Search

L'importance de 1'ideologie dans les processus qui resultent dans l'arrangement des relations sociales est un attribut distinctif de ce genre de societe. Tant historiquement que dans le present les femmes ont ete exclues de la production des formes de pensee, des images et des symboles dans lesquels leur experience et leur relations sociales sont exprimees et organisees. La notion d'ideologie telle qu'originalement formulee par Marx et Engels oriente l'attention sur le controle de la creation ideologique par une classe dirigeante, et sur la facon dont les idees et images sont imposees sur d'autres dont les perspectives, interets, et experiences ne sont pas representes. Ce sont presqu'exclusivement des hommes qui occupent les positions d'ou les ideologies sont produites et controlees. Ce sont par consequent leurs perspectives et interets qui sont representes. Une serie de situations historiques de repression illustrent la facon dont les femmes ont ete activement, et parfois brutalement exclues. Des donnees sur la situation actuelle des femmes dans le systeme d'education au Canada offrent une description de pratiques institutionalisees par lesquelles les femmes sont exclues des positions d'influence et de controle dans les structures ideologiques. En plus, des etudes revelent que dans l'ensemble on donne autoritea ce que les hommes disent et on deprecie ce que les femmes disent. La metaphore du ‘cercle’ sert a decrire le controle du developpement ideologique en restreignant la participation aux personnes dument autorisees. Les femmes comme categories sociales ne s'y trouvent pas. Ceci s'observe au niveau de l'interaction directe. Des etudes decrivent des modeles distinctifs de conversations ou la part des femmes dans l'evolution des sujets est restreinte. La consequence de ces exclusions est que les connaissances et les modes de pensees etablies considerent les femmes comme des objets. La perspective des hommes est devenue, dans le contexte academique, institutionalisee comme le ‘domaine’ ou la ‘discipline.’ Ceci est vrai pour la sociologie comme pour d'autres entreprises intellectuelles. On propose en conclusion que les disciplines academiques requierent une critique majeure et doivent etre repensees. Pour la sociologie ceci implique la construction d'une sociologie pour plutot que de la femme et de la position des femmes dans la societe. A distinctive feature of this form of society is the significance of ideology in the processes of ordering its social relations. Women have historically and in the present been excluded from the production of the forms of thought, images, and symbols in which their experience and social relations are expressed and ordered. Marx and Engels' original account of ideology is used to focus on the control of ideological production by a ruling class, and on how ideas and images are thus imposed on others whose perspectives, interests and experience are not represented. Those who occupy the positions from which ideologies are produced and controlled are almost exclusively men. It is therefore their perspectives and interests which are represented. A series of historical instances of repression illustrate how women's exclusion has been an active and sometimes brutal process. For contemporary Canada, data on the position of women in the educational system describe institutionalized practices which exclude women from positions of influence and control in ideological structures. Further, studies are cited showing a general pattern which constitutes what men say as authoritative and depreciates what women say. The metaphor of a ‘circle’ is used to describe the control of ideological development through restricting participation to properly authorized persons. Women as a social category are not among them. This is observable at the level of face-to-face interaction. Studies describe distinctive patterns of interpersonal talk which restrict women's part in the development of topics. The consequence of these exclusions is that the established knowledges and modes of thinking constitute women as objects. The perspective of men has become in the academic context institutionalized as the ‘field’ or ‘discipline.’ This is true of sociology as of other intellectual enterprises. The conclusion proposes that a major critique and rethinking of academic disciplines is needed. In sociology this means constructing a sociology for rather than of women and from the position of women in society.

This paper reconnects the major texts, Rigoberta Menchu's autobiographical I, Rigoberta Menchu (Menchu & Debray, 1984) and David Stoll's Rigoberta Menchu and the story of all poor Guatemalans (Stoll, 1999) with the historical contexts and continuities in which they have been and are active. Its interest is in examining them in the connections between popular on-the-ground struggles in Guatemala and the textual representations entered into in ideological struggles in North America. The writer does not dissociate herself from the latter. She takes up her position on the progressive side, recognizing Menchu's story, with all its problems, as speaking from native peoples' experiences of repression and struggles in the highlands of Guatemala. Her interest is in how Stoll's text goes to work on Menchu's, in the implicit historicity of his study that is submerged by his claim to an objective empiricism, and in how his "findings" have been progressively attenuated as they pass through media versions to simplified...

