There were several women that were extremely influencial in the establishment of sociology as a legitimate discipline. They wrote and published works around the same time, were extremely active both politically and socially, and were respected by other predominant social thinkers (men as well as women).
When talking about the history of sociology, however, most of these women are completely omitted. They are not even mentioned - completely erased. There could be many possible explinations for these exclusions. I think the main reason, however, is that sociology was trying to establish itself as a serious discipline. Educators therefore wanted to put their strongest thinkers forward. Socially, women were not regarded highly or taken seriously, and as a result were written out.
What's interesting are the differences between the early men and women sociologists. The women tended to be much more socially active, drawing society's attention to inequalities or injustices that that occured in every day life. Our current knowledge of spousal abuse situations, rape, wage inequalities between men and women, etc. are a result of public activism by women. The predominant form of study for men, however, was just that - study. Lots of reseach taken and papers written, lots of trained educators and professors. This caused a power struggle and eventual split within sociology. Most women went in the direction of social work, and most men went in the direction of social analysis.
The erasure of woman in the history of sociology brings to light how cricical we should be of what we're taught, and the way that we learn. Where did the information we're taught come from, and from what perspective? What impacts can the methods by which we are being taught impact our opinions and beliefs?
While I always knew that history was biased, I had never encountered such a dramatic example before. It really forces you to think...
posted by Lisa @ 1:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home