Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Androcentrism

  • Carolyn Hibbs
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_16

Introduction

Androcentrism is the evaluation of individuals and cultures based on male perspectives, standards, and values. The term refers to a male-centered worldview which does not necessarily present explicitly negative views of women and girls, but positions men and boys as representative of the human condition or experience and women and girls as diverging from the human condition. It is a complex, subtle, and often unacknowledged form of sexism, existing on a continuum which includes misogyny and patriarchal attitudes, but it is also informed by patriarchal cultures in which men are granted more power and influence, and thus the right to evaluate and interpret individuals and cultures. Androcentrism exists in all fields of study and cultural expressions, including the arts, sciences, medicine, law, fine arts, and media.

Definition

Androcentrism literally means male-centered. Androcentrism results from and perpetuates a worldview that is persistently male, as a result of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem sex-role inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blaubergs, M. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 3(2–3), 135–147.Google Scholar
  5. Bohan, J. S. (1993). Essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  6. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(1), 1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Calkins, M. W. (1900). Psychology as science of selves. Philosophical Review, 9, 490–501.Google Scholar
  8. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.Google Scholar
  9. Cosgrove, L. (2003). Feminism, postmodernism, and psychological research. Hypatia, 18(3), 85–112.Google Scholar
  10. Daly, M. (1973). Beyond God the father: Toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Beauvoir, Simone. (2011). The second sex. (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Flynn, E. A., & Schweickart, P. P. (Eds.). (1986). Gender and reading: Essays on readers, texts, and contexts. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Freud, S. (1961). Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In J. Stratchey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 243–258). London, England: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  16. Furumoto, L. (1987). On the margins: Women and the professionalization of psychology in the United States, 1890–1940. In M. G. Ash & W. R. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Furumoto, L. (1998). Gender and the history of psychology. In B. Clinchy & J. K. Norem (Eds.), The gender and psychology reader. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilman, C. P. (1911). The man-made world; or, our androcentric culture. New York, NY: Charlton.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = male, male = people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393–402.Google Scholar
  20. Harding, S. G. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 377–383.Google Scholar
  22. Hollingworth, L. S. (1913). The frequency of amentia as related to sex. Medical Record, 84, 753–756.Google Scholar
  23. Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. The American Journal of Sociology, 19, 510–530.Google Scholar
  24. Hollingworth, L. S. (1916). Social devices for impelling women to bear and rear children. The American Journal of Sociology, 22, 19–29.Google Scholar
  25. Hyde, J. S. (2004). Half the human experience: The psychology of women (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
  26. Knouse, J. (2005). Intersexuality and the social construction of anatomical sex. Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, 12(1), 135–154.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, A. S. (2010). Plato. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Mednick, M. T. S., & Weissman, H. J. (1975). The psychology of women – Selected topics. American Review of Psychology, 26, 1–18.Google Scholar
  30. Mernissi, F. (1991). The veil and the male elite: A feminist interpretation of women’s rights in Islam. (M. J. Lakeland, Trans.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  31. Minton, H. L. (2000). Psychology and gender at the turn of the century. American Psychologist, History of Psychology 1900–2000, 55(6), 613–615.Google Scholar
  32. Parlee, M. B. (1975). Psychology. Signs, 1(1), 119–138.Google Scholar
  33. Riley, D. (1988). “Am I that name?”: Feminism and the category of “women” in history. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  34. Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 3(2–3), 165–178.Google Scholar
  35. Stewart, A. J., & Dottolo, A. L. (2006). Feminist psychology. Signs, 31(2), 493–509.Google Scholar
  36. Tobach, E., & Rosoff, B. (1994). Challenging racism and sexism: Alternatives to genetic explanations. New York, NY: Feminist Press at the City University of New York.Google Scholar
  37. Ward, L. F. (1903). Pure sociology: A treatise on the origin and spontaneous development of society. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Woolley, H. T. (1910). Psychological literature: A review of the recent literature on the psychology of sex. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 335–342.Google Scholar

Online Resources

  1. American Psychological Association. (2005 October 20). Men and women: No big difference. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
  2. Rutherford, A., et al. Psychology’s feminist voices. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.feministvoices.com/
  3. Society for the Psychology of Women. (2012). Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada