An Exploration into the Relationship between Social History and the Study of Gender.

An Exploration into the Relationship between Social History and the Study of Gender.

by Darcy R. Keim, MA 

 

The emergence of social history as a field of study developed during the mid-twentieth century.^[1] As a result of the persistent historical focus on elite figures and institutions - exemplified by the increase in collective biographies throughout the nineteenth-century - social history demonstrated a shift in the approach to historical study. A key motive to this is identifiable by the prevalence of two queries within the sociological examination of history: (1) How was society constructed within each historical period and what effect did this have on the lives of the ordinary people within it? and (2) To what extent did historical landmarks impact everyday experiences?^[2] This method of approach was commonly utilised by social historians in their revisions of micro-history and social memory. Certainly, this process of assessment is discernible in studies produced regarding the socio-economic effects of the Black Death in the fourteenth century.^[3] As such, the evolvement of social history as a specialised discipline aimed to conceptualise the past within a Marxist framework; more specifically, examining history from below. A fundamental value to this is the emphasis on intersectional analysis; encompassing factors such as race, culture, class, sex, and gender-identity. In his article, Losses, Gains and Opportunities: Social History Today (published in 2003), renowned social historian, Jürgen Kocka emphasised the degree to which intersectional awareness is central to social historical study:

I have two meanings of social history (1) social history as a specialized sub-discipline concentrating on social structures, processes, and actions in a specific sense (inequality, mobility, classes, strata, ethnicity, gender relations, urbanization, work and life of different types of people, not just elites), in contrast to other sub-disciplines like economic history, constitutional history or the history of ideas; (2) social history as a specific approach to or way of looking on general history by stressing broad structures and processes as well as those dimensions of historical reality emphasized by social history in sense.^[4]

 

It is clear from Kocka’s definitions that – as a category of historical study - social history incorporates a wide-variety of “histories”. For this, it may be confidently ascertained that social history and the study of interest groups - such as race, class, and gender - share a distinct relationship. Furthermore, it is undeniable that social history and gender studies are heavily interconnected as a result. What this essay seeks to examine is the nature of the relationship between social history and the historical study of gender. A secondary objective is to identify the extent to which socio-political factors – such as contemporary feminist ideologies - featured in interpretations of gender within social history. This method of analysis will utilise a chronological approach: (1) The introduction of women’s history alongside social history and second-wave feminism, (2) The rise of gender history in response to the lack of intersectional practice evidenced in ‘second-wave’ theory and women’s history, and (3) The declining study of social history within a postfeminist landscape. Each period of assessment will remain conscious of how the study of gender is approached within social history.

 

As a field of inquiry, women’s history expanded within the paradigm of second-wave feminism. The period of ‘second-wave’ is commonly asserted to have occurred between 1960s to the mid-1980s. A vital component of ‘second-wave’ had been to reject the predominantly white, middle-class focus of ‘first-wave’ ideology.^[5] An additional practice within ‘second-wave’ was the active – and passionate – demonstration of politicising the personal.^[6] Comparatively, where ‘first-wave’ is renowned for opposing the cult of domesticity and the suffragette movement, ‘second-wave’ strived to deconstruct patriarchal power-dynamics and the demands this made on gender-expression. Arguably, the increasing personalisation of socio-political activism promoted intersectionality within feminist theory.[7] Primary topics within ‘second-wave’ practice included sexuality, racial inequality, the workplace, and reproductive rights.^[8] Bearing similarities to social history, the rise of women’s history was born out of dissatisfaction toward the bourgeois emphasis within historical study. In her piece, The Social Relation of the Sexes: Methodological Implications of Women's History, Joan Kelly affirmed that “Women's history has a dual goal: to restore women to history and to restore our history to women.”^[9] Undoubtedly, nineteenth-century historiography increased the visibility of women as historical actors. However, the central focus remained predominantly on female rulership, high-status figures, and saints.^[10] Women’s history sought to redeem this; by aiming to uncover the lives of ordinary women that had been largely ignored and unrecorded within assessments of the past. British historian, John Tosh credited this reinterpretation of women’s historical role to both ‘second-wave’ and ‘third-wave’ ideology; proposing that the socio-political consciousness of activists encouraged social historians to respectively focus on ordinary women as dynamic figures within a society.^[11]

