I consider the relationship between two currents affecting sociology, rational-choice theory and interdisciplinary feminist theory. In particular, I consider how the feminist critique of the separative model of self applies to one version of rational-choice theory, neoclassical economics. In discussing this I identify four assumptions of neoclassical economics: selfishness; interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible; tastes are exogenous and unchanging; and individuals are rational. I argue that each of these harmonizes best with a view of separate rather than connected selves, and that this imbalance distorts theories, particularly those that claim to understand women’s experience. These distorting assumptions are less prevalent in sociology than in economics, but some of them are implicit in some versions of sociological rational-choice and exchange theories. I conclude by using research on marital power to illustrate how removing distorting assumptions and bringing questions about separation/connection to center stage can help illuminate sociological research.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Baumrind, Diana. 1986. “Sex Differences in Moral Reasoning: Response to Walker’s (1984) Conclusion that There Are None.”Child Development 57:511–21.
Becker, Gary. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.”Journal of Political Economy 76:169–217.
—. 1981.A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1987. “The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy and Moral Theory.” Pp. 154–78 inWomen and Moral Theory, edited by Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blumstein and Schwartz. 1983.American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978.The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cook, Karen. 1987.Social Exchange Theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Donovan, Josephine. 1985.Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions of American Feminism. New York: Ungar.
Emerson, Richard. 1987. “Toward a Theory of Value in Social Exchange.” Pp. 11–46 inSocial Exchange Theory, edited by Karen Cook. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
—. Karen Cook, Mary Gillmore, and Toshio Yamagishi. 1983. “Valid Predictions from Invalid Comparisons: Response to Heckathorn.”Social Forces 61:1232–47.
England, Paula. Forthcoming.Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
— and George Farkas. 1986.Households, Employment, and Gender: A Social, Economic, and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.
— and Peter Lewin. Forthcoming. “Economic and Sociological Views of Employment Discrimination: Persistence or Demise?”Sociological Spectrum.
Frank, Robert. Forthcoming. “Patching Up the Rational-Choice Model.” InBeyond the Marketplace: Society and Economy Revisited, edited by R. Friedland and S. Robertson. New York: Aldine.
Friedman, Debra. 1987. “Notes on ‘Toward a Theory of Value in Social Exchange.’” Pp. 47–58 inSocial Exchange Theory, edited by Karen Cook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982.In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hechter, Michael. 1987.Principles of Group Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hechter, Michael, Karl-Dieter Opp, and Reinhard Wippler, eds. Forthcoming.Social Institutions: Their Emergence, Maintenance, and Effects. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hirshleifer, Jack. 1984.Price Theory and Applications. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hogarth, Robin and Melvin Reder. 1987.Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jaggar, Allison. 1985.Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Keller, Catherine. 1986.From A Broken Web: Separation, Sexism, and Self. Boston: Beacon Press.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983.A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman.
—. 1985.Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kittay, Eva Feder and Diana T. Meyers. 1987.Women and Moral Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1976. “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach.” Pp. 31–53 inMoral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues, edited by T. Lickona. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kohn, Melvin and Carmi Schooler (with J. Miller, K. Miller, and R. Schoenberg). 1983.Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lifton, Peter. 1985. “Individual Differences in Moral Development: The Relation of Sex, Gender, and Personality to Morality.”Journal of Personality 53:307–34.
Pollak, Robert. 1985. “A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households.”Journal of Economic Literature 23:581–608.
Scanzoni, John. 1970.Opportunity and the Family. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, Herbert. 1982.Models of Bounded Rationality. Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stigler, C.J. and Gary Becker. 1977. “De Gustibus non est Disputandum.”American Economic Review 67:76–90.
Walker, Lawrence. 1986. “Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Rejoinder to Baumrind.”Child Development 57:522–26.
Williamson, Oliver. 1985.The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver. 1988. “The Economics and Sociology of Organization: Promoting a Dialogue.” Pp. 159–86 inIndustries, Firms, and Jobs: Sociological and Economic Approaches, edited by G. Farkas and P. England. New York: Plenum.
Witte, Ann. 1980. “Estimating the Economic Model of Crime with Individual Data.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 94:57–84.
Her forthcoming book,Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence (New York: Aldine deGruyter), discusses this controversial policy issue from a perspective that draws upon sociology, economics, and feminist theory.
About this article
Cite this article
England, P. A feminist critique of rational-choice theories: Implications for sociology. Am Soc 20, 14–28 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02697784
- Moral Reasoning
- Bargaining Power
- Exchange Theory
- Feminist Theory
- Neoclassical Economic