used to devise ways of "seeing" social organization in the speech and graffiti in which the ideology of "fag" is realized in schools. His conception of the dialogic explicates the relationship between researcher and informants, as well as the dialogues internal to informants' narratives. Excerpts from their stories create windows into the local practices of the ideology of "fag" as they experienced it and made available the social organization of their everyday school lives. Analysis focuses on how speech, whether as verbal abuse or homophobic graffiti, concerts antigay activities, articulating to the wider organization of gender and the school as a regime. Informants' stories describe how "fag" as a stigmatized object is constituted in "gossip." Aspects of youths' appearance are interpreted with reference to "fag" as an underlying pattern. Everyday practices of "fag-baiting", such as poking fun, teasing, name calling, scrawling graffiti on lockers, insulting and harassing someone, produce the "fag" as a social object. The language intends a course of action isolating the gay student and inciting to physical violence. Verbal abuse both is and initiates attack. As a form of public speech, graffiti constitute a depersonalized form of threat and harassment. Whether a gay student is identified as "fag" or not, he acquires a gay identity/ consciousness through the practices of the ideology of "fag." What the article describes is a normal part of school organization. The social relations of heterosexuality and patriarchy dominate its public space. Being gay is never spoken of positively (in these informants' experience). Teachers are reported as being generally complicit by their silence if not actively participating in the ideology. Attacks on and ostracism of gay students are taken for granted. The heterosexism of the regime makes "fag" the stigmatized other and, reflexively, "fag" as stigmatized other feeds into the regime's heterosexism. Thus, the gay students' stories show the school's complicity in the everyday cruelties of the enforcement of heterosexist/homophobic hegemony. Gay and lesbian youth attend schools throughout the nation .... These students-from every ethnic and racial background, in urban, suburban, and rural schools-have sat

My work and thinking as a feminist sociologist have been profoundly influenced by the understanding I developed of the materialist method, as it was first formulated in Marx and Engels’s The German Ideology. The interpretation of Marx’s method explored in this chapter originated in my interest in finding a method of inquiry other than those in which I had been trained, which replicated the objectifying androcentrism of the ruling relations.1 In this chapter I present a reading of this aspect of Marx’s epistemology that differs substantially from how it is generally viewed. Though my reading has been close and carefully repeated and renewed over the years, it is still one that examines Marx’s thinking dialogically, being focused on what he can teach me of his method of inquiry, rather than on an explication of his theory.

This article describes the “Standard North American Family” or SNAF as an ideological code. An ideological code is analogous to a genetic code, reproducing its characteristic forms and order in multiple and various discursive settings. Its operation in two settings is explored. The first is the writer's experience (shared with Alison Griffith) of designing and carrying out a study of the work that women do as mothers in relation to their children's schooling. Although the researchers were committed to feminist methods and to a critical perspective, SNAF reproduced itself in their conceptualization, their interview practices, and in how women responded to them. The second is William Julius Wilson's consideration of the Black family in his study The Truly Disadvantaged. An analysis of his text demonstrates its SNAF-governed order and how its representational credibility is sustained by the SNAF-generated statistics of government agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Census. It is suggested that such ideological codes may have a significant political effect by importing representational order even into the texts of those who are overtly opposed to the representations they generate.

Alltagsgeschichte, or the history of everyday life, emerged during the 1980s as the most interesting new field among West German historians and, more recently, their East German colleagues. Partly in reaction to the modernisation theory pervading West German social history in the 1970s, practitioners of alltagsgeschichte stressed the complexities of popular experience, paying particular attention, for instance, to the relationship of the German working class to Nazism. Now the first English translation of a key volume of essays ("Alltagsgeschichte: Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen") presents this approach and shows how it cuts across the boundaries of established disciplines. Introduced by Alf Ludtke, the volume includes two empirical essays, one by Lutz Niethammer on life courses of East Germans after 1945 and one by Ludtke on modes of accepting fascism among German workers. The remaining five essays are theoretical: Hans Medick writes on ethnological ways of knowledge as a challenge to social history; Peter Schottler, on mentalities, ideologies, and discourses and alltagsgeschichte; Dorothee Wierling, on gender relations and alltagsgeschichte; Wolfgang

In the kind of society we have, a great deal gets done in words (or other symbolic terms) and on paper. The work of administration, of management, of government, is a communicative work. Organizational and political processes are forms of action in words. I t is an ideologically structured work of action--images, vocabularies, concepts, abstract terms of knowledge, are integral to the practice of power, to getting things done. Further, the ways in which we think about ourselves and one another and about our society--our images of how we should look, our homes, our lives, even our inner wor ldsare given shape and distributed by the specialized work of people in universities and schools, in television, radio and newspapers, in advertising agencies, in book publishing and other organizations forming the 'ideological apparatus ' of the society. This way of organizing society began to develop in Western Europe some 400 or 500 years ago. It is an integral aspect of the development of a capitalist mode of production. Women have been at work in its making as much as men, though their work has been of a different kind and location. But women have been largely excluded from the work of producing the forms of thought and the images and symbols in which thought is expressed and ordered. There is a circle effect. Men attend to and treat as significant only what men say. The circle of men whose writing and talk was significant to each other extends backwards in time as far as our records reach. What men were doing was relevant to men, was written by men about men for men. Men listened and listen to what one another said. This is how a tradition is formed. A way of thinking develops in this discourse through the medium of the written and printed word as well as in speech. It has questions, solutions, themes, styles, standards, ways of looking at the world. These are formed as the circle of those present builds on the work of the past. From these circles women have been excluded or admitted only by a special license granted to a woman as an individual and never as a representative of her sex. Throughout this period in which ideologies become of increasing importance, first as a mode of thinking, legitimating and sanctioning a social order, and then as integral in the organization of society, women have been deprived of the means to participate in creating forms of thought relevant or adequate to express their own experience or to define and raise social consciousness about their situation and concerns. They have never controlled the material or social means to the making of a tradition among themselves or