 

Consequently, historiography produced during the 1970s saw women being conceptualised as “[...] active social subjects in concrete historical settings whose lives, as members of families, as workers, as participants in organizations or social movements [...]”.^[12] To an extent, it is undeniable that the development of social history as a popularly regarded speciality benefited women’s history in its infancy. By this, social history centralised its research around institutional structures, such as bureaucratization and urbanization.^[13] The focus of social history on social, economic, and political foundations greatly assisted the study of women within history. Furthermore, the methodology of women’s historians incorporated elements of sociological analysis. This is epitomised in women’s demographic history; including assessments of migration, labour, or economic history in regard to women.^[14] Additionally, both social history and women’s history share a stylistic quality; namely that research was – and continues to be - demonstrated through analyses of demographic data, rather than descriptive historiography.^[15]

 

With regard to the socio-political climate of the ‘second-wave’ period, both social history and gender studies had adopted contemporary Marxism in their respective approaches; focusing on population, lower-class, family, and labour history.^[16] An assertion made by social historian, Louise A. Tilly, is that successful examples of women’s history do not review women’s lives as irrespective of power-dynamics and gendered socialisation; rather  “[…] it endeavours to relate those lives to other historical themes, such as the power of ideas or the forces of structural change”. ^[17] This is a quality exemplified in Mary Ryan’s research, Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865; an extensive account that revises the experiences of lower-class women in New York within the context of class and industrialisation. Ryan’s work highlights the removal of women from histories concerning middle-class formation. An argument proposed by Tilly is that women’s contribution to class-formation has been largely hidden from the historical record as a result of the male-oriented attitude witnessed in the research aims of social historians; adding that studies concerning social mobility often examine the education and occupations of men, whilst invalidating the significant – and fundamental – contribution of women.^[18]

 

Whilst the methodological approach toward social history and women’s history may manifest similarly, independently categorising each speciality proved necessary; owing to the noticeable examples of animosity and discourse between social history and the study of gender. Albeit social history’s progressive remodelling of the elitist values featured in nineteenth-century historiography, there continued to be substantial issues concerning women’s presence – or lack thereof - within academia. Primarily, women’s capacity as autonomous key-players has remained largely unwritten about outside of women’s and gender history.^[19] A notable example of this is visible within the examination of labour history, where “workers” are frequently denoted as male; despite the rise of women labouring in workshops and factories during the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. In response, women’s historians paid especial focus to constructing labour history around women; affirming that women’s roles as prominent labour and community activists made a significant contribution to the economy.^[20] Moreover, it has been established that women had involved themselves as vital participants in social and political reforms.^[21]

 

The lack of women’s representation in labour history is­ highlighted by sociologist, Ruth Milkman; in her assessment of gender and labour during World War II. In part, Milkman analyses employment policies within both the automobile and electrical appliances industry; examining the differences in treatment between male and female workers.^[22] Although her findings demonstrate that women were involved in industry unions during the Second World War, this participation did not continue on afterward. The Second World War had permitted women to engage in ‘male’ occupations, however – according to Milkman’s observations - this held no long-term impact to promoting women’s liberation or gender equality in post-war attitudes. As a result of this, women’s labour history remained obscured, if not entirely overlooked within social history’s initial studies of labour history. The importance of women’s history – as a distinct area of study – is founded in the fact that patriarchal assumptions have been exemplified in research produced by social historians. In her piece, "Herstory" As History: A New Field or Another Fad?, Sheila R. Johansson accentuates not only the academic necessity of including gender analysis in social history but the socio-political responsibility in doing so.^[23]

 

