Summary
The psychology of women has as a major focus of study differences between women and men. This paper examines the “sex/gender”1 variable in psychology and the various feminist approaches to the study of difference. I have chosen a focus on the sex/gender variable for both historical and intellectual reasons: first, the issue of sex differences served as the primary locus for the emergence of feminist-oriented psychology in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Second, it is a central point of contention among feminist critics today. The original critical impulse of psychologists interested in difference has become fragmented. This resulting multiplicity affects the assessment of theory, method and application within the field. As a study in how the character of critique has altered the context of the discipline, the debates in feminist psychology are informative for those interested in areas other than the psychology of women. The resolutions sought by feminist psychologists have possible implications for many forms of critical work.
Sex/gender is used here to indicate the historical progression within psychology from using “sex” as a biological variable to denote male and female differences to using “gender”, a variable designated to emphasize the socialized differences between the two groups. Most recently the social constructionist position has questioned the use of “gender” as a substitute for “sex” because this innovation thereby naturalizes “sex” as a biological fact, rather than treating it also as a social construction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
Belenky, M. C., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., Tarule, J. K. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Brown, L. (1990). The meaning of a multicultural perspective for theory building in feminist therapy. Women and Therapy, 9, 1–22.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Culley, M. (1990). “We are here to stay”: Curriculum transformation in the 90s. Transformation, 2, 4–14.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. (Trans. Alan Bass). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Elrbaum.
Eagly, A. H. (1990). On the advantages of reporting sex comparisons. American Psychologist, 45, 560–562.
Fine, M. & Gordon, S. M. (1991). Effacing the center and the margins: Life at the intersection of psychology and feminism. Feminism &. Psychology, 1, 19–28.
Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments, psychoanalysis, feminism & postmodernism in the contemporary west. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.
Gergen, K. J. (in press). Construction, critique, and community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gergen, M. M. (1988). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the social sciences. In M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 87–104). New York: New York University Press.
Gergen, M. M. (1990). From mod masculinity to post-mod macho: A feminist replay. The Humanistic Psychologist, 18, 95–104.
Gergen, M. M. (in press, a). Life stories: Pieces of a dream. In G. Rosenwald & R. Ochberg (Eds.), Telling lives. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gergen, M. M. (in press, b). Metaphors of chaos, stories of continuity: Womenstories and the creation of new organizational theory. In S. Srivastva & P. Frey (Eds.), Continuity in management theory. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. et al. (Eds.). (1988). Mapping the moral domain. A contribution of women’s thinking to psychological thinking and education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C., Lyons, N. P. & Hammer, T. J. (Eds.). (1989). Making connections. Troy, NY: Emma Willard School.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hare-Mustin, R. & Maracek, J. (Eds.). (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Haug, F. et al. (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory. London: Verso Press.
Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
Hyde, J.S. (1985). Half the human experience. The psychology of women. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Kessler, W. & McKenna, S. (1978). Gender. An ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.
Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (1991a). Politicizing psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 1, 49–54.
Kitzinger, C. (1991b). Feminism, psychology and the paradox of power. Feminism & Psychology, 1, 111–130.
Kvale, S. (Ed.). (in press). Towards a postmodern psychology. London: Sage.
Lather, P. (1990). Postmodernism and the human sciences. The Humanistic Psychologist, 18, 64–84.
Lykes, M. B. (1990). Dialogue with Guatemalan Indian women: Critical perspectives on constructing collaborative research. In R. Unger (Ed.). Representations: Social construction of gender (pp. 167–185). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
McHugh, M. C., Koeske, R. D. & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879–890.
Moi, T. (1985). Sexual/textual politics. London: Metheun.
Moi, T. (Ed.). (1987). French feminist thought. A reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Parlee, M. B. (1991). Happy birth-day to feminism & psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 1, 39–48.
Peplau, L. A. & Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379–400.
Senour, M. N. (1977). Psychology of the Chicana. In J. L. Martinez, Jr. (Ed.), Chicano Psychology (pp. 329–342). New York: Academic Press.
Unger, R. (1988). Psychological, feminist, and personal epistemology: Transcending contradiction. In M. Gergen (Ed.). Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 124–141). New York: New York University Press.
Unger, R. (Ed.). (1989). Representations: Social construction of gender. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice & poststructuralist theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gergen, M. (1993). Feminist Critiques of “Sex/Gender” as a Psychological Variable. In: Stam, H.J., Mos, L.P., Thorngate, W., Kaplan, B. (eds) Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology. Recent Research in Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2746-5_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2746-5_27
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-97963-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-2746-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive