Structure and Agency in Socialist-Feminist Theory

Amy S. Wharton
Critique by Gana Nwana

Central Themes:
Feminism; Capitalism; Gender Segregation; Essentialism; Structuralism; Institutionalism

Context:
Amy S. Wharton is Professor of Sociology at Washington State University. Her research
focuses on work, inequality, and work-family policies in organizations. She is the author of
The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Much of her work
theorises the experiences of specific groups within the wider capitalist structure.

Summary:
Wharton analyses the evolving nature of social theories on power, explaining a the
development of a new approach away from the Marxist school which emphasises that
capitalism governs social relations. Whilst Wharton is grateful for the onset of gender-based
social analysis amongst her peers, she takes issue with analyses that (over)emphasise either
structural or agential factors in their approach; in fact, this becomes the central point of
tension throughout her article.
Electing to test her contemporaries research through analysis of the workplace, Wharton
goes on to substantiate her introduction with a second preface. She posits that scholars who
emphasise gender within their research are guilty of prioritising the agency of the individual
thus ignoring the role of gender in shaping the macrostructure within which action occurs1.
Contrarily, structural analyses are reprehended for their lack of sensitivity to gender. It is
unsurprising then, that Wharton welcomes the school of Socialist-Feminism for its attempt to
combine both structural and agential analysis, its dual-systems theory. Nevertheless, she
identifies problems within Socialist-Feminism before suggesting some potential adjustments
to the approach.
The following pages of her article comprise a retrospective account of how the school of
Socialist-Feminism has advanced, pointing out the approaches and counter-critiques that have
brought Socialist-Feminism to its current state. She begins with the earlier structuralist-
Marxist approach, shifting the focus of researchto the characteristics of economic
positions.2 Offering a comprehensive critique of the outcomes of such an approach, Wharton
justifies Reskins swing to an actor-based approach defined by the agency of the individual
though she ultimately concludes that this agential approach also proves unsatisfactory in its
outcomes.
It is in the latter stages of her article that Wharton begins to elucidate her ideas for the future
of Socialist-Feminism. Wharton admires Omi and Winants effort to provide a
comprehensive framework with which to understand how race organises and is organised by
social processes3 She prescribes that Socialist-Feminist sciences mirror their holistic
approach to research, both in focus and scope. Specifically this means investigating both
micro (agential) and macro (structural) results of gender (focus) and appreciating that the
landscape of gender-based power relations are constantly evolving. Thus, she rejects the
behaviouralist approach that renders conclusions from the structuralist school so static. Obi
and Winant refer specifically to racialisation to define their theory of how racial differences
actively change the nature of social practises, provoking Whartons enquiry as to whether
Socialism-Feminism might explore the notion that gender might pervade and transform social
relations. She concludes by urging Socialist-Feminists to seek more elaborate frameworks for
analysis than adherence to the agential school, structuralist analyses or the blunt dual-systems
1
Wharton, 374-375
2
Wharton, 376
3
Wharton, 384
approach. She recognises the work of Bourdieu, Omi and Winant, proving support for her
more ambitious approach to the study of power relations. Interestingly, we learn very little of
her own views within this text she does not advance the debate as the title might have us
hope.

Critique:
A large part of Whartons analysis is her critique of existing schools within the metatheory of
occupational segregation. Her critique is based in a rational-choice structural framework in
which individuals are assumed to protect their own gender interests, but I am pleased to note
that by referring to the Sears discrimination case4 Wharton nuances her critique by
acknowledging the potential that institutionalism may have in creating gender discrimination
in the workplace. In addition, she gains further credit for citing qualitative research from the
workplace. Recorded instances of hostility towards females in male-dominated workplaces
proves the agency of the male, conclusively refuting the structuralist tendency to ignore the
agency of individual actors5. To me, her introduction of Reskin, marrying segregation to
patriarchy extols a more nuanced dualistic approach.
Her critique of the agential-based social-actor approach also deserves some credit. She
rightly calls on the quality research of scholars like Mason, Baron and Milkman to ridicule
the concept that all men can be aggregated into a caricature of selfish dominion over
subservient and passive women. I posit that at this point, the actor-based approach becomes
ironic. In an attempt to celebrate agency, it locks men and women within structuralist-
essentialist frameworks of gender-based interests. Within an argument that pits itself as an
advocate of agency in opposition to structure, its almost satirical. Wharton recognises this
inconsistency6.
When it comes to her recommendations, Whartons admiration of Obi and Winant is clear.
Their venture to create a framework for discussing race may serve as the inspiration for
Whartons strategy for studying gender relations and she appears to recognise this in her own
approach. Obi and Winant implicitly acknowledge that discussions of power are not
intersectional, race has been conceived either as an illusion or an essence and Whartons
proposals cannot be accused of the same offense. Whilst she points out similar studies from
the Socialist-Feminists that might soon be built upon to create a holistic analytical framework
for gender7, she does so whilst avoiding the temptation to treat gender as the only grid that
organises social life, ignoring the ways that experience and identity are mediated by other
principles of social organisation8. Whartons approach might even render Obi and Winant
guilty of their own implicit critique for their intense focus on race perhaps to the detriment of
other facets of identity.
My knee-jerk critique of Wharton is to deplore her decision to conduct her analysis with the
workplace as her petri-dish. There appear to be so many inherent power balances at play and
in addition, monetary reward is an independent variable that would likely greatly influence
behaviour from both a macro and micro level. I wonder how far Whartons analytical
approach might be received in other institutions.
If I have any further critique of Wharton, it would be for the assembly of her article. Initially,
it appears that Wharton is simply describing the creation of a budding school of research,
with continual reference to other scholars and no sustained attempt to measure their ideas
against one another nor any original ideas of her own. Her article is certainly difficult to grasp
in places and appears as an act of administration a reading list for the metatheory. If
Whartons aim was truly to problematise the school of Socialist-Feminist (metatheory), then I
would suggest that she does so more successfully by the indecipherable arrangements of her
4
Wharton, page 376
5
Structural approaches treat workers as passive objects, pushed and shoved by impersonal macrolevel forces or supinely
being manipulated by management, page 377
6
See page 381
7
See page 384, (Baron, Beneson, Hart, West and Zimmerman)
8
Wharton, page 386
ideas than any measured evaluation of her sources. However, perhaps the convoluted nature
of her discussion demonstrates that the school itself might need some direction to focus the
study and thus Whartons recommendations may yet prove priceless.
Published in 1991, Whartons article arrived at a time when debate amongst scholars was well
underway, so she finds herself particularly well-placed to archive the progress of the field,
diagnose its shortcomings and prescribe for the future. She has since built upon her own
suggestions, publishing The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research in
May 2011, following her The Sociology of Organizations: An Anthology of Contemporary
Theory and Research (March 2007) and The Sociology of Work: Structures and Inequalities
(April 2010). This body of work demonstrates a continued fascination with theorising
relations of control in different areas, though she is yet to publish a work that lives up to the
intersectional approach advocated by Obi and Winant.

Seminar questions:
Whartons findings come from a strict analysis of the workplace. How might her
intersectional approach respond to other social settings, those not governed by monetary
gain?
Is the tide of feminist theory futile? Patriarchal institutionalist path-dependence would
suggest so. Will emerging liberal approaches to gender eventually demolish patriarchal
structures?
Does Whartons analysis advance the feminist epistemology?
As students, in which ways do you represent the interests of your own gender within the
space of the university?
References
Bates, S. R. (July 2010). Re-structuring Power. Polity, Vol. 42, No. 3, 352-375.

Bielby, W. T. (1981). The Structure of Occupational Inequality. Qualify and Quantity, 15 , 125-150.

Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The Circular Structure of Power: Politics, Identity, Community. London: Verso.

Ring, J. (Nov, 1987). Toward a Feminist Epistemology. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31,
No. 4, 753-772.

Wharton, A. S. (Sep 1991). Structure and Agency in Socialist-Feminist Theory. Gender and Society, Vol
5, No 3, Special Issue: Marxist Feminist Theory, 373-389.