Nonetheless, a point of analysis that is habitually disregarded among women’s historians is the use of gender as a category. An argument offered by Kelly is that women’s invisibility in history is not a product of biological “female nature”, but rather what historiographers perceive as “female”.^[24]  As such, it is essential to give emphasis to the growth of gender history as a respective area of historical study; particularly in terms of how the approaches between gender and women’s historians differ. Despite gender history featuring in studies of social history throughout the 1980s, it is often considered a product of ‘third-wave’ feminist theory; prompted by Kimberlé Crenshaw’s call for intersectionality in assessments of race and gender.[25] A conspicuous – and distinguishing – determinant to gender history is its definition of ‘gender’. Comparative to the binary evaluations of gender within women’s history, gender historians perceive ‘gender’ as a social and cultural construct; conceptualised by gendered-socialisation and expectations from within a society. Therefore, gender history produced examinations of ‘gender’ by determining ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as separate social categories.

 

Sociologist – and self-described feminist – Ann Oakley, defined ‘sex’ as a term that signifies male and female biological differences, whereas ‘gender’ references the “[…] social classification into ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine.’”^[26] Studies of gender within social history - published during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s - integrated sociological descriptions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. This is notably present in the evolvement of queer history[27]; a prime example being explorations of eighteenth-century ‘molly house’ sub-culture within the London gay community.^[28] Advancing from this, gender historians maintained that what it means to be defined within the gender-binary - as female or male - has its own history.^[29] Subsequently, gender history saw a thematic shift from patriarchal receptions of gender to focusing on the societal differences between men and women; as well as the extent to which gendered-socialisation affected the nature of relationships formed between men and women.^[30] A unique representation of this can be found in the “Redstockings Manifesto” (1969); a publication by the self-titled ‘Redstockings of the Women’s Liberation Movement’. In this, it is proclaimed that the relations between men and women are firmly rooted in class and “sexual politics”.^[31]

Unquestionably, social history has witnessed a decline in academia during the twenty-first century. Kocka’s principal explanation for this concerns the type of questions prioritised in contemporary historical study: namely “where did we come from?” and “how did the lives of historical individuals differ from our own?” [32] He observed that these could not be answered through “[…] quantification, analytical methods and scientific rigour.”[33] An additional factor originated from the desire to enhance ‘Social Memory’ within both public and scholarly representations of the past. Arguably, post-feminist ideologies have lent themselves to this alternate direction in the social and historical study of women and gender.[34] With regard to the influence of feminism on social history and the study of gender, it ought to be argued that the socio-political current of women’s and gender history influenced the maturation of social history.^[35] Although individual social, women’s, and gender historians may not have classified themselves as feminist, it is undeniable that their work would have been shaped by ‘second-wave’ and ‘third-wave’ ideology.^[36] For example, the extent to which ‘third-wave’ theory had influenced historical study – both gender and social history - to evaluate men and women as gendered beings; rather than identifying them purely by their political, social, and economic activity.^[37]

 

As previously stated, it is observable that social history and the study of gender are highly interconnected fields of inquiry. This is demonstrated by the similarities made toward historiographical approach (for example, the adoption of Marxist qualities), data-accumulation, research presentation, and topics of focus. A supplementary – and identifiable – factor is the degree to which social history and the study of gender supportively intersect. Albeit the oppositions witnessed between social and gender historians, critiques have remained predominantly constructive. Moreover, criticisms were primarily initiated by set differences between the methodological approaches. Therefore it is imperative to acknowledge that the relationship of social history and the study of gender require both fields not to be viewed as independent of one another. However, it may be remarked upon that the historical study of gender is an indispensable speciality that social historians have yet to fully capitalise on.

