether gender, race, class, or sexuality) that rests solely on analyzing and describing the behaviors whereby people treat others differently on the basis of presumed and/or observed characteristics. I am not saying that discrimination does not exist. Obviously, it does, as is well documented in empirical research, both in gender and in race and ethnic studies. Scholarship on race shows, for example, how employers’ racial stereotypes influence their employment decisions. There is no doubt that many kinds of visible characteristics affect discriminatory outcomes. But I contend that this is a different phenomenon than the explicit use of particular groups of workers to fill certain market needs, even though both forms of mistreatment

Corporate Wives: Longing for Liberation or Satisfied with the Status Quo?

Popular literature and public opinion polls have, of late, created the impression that there is widespread and growing support in American society for the liberation of women from traditional roles (Gallup, 1976; Harris Survey, 1976; Washington Post, 1976). Yet, in spite of these optimistic messages, many women remain in these roles and some even claim to be content with their situation. This is in direct contrast to the wealth of research and testimony emerging from the feminist movement which has debunked the conventional image of contentment among traditional wives.

Margaret L. Andersen (1991-1995):

I became editor of Gender & Society in 1990 (first issue, June 1991). At the time, there were very few places for feminist scholars to publish their work. The major journals were Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Sex Roles, and Feminist Studies. Within sociology, the major jour nals published hardly any scholarship on gender and were generally per ceived as unfriendly to qualitative much less, feminist, scholarship. Signs, as its subtitle indicates, published work in all disciplines, meaning that, with the renaissance in feminist scholarship, sociologists competed for space with feminist scholars from every discipline. This was also true for Feminist Studies. And because decisions at Signs were made collectively by the editorial board, the journal had a reputation for being extraordinarily slow in its editorial decisions—a crucial obstacle for faculty whose tenure clocks were ticking. Sex Roles was well established as a strong journal, but its orientation was primarily psychological or social-psychological. Yet at the time, gen der was being reconceptualized—not as a role, but as a social structure in its own right. Gender & Society played a large part, I believe, in that intel lectual transition. Gender & Society has become the premier journal in the social sciences where strong feminist scholarship is published. Although Gender & Society is not exclusively sociological, sociologists are its pri mary audience. Thus, in the 1980s and 1990s, Gender & Society became the journal where those working from a sociological and feminist perspective on gender could find a home for their work. Editing a journal, even a feminist journal, inevitably makes the editor one of the gatekeepers in academic life. Even if an editor does not intend to be in such a position, she makes decisions that enable (or disable) peoples academic careers. Publication in highly ranked journals is the basis for pro motion and tenure—and, increasingly, for simply getting an academic job. As editor, I kept this in mind, frequently telling the students who worked with the journal that they had to remember that there was an anxious person waiting for a decision. Gender & Society editors, myself included, have a tradition of providing feedback that helps authors develop their best work. When I was editor, I was proud that Gender & Society had an acceptance

Class Questions: Feminist Answers:

theorizing in the book, Class Questions, Feminist Answers will be difficult for most undergraduate readers, but it is an excellent book for graduate seminars on feminist theory, class analysis, organizations, and race/class/gender studies. And, given the importance of Acker’s work in class analysis and feminist theory, it will likely be extensively cited both in class analysis and feminist theory. Given the strength and breadth of Acker’s argument and the evidence she uses to support it, class can no longer be a silent theme in studying gender. Racial Transformations: Latinos and Asians Remaking the United States, edited by Nicholas De Genova. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. 233 pp.

PHYLLIS A. WALLACE, ed. Equal Employment Opportunity and the AT&T Case. Pp. ix, 355. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1976. No price:

22.95 paper. ISBN: 0822337169. KEITH OSAJIMA University of Redlands keith_osajima@redlands.edu In recent years, calls for scholars to “cross boundaries” have appeared across academe. In 2004, the American Sociological Association explored ways to widen its impact via “public sociology.” Cultural Studies and American studies have long sought to break disciplinary boundaries. In Ethnic Studies, scholars are challenging the boundaries of single-group studies and the dominance of the black/white paradigm. These calls are compelling, but what often happens, turning good ideas into reality is easier said than done. This is why Racial Transformations: Latinos and Asians Remaking the United States is an important book. The collection of seven articles, plus an introduction by editor Nicholas De Genova, offers us models of crossing boundaries, and in so doing, is a challenging and expansive read. De Genova sets the stage for the book in his introductory chapter. Breaking from the hegemonic polarity of blackness and whiteness in the United States, he argues, makes it possible to focus on the particular ways that colonization and conquest shape the representations and experiences of Latinos and Asians that are explored in the book. Part 1 contains three chapters, opening with historian Gary Okihiro’s article “Colonial Vision, Racial Visibility,” where he shows how different colonial contexts erase race from Puerto Rico, while heightening the visibility of the “little brown brothers” of the Philippines. Natalia Molina’s “Inverting Racial Logic” looks at how public health officials between 1910 and 1924 characterized Japanese as a dirty and unsanitary race, in large part because they were an economic threat, whereas Mexicans, valued for their cheap labor, were viewed as a malleable cultural group able to improve their public health through Americanization. Victor Jew’s “Getting the Measure of Tomorrow,” shows how social scientific studies of Chinese in the 1930s and Mexicans in the 1940s both challenged and reinforced biological constructs of race. Each chapter in Part 1 provides rich insights into the process by which Latino and Asian groups are racialized in American society in the early twentieth century. Authors show how historically specific confluences of economic, ideological, and political factors lead to contrasting constructions of Asians and Latinos. More importantly, the chapters illustrate the benefits of developing comparative analyses. In each case, the distinct repContemporary Sociology 36, 3

Thinking about Women: Sociological and Feminist Perspectives.

U.S. The decree required AT&T to spend 38 million dollars as remedial wage adjustments;

Race, Gender, and Class Stereotypes: New Perspectives on Ideology and Inequality

15 million was allocated as back wages and the remaining

Symposium on William Julius Wilson’s More Than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City

23 million was to be spent for additional benefits to alleviate past discriminatory practices. As Wallace points out, this case involved three major types of discrimination-race, sex, and national origin. Thus, it has profound significance for civil rights advocates. The settlement of this case followed extensive research into multiple discriminatory practices of AT&T. These included sex segregation by job, personnel testing and selection, hiring and promotion practices, pay differentials, and advertisement, to mention a few. Many of the articles found in this collection are the research reports used to substantiate the case. Most of the book is the presentation of data on these various issues. As such, it is packed full of tables, computer printouts, and the figures and formulas of business analyses. The articles include titles like &dquo;MaleFemale Wage Differentials in the Telephone Industry&dquo; (Ronald Oaxaca), &dquo;Diagnosing Discrimination&dquo; (Barbara R. Bergmann and Jill Gordon King), and &dquo;Estimating the Effects on Cost and Price of the Elimination of Sex Discrimination&dquo; (Orley Ashenfelter and John Pencavel). While these articles provide data to support the allegations of the EEOC, they are tedious to read and offer little in the way of sociological