 

 

Bibliography

Secondary

 

Conze, W. and Wright, A. C., ‘Social History’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 7-16

 

Crenshaw, K., ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Stanford, 1991), pp. 1241-1299

 

Crenshaw, K., 'Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics', University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8 (Chicago, 1989), pp. 139-167

 

Glick, E., 'Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression', Feminist Review, No. 64 (Basingstoke, 2000), pp. 19-45

 

Johansson, R. S., ‘"Herstory" As History: A New Field or Another Fad?’, in Berenice A. Carroll (ed.) Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays, (Urbana-Champaign, 1976), pp. 400-430

 

Kelly, J., Women, History & Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly, (London, 1984)

 

Kocka, J., ‘Losses, Gains and Opportunities: Social History Today’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 21-28

 

Mills, R., ‘Queer Is Here? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Histories and Public Culture’, History Workshop Journal, No. 52 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 253-263

 

Nachescu, V., ‘Radical Feminism and the Nation: History and Space in the Political Imagination of Second-Wave Feminism’, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Michigan, 2009), pp. 29-59

 

Rose, O. S., What is Gender History?, (Cambridge, 2010)

 

Tilly, A. L., ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, Social Science History, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 439-462

 

Tilly, C., ‘Two Callings of Social History’, Theory and Society, Vol. 9, No. 5 (New York, 1980), pp. 679-681

 

Tosh, J., The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, (New York, 2015)

 

 

 

---

^[1] W. Conze and C. A. Wright, ‘Social History’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Oxford, 1967), p. 7

^[2] C. Tilly, ‘Two Callings of Social History’, Theory and Society, Vol. 9, No. 5 (New York, 1980), p. 679

^[3] A prime research example is Harry Kitsikopoulos’ journal article, ‘The Impact of the Black Death on Peasant Economy in England, 1350-1500’ (The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2002). In this, Kitsikopoulos presents a long-term examination of economic fluctuation within England after the Black Death; with particular attention to lower-status urban and rural communities.

^[4] J. Kocka, ‘Losses, Gains and Opportunities: Social History Today’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Oxford, 2003), p. 21

^[5] V. Nachescu, ‘Radical Feminism and the Nation: History and Space in the Political Imagination of Second-Wave Feminism’, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Michigan, 2009), p. 31

^[6] Ibid. 30

[7] Kimberlé W. Crenshaw coined the term ‘Intersectionality’ and widely introduced it into feminist theory with their article, ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’ (University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989, Article 8)

^[8] V. Nachescu, ‘Radical Feminism and the Nation’, p. 31

^[9] J. Kelly, Women, History & Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly, (London, 1984), p. 1

^[10] S. O. Rose, What is Gender History?, (Cambridge 2010), p. 3-4

^[11] J. Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, (New York, 2015), p. 5

^[12] L. A. Tilly, ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, Social Science History, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 443

^[13] Ibid. 444

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid. 446-447

^[16] S. R. Johansson, ‘"Herstory" As History: A New Field or Another Fad?’, in Berenice A. Carroll (ed.) Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays, (Urbana-Champaign, 1976), p. 415

^[17] L. A. Tilly, ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, p. 447

^[18] Ibid. 455

^[19] S. O. Rose, What is Gender History?, p. 4

^[20] Ibid.

^[21] S. O. Rose, What is Gender History?, p. 4

^[22] L. A. Tilly, ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, p. 456

^[23] S. R. Johansson, ‘"Herstory" As History: A New Field or Another Fad?’, p. 427

^[24] J. Kelly, Women, History & Theory, p. 4

[25] Crenshaw, K., ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8 (Chicago, 1989), pp. 139-167

^[26] L. A. Tilly, ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, p. 448

[27] Director of the LGBTQ Research Network at UCL, Robert Mills has defined 'queer history' as encompassing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender demographics. Citation: ‘Queer Is Here? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Histories and Public Culture’, History Workshop Journal, No. 52 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 253-263

^[28] J. Tosh, The Pursuit of History, p. 3

^[29] S. O. Rose, What is Gender History?, p. 2

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] J. Kelly, Women, History & Theory, p. 5

[32] J. Kocka, ‘Losses, Gains and Opportunities’, p. 22

[33] J. Kocka, ‘Losses, Gains and Opportunities’, p. 22

[34] E. Glick, ‘Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression’, Feminist Review, No. 64 (Basingstoke, 2000), p. 22

^[35] L. A. Tilly, ‘Gender, Women's History, and Social History’, p. 440-441

^[36] S. O. Rose, What is Gender History?, p. 1

^[37] Ibid. 56